Produced by Al Haines








[Illustration: Cover]




  MASTERPIECES
  IN COLOUR
  EDITED BY
  T. LEMAN HARE



  VAN DYCK




======================================================================

PLATE I.--CHARLES I.  Frontispiece

(In the Louvre)

Certainly the finest portrait of Charles I. in existence.  It shows Van
Dyck in his most attractive aspect as a painter of the aristocracy.
Executed before the marked decline in his technical powers, which
marred, from an artistic standpoint, the later pictures of his English
period, it yet possesses the dignity and distinction he knew so well
how to infuse in portraying the nobility of our country.  It is one of
the best examples of the artist's powers as a colourist, and as such
will bear comparison with the productions of the mighty Venetians.

[Illustration: Plate I.]

======================================================================



  Van Dyck


  BY PERCY M. TURNER

  ILLUSTRATED WITH EIGHT
  REPRODUCTIONS IN COLOUR


[Illustration: Title page graphic]


  LONDON: T. C. & E. C. JACK
  NEW YORK: FREDERICK A. STOKES CO.




  CONTENTS

  I.  The Early Days
  II.  The Journey to Italy
  III.  The Second Flemish Manner
  IV.  Van Dyck in England
  V.  Van Dyck's Position in Art




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


Plate

I. Charles I. . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontispiece
       In the Louvre

II. Charles Louis of Bavaria and his brother
      Robert, afterwards Duke of Cumberland
       In the Louvre

III. Prince d'Arenberg
       In Lord Spencer's Collection, Althorp

IV. Portrait of Van Dyck (or The Artist)
       In Lord Spencer's Collection, Althorp

V. Philippe le Roy, Seigneur de Ravel
       In the Wallace Collection

VI. Portrait of one of Charles I.'s children
       In the Academy of Fine Arts, Rome

VII. Portrait of the Artist's Wife
       In the Pinakothek, Munich

VIII. The Marchese Cattaneo
       In the National Gallery




[Illustration: Van Dyck]




I

THE EARLY DAYS

No painter has remained more consistently in favour with both artists
and the public than Van Dyck.  His art marks the highest achievement of
Flanders of the seventeenth century.  In making this statement the
claims of Rubens have not been overlooked, although the latter has
been, and probably will always be, considered the head of the Flemish
school.

It is perhaps not too much to say that Van Dyck possessed in a greater
measure than Rubens those qualities which go to make a great artist.
We can never overlook the seniority of the latter, and to him will
always belong the credit of having evolved the style which
revolutionised the art of a nation, and there is no doubt that the
pupil owed to him much of the knowledge he so well utilised in
after-life.

======================================================================

PLATE II.--CHARLES LOUIS OF BAVARIA AND HIS BROTHER ROBERT, AFTERWARDS
DUKE OF CUMBERLAND

(In the Louvre)

As an example of direct portraiture this picture would be hard to beat.
It shows Van Dyck in one of his happiest moods dealing with a subject
which peculiarly appealed to him.

[Illustration: Plate II.]

======================================================================

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)

A portrait characteristic of one of the most popular phases of Van
Dyck's art.  It exhibits in a remarkable measure his sense of
appropriateness as far as the setting of a portrait is concerned.  The
background has been chosen largely with a view to accentuating the
salient points of the picture, and whilst being, in consequence,
strictly subservient to the portrait is yet treated in a bold and
vigorous manner.

[Illustration: Plate III.]

======================================================================

In connection with this a story, the details of which have frequently
been challenged, is told.  It is said that Rubens, leaving his studio
one day to take a walk, had left a picture in the process of painting
upon his easel.  The students were anxious to inspect it and observe
the method he was employing.  Finally, they induced his servant to
admit them.  Being a numerous crowd, some amount of struggling took
place to get near the canvas.  The result was that one of them, it is
said Van Diepenbeck, fell against the canvas and injured the picture.
Dismay spread throughout the room.  When they had recovered their
presence of mind, some one proposed that the damage should be repaired
before Rubens returned.  By common consent Van Dyck was chosen, and he
set to work with a will.  Upon Rubens entering his studio next morning,
surrounded by his pupils, he selected the repaired part and said that
that was by no means the worst piece he had painted the day before.
Upon a closer examination the damage revealed itself, but so cleverly
had Van Dyck performed his task that Rubens decided to leave it as it
was.

