(In the National Gallery)
In spite of its somewhat bad condition this portrait is an excellent
specimen of Van Dyck's Genoese period. It was achieved about the same
time as the two magnificent pictures in the Scottish National Gallery,
the Lomellini family and the portrait of an unknown Italian nobleman.
Its recent entry into the National Gallery filled a gap in our
representation of the great Fleming.
[Illustration: Plate VIII.]
======================================================================
Then we have William Dobson, whose works are worthy of yet more study
than has hitherto been accorded them. He did not long survive Van
Dyck, dying in 1646 at the early age of thirty-six. He was probably
the most gifted of all his pupils, and had he lived at any other period
would probably have been held in great estimation. There is an
excellent example of his brush in the National Gallery, the portrait of
Endymion Porter, groom of the bedchamber of Charles I. In many of the
other examples strewn about the country he shows yet a greater approach
to Van Dyck. Still, the Trafalgar Square picture is a worthy example
of his powers at his best. His masculine handling and sense of colour
place him, from a purely artistic point of view, far above such men as
Lely and Kneller, who followed him.
Another painter who wrought excellent work under the Commonwealth was
Robert Walker. He was much patronised by Oliver Cromwell and his
party. He appears to have been one of the few portrait painters who
flourished at this time. He acquired in a remarkable manner the liquid
and transparent style affected by Van Dyck during his last years in
England, and coupling with this remarkable powers of fidelity, his
portraits possess great attractions for the artist as well as the
student of history.
As I have already said, the influence of Van Dyck upon the painters who
flourished throughout the three succeeding reigns was a decadent one.
Sir Peter Lely, who came to England, at the age of twenty-three, with
the Prince of Orange, the son-in-law of Charles I., was the best of all
these men. He was born in Westphalia, of Dutch parentage, and was
educated in the school of Pieter Fransz de Grebber at Haarlem. But his
entire method was built upon Van Dyck. He seems not to have had a bad
time under the Commonwealth, for he was employed to paint Cromwell's
portrait. It is said that he had instructions upon this occasion to
paint him, "warts, pimples, and all." It was not, however, till
Charles II. had ascended the throne that he reached the zenith of his
fame. Then came the long series of ladies of the Court with which we
are so familiar. They are all set in the same artificial setting, a
landscape half conventional, half natural in feeling, a languid and
somewhat haughty air about the heads, together with draperies destined
to accentuate the artificial appearance of the whole portrait. One can
see at a glance that it was from Van Dyck he had learned the placing
and handling of the heads, hands, and backgrounds, but what a
monotonous procession it is. In order to appreciate the
superficialities of Lely a number of his portraits must be seen
together. We then see how monotonous he was, how few of those
qualities he possessed which go to make up a great artist. That he had
a considerable amount of technique at his command can be seen in such
portraits as the "Duchess of Cleveland" in the National Portrait
Gallery, but in others again he fell so far below this level of
excellence, that one is sometimes tempted to reject many perfectly
glorious pictures as not being from his hand.
The art of Lely had attained great popularity amongst the aristocracy
whose lives called into being the decadent art of this period. All who
sought the public favour tried to catch his manner, and hence arose
quite a number of imitators. Occasionally Lely was surpassed by some
of his scholars. For example, John Greenhill absorbed more of the real
qualities of Van Dyck than his master. The remarkable portrait in the
Gallery of Dulwich College shows unmistakable signs of genius of a high
order, and had he not fallen into irregular habits and died at the age
of thirty-two he might have achieved great things.
Sir Godfrey Kneller, who followed Lely, was infinitely inferior to him
as an artist. He claimed, too, to continue the Van Dyck tradition, but
by this time the art of portrait painting had sunk into such a
deplorable condition, owing to the depravity of public taste and to the
slavish imitation of the brilliant Fleming, that there are few of his
pictures that appeal in the least to the artistic sense. It was not
until the great period of English painting, beginning with Hogarth, of
which I have already spoken, that the downward career of painting in
this country was finally checked.
