Page images
PDF
EPUB

HUBERT AND JOHN VAN EYCK: THE QUESTION OF THEIR COLLABORATION

CONSIDERED.

BY ALFRED MARKS.

[Read June 24th, 1903.]

In the history of the brothers Hubert and John Van Eyck, two of the greatest names in the annals of painting, are some interesting and difficult problems. Did the art of Hubert spring suddenly into perfection, as in the old-world fable Minerva sprang fully armed from the brain of Jupiter? Did his genius, as M. Paul Durrieu has lately expressed it, suddenly flash out like some brilliant meteor, which bursts on the dazzled gaze of beholders? All analogy forbids us so to believe; enormous as was the stride made by Hubert, his art must, in its beginnings, have started from the point reached by his predecessors. The problem is similar to that which perplexed early inquirers into the marvels of Shakespeare's art. Those inquirers had, fortunately, records to hand which, patiently and skilfully questioned, were ready to disclose the secret. But thus far the most diligent inquiry has failed to reveal the inspirers of Hubert's art.

VOL. XXIV.

The ravages

20

*

of time, of fire, and of the iconoclasts have perhaps destroyed the evidence which would have revealed the secret of Hubert's beginnings.

Another problem in the story of the two brothers is that relating to the invention, or, more properly, to the improvement of oil-painting. Much more has been done here; perhaps there is nothing to add to the conclusions reached by Sir Charles Eastlake in his admirable History of Oil-Painting-a work as remarkable for the patient investigation as for the wide knowledge of its author. I shall not presume to deal with these problems. On the first of these questions I do not purpose to touch at all; to the second I shall need to refer only in so far as it may help to elucidate the subject of my more humble inquiry. I ask you now to investigate with me a third problem. Criticism has been greatly perplexed by the question, Which of the works ascribed to the Van Eycks are to be allotted to Hubert, which to John? I ask you to consider the evidence tending to establish the collaboration of the two brothers in a large number of works at present commonly ascribed to one or other of them exclusively. In particular, it will fall to us to consider whether we cannot establish some preliminary notions as to the share of each brother in the great work, the Adoration of the Lamb, the altar-piece of Ghent.‡

[ocr errors]

*For the destruction committed by the iconoclasts see Voisin (C.), Guide de Gand,' 4th edit., pp. 43-47.

+ Eastlake (Sir C. L.), 'Materials for a History of Oil-Painting,' 2 vols., 1847.

It may be convenient to say here something about the inscription of the Ghent altar-piece. The Latin text, recovered from under

The relations of the two brothers were such as to render collaboration, or, at least, working in agreement, extremely probable. The birth-dates of Hubert and John Van Eyck are not known; the dates generally accepted are-for Hubert, about 1370; for John, about 1390, giving a difference in their ages of twenty years. The invention of the improved method of oil-painting is by all writers referred to the year 1410,* when John would be twenty years old. In the opinion of Sir Charles Eastlake, this makes it probable that the invention

neath a coat of paint, is not ascertained wholly free from doubt. Three translations of it have been given :-(1) The painter, Hubert Van Eyck, greater than whom none is to be found, commenced [the work]; the bulk was completed by his brother John, second to him in art, relying on the request of Jodoc Vyt. This verse invites you to contemplate that which was completed on the 6th of May, 1432. (The year is given in a chronogram.) (2) The painter, Hubert Van Eyck, greater than whom none is to be found, began the work, which John, second to him in art, completed. Etc., etc. (3) The painter, Hubert van Eyck, greater than whom none is to be found, began [the work]. John, the second brother, with art completed it. Etc., etc.-The first, essentially that given by two recent writers, Herr Kaemmerer (Hubert und Jan Van Eyck,' 1898, p. 34) and Mr. Claude Phillips (Fortnightly Review,' October, 1902), is no doubt the correct translation. The others are too obviously coloured by partisanship. The second seeks to exalt Hubert by diminishing John's share in the work. I can find no authority for giving to “pondus," here translated "work," any other meaning than “weight," "mass," "bulk." The third seeks to exalt John by cancelling the statement that he was second to Hubert. Unless in the interest of a theory, no one would translate the words "Johannes arte secundus frater" otherwise than in the way given in the first and second renderings.

