The brothers Van Eyck

by Paul G. Konody

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

ST. BARBARA.
BY JAN VAN EYCK.

So far, then, evidence has been shown to prove Jan's share in the following pictures: the 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 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 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 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 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.