From such tales as this has arisen the tradition that Rubens became so
jealous of his pupil that he endeavoured to persuade him to abandon
historical painting and devote the whole of his time to portraiture.
Such statements are not only in opposition to all that we know of
Rubens' character, but there is the further evidence that when he
finally parted from Van Dyck they were on the very best of terms.
Indeed, Rubens went so far as to make him a present of one of his
finest horses for the purpose of his journey in Italy, whilst Van Dyck
left with his master a portrait of Rubens' wife as a souvenir.

He further retained the services of Van Dyck as his assistant, which he
would not have done had any jealousy existed between them.  It was
probably the pressure of commissions, which flowed in upon him in
innumerable quantities, that induced him to take this step.  It was
quite impossible for the master himself to accomplish all the work he
undertook.  Outside Italy he was the first master to employ his school
as a sort of manufactory on a large scale.  So well did he train his
assistants that he had only to make the sketch himself, and to
superintend its painting, for a large work to be turned out in an
incredibly short time.  As Van Dyck was his most capable assistant, he
would certainly employ him upon the important parts, and as it has
already been pointed out that it is difficult to differentiate between
the works of the two men at this time, it would be still more difficult
to decide definitely what hand Van Dyck had in the large number of
religious and historical pictures that were being sent out under
Rubens' name at this time.

During this period, however, Van Dyck had acquired a reputation of his
own.  He had been elected a master of the Antwerp Corporation of
painters in 1618, that is, whilst still in his twentieth year.




II

THE JOURNEY TO ITALY

It was the habit of most Northern artists at that time to make a
journey in Italy.  The renown of the works created during the preceding
two centuries by the Italian Renaissance had spread all over Europe,
and no young artist considered his education complete without having
spent a few years in studying them.  Moreover, they found that patrons
patronised them better if they had been through this Italian training.
These ideas were rather dictated by the prevailing fashion than by any
solid good to be derived by the artist who underwent it.  We have
innumerable examples of Dutchmen and Flemings whose natural genius
became perverted upon Italian soil.  Nicholas Berchem and Karl Dujardin
were striking examples of the sad results which frequently accrued from
thus transplanting themselves into a country with which their
temperament had nothing in common.  It is probable that had Karl
Dujardin remained in Holland, the world would have been enriched by a
landscape painter of the first order, for he had gifts far above even
the average painter of his time.  But immediately on reaching Italy he
succumbed to the influences surrounding him, and endeavoured to get rid
as far as possible of his early training, and to see things and render
them in the Italian way.  The result was, that whilst he never threw
off the Dutch character of his scenes and figures, he enveloped them
with a conventional atmosphere as monotonous as it is untrue.

We have already seen the results the Italian journey had upon Rubens.
There was no inducement for Van Dyck, comparing, as he would be able
to, his master's pictures painted before his journey to Italy and those
which he executed afterwards, to undertake the same trouble.  It is
rather to be thought that he was decided to see the artistic Mecca for
himself, by the glowing accounts of its treasures that he heard from
time to time from Rubens' own lips.  For the latter, small as had been
the influence of the great Italian masters upon his work, was
nevertheless of a disposition peculiarly adapted for keenly
appreciating merit whenever it was brought under his notice.  We can
quite imagine that during those early days in Antwerp his pupils whilst
at work would hear innumerable accounts of the beauties of this or that
picture, and the more enthusiastic of them would consequently only be
the more eager to judge of its beauties for themselves.  During the
execution of the large canvasses that were turned out in such
quantities from the studio, Rubens doubtlessly prefaced alterations he
made by referring to many a master's method, and recounted how the
masterpieces upon which his comments were framed had been brought to
completion.