* Guicciardini (Lodovico), 'Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi,' 1567, p. 97. Vasari (G.), ‘Vite,' 2nd edit., 1568 ("Di Diversi Artefici Fiamminghi"). Opmeer (Petrus ab), Opus Chronologicum,' p. 406 (the writing of this book, published in 1611, was completed in 1569). Mander (Carel Van), Het Schilder-Boek,' 1604; translated by Hymans (Henri), Le Livre des Peintres,' 2 vols., 1884-5.

[ocr errors]

+ Eastlake, Materials, etc.,' vol. i, pp. 191, 192.

must be ascribed to Hubert rather than to John, his pupil and junior. Another argument is derived from the epitaphs of the two brothers, which have fortunately come down to us, though the actual monuments have long been destroyed.* That of

Hubert is extremely simple; his career is treated merely as a theme for enforcing the eternal lesson of the shortness of life, and as a text for pious exhortation:

I was

Thus

Art,

"Take warning from me, ye who walk over me. as you are, but am now buried dead beneath you. it appears that neither art nor medicine availed me. honour, wisdom, power, affluence, are not spared when death comes. I was called Hubert Van Eyck; I am now food for worms. Formerly known and highly honoured in painting, this was all shortly after turned to nothing. It was in the year of the Lord One thousand four hundred and twentysix, on the eighteenth day of September, that I rendered up my soul to God, in sufferings. Pray God for me, ye who love art, that I may attain to His sight. Flee sin; turn to the best, for you must follow me at last."

In the mention of medicine, coupled with art, Sir Charles Eastlake sees a reference to chemistry as one of the qualifications of the painter. It would perhaps be unsafe to build much on this vague reference. A stronger point, not, I think, mentioned by Sir Charles Eastlake, is found in John's epitaph. Here there is, as we shall find later, a summary of

*The translation is that given by Eastlake, Materials, etc.,' vol. i, pp. 185, 186. The epitaphs are given by Vaernewyck (Marcus Van), 'Die Historie van Belgis,' 1574, and by Van Mander. John's epitaph still stood in the Church of St. Donatian in the sixteenth century (Delepierre, O., ' Galerie d'Artistes Brugeois,' 1840, p. 11). Eastlake, Materials, etc.,' vol. i, pp. 185, 186.

the painter's characteristics, but not the most distant allusion to the invention. That the credit of the invention should have been given to John rather than to Hubert is easily susceptible of explanation. Hubert's name was soon forgotten. John, the court painter, whose works were sent abroad-to Italy, whence the first accounts of the invention came,John alone was remembered; at most Hubert was treated as the inferior and subordinate of the

younger brother.* These questions bear on our inquiry only thus far it is reasonable to assume that the two, in possession of the secret of a new method of painting, would work in concert.

We pass to the next stage, the declaration of some of the earliest writers that the two brothers actually did collaborate. This is asserted by both Guicciardini and Van Mander. Lodovico Guicciardini, a nephew of the famous historian, was born in 1521. He left Italy at an early age, and was established in Antwerp in 1550. In 1567 he published his book, 'Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi.' In this he gives a long account of Flemish painters, derived from his own inquiries and from inspection of the pictures themselves. The writer and his book are held in high esteem. To Guicciardini, John was the principal figure of the two brothers, though not, as to Vasari, the only painter named Van Eyck. After describing the Ghent altar-piece, John's altar-piece in the Church of St. Donatian, and mentioning a picture at Ypres, probably the altar-piece on which

See, for example, Opmeer, op. cit., p. 406, where he gives the portraits of the two brothers from the Ghent altar-piece, John's being placed above Hubert's.

« PreviousContinue »