The brothers Van Eyck

by Paul G. Konody

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.