During the latter portion of the time Van Dyck stopped with Rubens he
was only acting as his assistant, and consequently would be free to
leave when he liked.  He would probably be quite aware that his
technique was the equal of his master's, and would realise that he had
received all the tuition he possibly could in his present situation.
Ambitious as he was, there is no doubt that he yearned for an
opportunity to learn for himself the message the great masters had to
impart to him.  Whilst we can quite imagine that Rubens would be sorry
to part with so capable an assistant, there was not any evidence that
he did not do everything in his power to assist him to carry out his
project.

In 1623--when he was but twenty-four years of age--Van Dyck left
Antwerp on his journey southward.  He appears not to have got any
further than a village near Brussels, where he succumbed to the
attractions of a certain young lady named Annah van Ophem.  At her
instigation he painted two pictures for the parish church there.  In
one, representing St. Martin sharing his cloak with a beggar, he took
himself as a model for the saint.  The parish authorities being, it is
said, of a mercenary turn of mind, had it valued, and, hearing that it
was worth 4000 florins, sold it to a M. Hoët.  The people of the
village, however, hearing of the sale, determined to prevent the
removal of the picture at all costs, and when the purchaser arrived he
found not only the peasants, but their wives and children, armed, and
was obliged to escape ignominiously through the priest's garden and
return to Brussels without his prize.  Whilst still residing at the
village, Van Dyck painted the portrait of Annah van Ophem, surrounded
with the dogs belonging to the Infanta Isabella, of which either she or
her father had charge, and a picture of the Holy Family, in which she
figured as the principal personage.

======================================================================

PLATE IV.--PORTRAIT OF VAN DYCK (OR THE ARTIST)

(In Lord Spencer's Collection, Althorp)

One of the most striking portraits of the artist.  Painted at a fairly
late date in his career, it shows the painter prosperous and rich and
by no means ill pleased with his lot in the world.  Full of life and
gaiety, his joyous face gives us a good idea of the gratification he
found in life almost to the end.  Indeed, a deal of the fascination of
his art arises from his approaching his subjects in this happy frame of
mind.

[Illustration: Plate IV.]

======================================================================

Rubens, hearing of the prolonged sojourn of his pupil at Saveltheim,
arrived one day upon the scene, and finally induced Van Dyck to tear
himself from his mistress and continue his journey to Italy.

The great object of his visit was to study the Venetian masters, and
accordingly he repaired forthwith to the City of the Lagoons.  We can
picture him standing for the first time before those wonderful
portraits of Titian and Tintoretto, Palma-Vecchio and Moroni, about
which he had heard so much in his student days in Antwerp.  That he was
not disappointed is evidenced by the fact that almost immediately a
change is observable in his method.  He cast aside as speedily as
possible the silveriness and coolness which had characterised his
palette when working in Antwerp, and endeavoured to assimilate in as
great a degree as possible the golden luminosity and subtle handling of
the mighty Venetians.  It is probable that Titian held the first place
in his estimation, for it is rather upon his method that all his
subsequent developments in technique are based.  But perhaps full
justice has not been done to the influence Moroni had in moulding his
youthful genius.  One has only to compare, for example, the full-length
portrait of an Italian nobleman, No. 1316 in the National Gallery, with
that marvellous representation of Philip le Roy in the Wallace
Collection, reproduced in this volume, to see the connection between
the two painters.  There is the same air of distinction in each
portrait, and in silveriness of colouring and elegance of pose there is
much in common.  These are not isolated examples in the life-work of
the two masters, but are rather representative of a whole series of
portraits in which their genius runs on nearly parallel lines.