So far our attention has been devoted to discovering the visible effect
of Van Dyck's art upon his contemporaries and followers. The fact that
on the whole his influence was decadent in this direction must not
allow us to detract from his own qualities. We must rather search for
the reasons which caused his art to retain such a hold upon generations
of English painters. It must not be forgotten that Van Dyck's
profession in England was essentially that of a portrait painter, and
he was employed by the aristocracy exclusively. He, indeed, may be
called the aristocratic painter _par excellence_, and in this respect
does not yield to either Titian or Velazquez. It was, however, when he
strayed from his normal course that he revealed his deficiencies; the
few extant portraits of the lower classes demonstrate amply how
unsuited he was to portraying any below the upper ranks of life. To
every plebeian sitter he imparted an air of gentility and distinction
quite out of keeping. Until the advent of Wilson and Gainsborough,
portraiture was the sole art, at any rate, as far as painting is
concerned, that flourished in England. Its patrons were all of the
upper classes, and the Van Dyck manner, which by this time had become a
tradition, was recognised by both artists and sitters as the best
suited to their purpose. It was only in the eighteenth century that
the general financial and educational uplifting of the middle classes
called into being that naturalist school which finally drove all others
from the field.
It is probable, however, that the painters who worked so slavishly in
Van Dyck's English manner had never become acquainted with his finest
achievements in portraiture. With few exceptions these were executed
before he settled permanently in England.
It is practically certain that Gainsborough, for example, had never
seen such portraits as the Philippe le Roy and his wife, now among the
greatest treasures of Hertford House, which date from the years between
1628-32. It was then that Van Dyck had reached his maximum
development, and it is by the portraits he made in the ten years round
about this date that he will probably be judged by posterity. The
facile ease and silvery liquidity of his latter manner may have an
irresistible charm for those who have not studied the master very
deeply, but for the artist and the student the works he had achieved,
before success had crowned his efforts in the same measure that it did
shortly after his arrival here, will ever remain the standard by which
to judge him.
At this time he displayed great assiduity to learn anything he could
either from his predecessors or from his contemporaries. In this
connection it may not be out of place to relate a story, the truth of
which has frequently been challenged.
Having come across some portraits by Franz Hals, and being very anxious
to see the master at work, he made a journey to Haarlem. Upon
inquiring at the Dutchman's studio, he found that Hals was at his usual
tavern. He accordingly sent word to him that a stranger was waiting to
have his portrait painted, and that he had but two hours to give him
before leaving the town. Hals arrived immediately, and, in view of the
shortness of time at his disposal, set to work with a will. Van Dyck,
who, needless to say, had not been recognised, remarked, as Hals was
putting on the finishing touches, that painting seemed a very easy
process, and asked to be allowed to try his hand. Accordingly they
changed places, and Hals soon perceived that the stranger was no novice
in the handling of the brush. As the work proceeded his curiosity
became more and more whetted, and finally, unable to restrain his
curiosity any longer, he went over to see how the work was progressing.
One can imagine his surprise when he saw a masterly portrait in process
of completion, and, recognising the handling, immediately cried out:
"Why, you are none other than Van Dyck, for he alone could have
achieved what you have done."
As an historical painter he takes a very high rank amongst
seventeenth-century masters; he was far ahead in vigour of treatment
and in strength of brushwork of any of his contemporaries in Italy.
The school of Bologna, whilst possessing a refinement he never
attained, is effeminate in comparison with him. Their very eclecticism
prevented them giving free rein to their fancy, and consequently the
great majority of their works possess a restraint of feeling, coupled
with a perfection of execution, which neither Rubens nor Van Dyck
surpassed.
Van Dyck certainly stands out as the greatest scholar of Rubens in
every way. His fellow-pupils whom he left behind in Flanders could not
compare with him. The works of the cleverest of them, Caspar de
Grayer, appear formal, indeed, when compared with any of the stupendous
religious compositions still preserved in the great churches of his
native country. Their chief merit is, as I have before said, in the
exceedingly human presentment of the subject. The sense of physical
pain and of human brutality has never been better treated, and, if at
times he carries this quality to a painful degree, no charge could be
levelled against him on the score of feebleness or of lack of
thoroughness in making his meaning quite clear.
As compared with similar works by Rubens they possess an interest for
us which the latter cannot always command, by reason of their being
conceived and finished by the master himself, whereas those of Rubens,
more often than not, were only worked upon by the master after pupils
had carried out the greater part of the work.
Van Dyck's religious and historical pictures belong to the period of
his career when his execution was at its zenith, and consequently they
possess an extraordinary degree of interest to the artist.
It is, however, to his early years that one must turn to form a just
estimation of his abilities, and in his finest works he takes his place
beside Titian and Velazquez, Rembrandt and Holbein, amongst the
greatest masters of portrait painting who have ever lived.
The plates are printed by BEMROSE & SONS, LTD., London & Derby
The text at the BALLANTYNE PRESS, Edinburgh