In comparing those two great men it would be well, at first, to rid ourselves of the confusion which often arises through the application of the terms "artist" and "painter." In relation to painting they are only too often considered synonymous, but a little consideration will show us that a man whose technical abilities are of a high order need not necessarily be a great artist. In fact, one of the most truthful charges urged against the best contemporary art is that it demonstrates an astonishing poverty of invention, a lack of message, if you will, coupled with an extraordinarily highly developed technique. To screen as much as possible the dilemma in which he finds himself, many a modern painter has recourse to creating those outbursts of meaningless eccentricity that are so familiar upon the walls of our exhibitions. It is true that some few of the men who are living to-day are equipped almost, if not quite, as well technically as the great majority of the old masters. In a word, they could meet them on nearly equal terms as painters, but they lack invention and conception in which to bring their powers into legitimate play, and consequently they cannot rank with them as artists.
It was in the possession of these very qualities that Van Dyck surpassed Rubens. I do not suggest that the latter was devoid of power of conception, for, if I did, would not the great "Coup-de-lance" at Antwerp, or the "Fall of the Damned" at Munich (the drawing for the latter in the National Gallery gives an even better idea than the finished picture) be there to refute me? Van Dyck, however, though being quite the match of Rubens in technique, even in his early days—though still working under him—surpassed him in his middle period. Anybody who has closely studied the noble religious pictures at Courtrai and Malines—the latter, unfortunately, irreparably injured by damp and neglect—can but be impressed with his stupendous power in this direction. Granted that he does not appeal in the same measure to our emotions from the spiritual side as do the early painters of Italy and Flanders, he yet brings the brutal aspect of the scene before us in an intensely human manner.
In most subject pictures Van Dyck painted before his visit to Italy it is apparent that Rubens had been his sole guide, and he was impelled only with a desire to emulate his master. But, after his return, the influence of the mighty painters he had studied south of the Alps had wrought a wondrous change in his method, and although he found himself back again amidst his old surroundings he never quite forsook the path he had been treading in the interval. Rubens, who had also spent some years in Italy, did not submit to the influence of the southern masters in the same measure, but remained a Fleming to the end. There is little alteration to be observed, either in his historical and sacred pictures or in his portraits, after he had studied the Italians. From this we may assume either that Rubens was less susceptible to extraneous influences, or that he considered his method quite the equal to any that he had seen. Van Dyck, on the other hand, absorbed, particularly from the Venetians, certain qualities which he employed ceaselessly throughout the remainder of his life. It was not, however, solely this cause which raised Van Dyck as an artist above his master. Rather was it to be attributed to the superiority of temperament. Thus, whilst we can still consider Rubens the head of the Flemish school of the seventeenth century, we should accord to Van Dyck the foremost rank as an artist.
Anthony Van Dyck was born at Antwerp on March 22nd, 1599. It was said formerly that his father, Frans Van Dyck, was a painter on glass, but later research has disclosed the fact that he carried on business as a merchant. His mother practised the art of embroidery with no mean skill, and her works appear to have been held in considerable esteem. The young painter had, however, the misfortune of losing her when he arrived at the age of eight. We know but little of his early years, but he must have shown considerable aptitude for drawing, for we find him already the pupil of Hendrik van Balen in 1609. The latter painter had received instruction in his art from Adam van Oort, the master of Rubens, but he utilised the instruction he had received in a very different way from that of his fellow-pupil. He studied in Italy for some time, and upon his return to Antwerp became one of the most popular painters in the city. Several works still remaining there testify that his sojourn in the South had not entirely effaced his Flemish training. He excelled particularly in cabinet pictures, with subjects inspired by the classics, in which the landscapes were sometimes painted by Jan Brueghel. These are wrought with wonderful finish, and were much admired by his contemporaries for the purity of their colouring. At the same time, whilst being a good craftsman and filling an honourable position in the history of the school, it cannot be claimed that he possessed genius in an extraordinary degree.
It is probable, however, that a more suitable master for the young Van Dyck could not have been found. In the studio of so staid and sober a painter he would not be brought into contact with any of those pyrotechnics which have wrought such havoc with the art of young artists when encountered at the onset of their careers. On the other hand, Van Balen is likely to have insisted upon great care being exercised in drawing and in the finishing of minutest detail. Such rigid training is excellent, for whilst it does not hinder further developments upon other lines in the least degree, it insures that all future progress shall be built upon a solid foundation.
At this time, however, Rubens, having returned from his wanderings in Italy and Spain, had settled in Antwerp. His new position as Court painter to the Archduke Albert and the Archduchess Isabella brought him into great prominence and insured him constant occupation. Even at this early period his art was approaching maturity, and if he had not yet developed the dazzling brilliancy and facility of his later time, he was still far ahead of any painter modern Flanders had produced. We have only to contemplate the works of his contemporaries, and those who immediately preceded him, to imagine what a profound sensation this young man created in Antwerp. It seldom fell to the lot of an artist who was but just over thirty to have been in the service of such an illustrious personage as the Duke of Mantua. The latter, moreover, so highly esteemed his talent that he wished him to return to his service even after he had returned to Antwerp. Further, the Duke had such confidence in Rubens' diplomatic ability that he sent him upon important business to Philip III. in Madrid. The experience he had gained both in Italy and in Spain, where he had seen and copied many of the greatest works of the Italian Renaissance, served to develop a genius which in itself was of the first order, and the fruits were immediately visible upon his arrival in Antwerp. We can well picture to ourselves the effect of the masculine vigour, nay, more, the bravado of his brush-work upon the staid and homely Flemish artists. Their minuteness of finish, delicacy, cool transparencies and silveriness of colouring seem indeed petit when pitted against the irrepressible dash and golden palette of Rubens. In spite of this he appears not to have created any enemies. On the contrary, his fellow-artists seem to have recognised his superiority, and many were influenced by his method. To estimate to the full the revolution he wrought we must compare the masters whom we found installed in favour in Flanders with the school he so soon created. The older painters being affected in so visible a degree, we can quite imagine how easily one so young and impressionable as Van Dyck would submit to the new influence. Here was a master whose art, glowing with the full-blooded vigour of Italy, yet retained the healthy freshness of his native country. Restrained and held in leash as he would be in the studio of Van Balen, we can sympathise with his yearning to migrate to that of Rubens. He speedily joined that ever-swelling body of artists who gathered themselves round the great master. For some years he worked side by side with Snyders and Seghers. The progress he made during this time was considerable; indeed, it is frequently difficult to decide whether certain pictures produced in these years are the work of the master or the pupil, so thoroughly had he acquired Rubens' technique.
PLATE III.—PRINCE D'ARENBERG
(In Lord Spencer's Collection, Althorp)