We cannot wonder that Van Dyck was not much impressed by such of the
Umbrian painters as he came in contact with.  There was still left in
these men the remains of that mysticism which was born of the intimate
contact with religion in relation to life that had originally brought
it into being.  The religious art of the Netherlands--I am speaking now
of that which arose after the middle of the sixteenth century--was
built upon a purely human and materialistic basis.  If a scriptural
scene was represented it was brought before us as a subject from
everyday life; a martyrdom with all its brutality, a crucifixion with
all its physical horror, and a madonna and child simply as a peasant
girl with a child, set in homely surroundings.  Our artist, endowed
with the same temperament as the men who had created such works, and
who moreover was perhaps the best exponent of this school of painting,
with the possible exception of Rubens himself, could not be expected to
be touched with the subtleties of Botticelli or Filippino Lippi.
Further, it is not unlikely that he found he could learn little from
the technique of Raphael or Andrea del Sarto.  But with the Venetians
it was quite otherwise.  From the early days of Giovanni Bellini they
seem to have treated religious subjects in just as materialistic a
manner, if less grossly and repugnantly, than the Flemings themselves.
One has but to contemplate the life-work of Titian to see how little
religious feeling, in the Florentine or mystical sense of the term,
there was in his art.  Even the two most impressive religious pictures
he ever painted, the "Entombment," in the Louvre, and the "Christ
crowned with Thorns," at Munich, would certainly not have pleased the
patrons of Ghirlandajo or Pollaiuolo.  But Titian and his
contemporaries constitute the zenith attained by Italian materialistic
art, at any rate in point of technique.

======================================================================

PLATE V.--PHILIPPE LE ROY, SEIGNEUR DE RAVEL

(In the Wallace Collection)

The masterpiece of Van Dyck's second Flemish manner.  In it we see the
culmination of the influences he had brought away with him from Italy
sobered by a renewed contact with the productions of his illustrious
master.  The dignity of pose, probably derived from Moroni and Titian,
united with the fact that his immense technical powers are brought into
play in an unsurpassed degree, certainly proclaim it as one of the
greatest portraits in the world.  Van Dyck executed an etching of
Philippe le Roy, probably based upon this portrait which ranks very
high amongst his productions in this way.

[Illustration: Plate V.]

======================================================================

It is more than probable that Van Dyck found certain points in his
master's method crude compared with that of the Venetians, and
although, as we shall see later, he endeavoured after his return to
Flanders to retrace his steps in a measure, the influences he brought
away with him from Italy remained during his whole life.

He went from Venice to Genoa, and there his style created such an
impression that he found many of the nobility eager to have their
portraits painted by him.  Formerly, his Italian manner, as it is
called, was to be best studied in that city, but as years have rolled
on many of the finest examples have become scattered over Europe and
America.  The two fine portraits recently added to the National Gallery
date from this period, and although, owing to their condition, they do
not set forth his talents at their best, will give a good idea of the
changes his method had undergone since he left Antwerp.  Two of the
noblest portraits of the Genoese period were formerly in the collection
of Sir Robert Peel, but, after being sold at auction in London some few
years ago, finally found a permanent home in the Berlin Gallery.

From Genoa he went to Rome, and, his reputation having preceded him, he
was soon loaded with commissions for both historical subjects and
portraits.  It is said, however, that his residence here was rendered
unpleasant by a number of artists persecuting him by reason of his not
wishing to fall in with their methods of life.  Be this as it may, he
returned to Genoa, and after some time departed for Palermo; but the
plague breaking out, some time after his arrival, he determined to
return to Flanders.  Van Dyck had reason to congratulate himself, not
only upon the amount of benefit which he had received from his sojourn
in Italy, but also on account of the flattering manner in which he had
been received everywhere.  His complete success in these two respects
was calculated to infuse confidence in him for the future.  He was now
fully equipped in every way, and his good luck in the matter of
patronage, so lavishly bestowed upon him in Italy, was destined to
pursue him in his future career, until finally the immense amount of
work he undertook in consequence had an adverse influence upon his
later productions.




III

THE SECOND FLEMISH MANNER

The reputation of Van Dyck, great as it was prior to leaving Antwerp,
had materially grown during his absence in Italy.  From time to time
reports reached his fellow-townsmen of the brilliant success he was
achieving there, the high personages with whom he was mingling, and the
flattering praise accorded to his productions.  We may be sure that
returning travellers would relate the astonishing progress he was
making, and consequently his friends would await with eager
anticipation the proofs of all they had heard.  There could be no doubt
that Rubens would be amongst those who would be most interested in his
progress, and he would be curious to see the influence the Italians had
exercised upon his technique.

His talents were soon put to the essay in the form of a commission for
a large picture representing St. Augustine in ecstasy, surrounded by
angels and saints, for the Church of the Augustines in Antwerp.  As a
result of this first effort, both his patrons and the public were
delighted, and commissions for works of a similar character flowed in
upon him from every side.

Rubens had fairly early in his career instituted an ingenious method
for making his works widely known.  He employed, under his own
direction, a number of engravers whose names have become household
words.  Technically considered, they were as well equipped as any who
have ever lived.  The names of Paul Pontius, Lucas Vorsterman, the two
Bolswerts, Peter de Jode are held in reverence by every admirer of
engraving.  Their remarkable fidelity in transcribing the works of
Rubens render it frequently unnecessary to see the originals themselves
in order thoroughly to study them.  I am perhaps not going too far when
I say that they understood the art of translating colour effects into
black and white in a manner unknown previous to their time and never
surpassed afterwards.  The tone values of the paintings themselves are
preserved.  There is no doubt that this excellence was due to the
guidance of Rubens.  He superintended each plate in process of
preparation and rectified with his own hand any errors that might have
crept in.  In this way Rubens rendered an immense service to art.
Quantities of these prints went out to foreign countries and were
prized by both artists and collectors, serving to stimulate the former
to renewed efforts and to improve the taste of the latter.  At the same
time, he is to be credited with having brought the engraving art to a
pitch which has never been surpassed.

When Rubens saw of what his pupil was now capable, he immediately
turned the attention of his engravers to his works, and until Van Dyck
practically ceased historical painting, we have as many plates worked
after his designs as from those of his master.  It was soon after his
return to Antwerp that he received the commission to paint the
celebrated picture at Malines representing the Crucifixion.  Of this
remarkable canvas we can but form an inadequate idea to-day.  The
exceeding negligence with which it has been kept, coupled with the
continual covering up of the picture, thus depriving it of light, which
every oil-painting requires for its preservation, has contributed to
render it a wreck of its former self.  The subject, to which we are so
accustomed that we are but little moved when we encounter it in the
great galleries, is here presented to us in a most terrible and
essentially human aspect.  The extraordinary expression of physical
pain infused into the heads of the two thieves, one on each side of
Christ, together with the energy of their efforts to detach themselves
from their awful position, will cause a shudder to creep over even the
most phlegmatic person.  This is foiled by the superb treatment of the
head of the Saviour.  In the latter is an extraordinary mixture of
pain, mental and physical, combined with a sublime look of resignation.
Sir Joshua Reynolds regarded it as one of the masterpieces of the
world, and there will be not a few who will concur in his judgment.

Van Dyck was not, however, content simply to exercise his powers in
this way.  An innumerable series of portraits date from this time,
notably the well-known series representing the most prominent
contemporary artists of Flanders.  These productions are well known
from the engravings executed after them; the originals are now
distributed throughout the world.

It is said that Van Dyck's position in the Netherlands, in spite of the
quantity of patronage bestowed upon him, was anything but pleasant.
The jealousy of his rivals was particularly irksome to a man of his
disposition.  In the intrigues with which he was surrounded Rubens had
no part; on the contrary, he always sustained the cause of his
brilliant pupil with the utmost enthusiasm and fidelity, and it is
probable, in view of this fact and the renown which Van Dyck himself
had attained, that he would have worn down the opposition and caused
the calumnies with which he was beset to fall upon the heads of their
originators.  But the taste for travel which he had developed in Italy
probably impelled him to seek relief outside his own country.
Accordingly we find him employed at the Hague--certainly not a great
distance from the seat of his recent troubles, but sufficiently far to
remove him from their reach.  Here he painted the portrait of the
Prince of Orange and innumerable personages of his Court, in addition
to receiving ample encouragement from the foreign ambassadors.

It was not, however, to be expected that so small a city with its
limited scope would long suffice for a man of his ambitions.  His eyes
were set upon England.

======================================================================

PLATE VI.--PORTRAIT OF ONE OF CHARLES I.'S CHILDREN

(In the Academy of Fine Arts, Rome)

Possibly the best known and one of the most deservedly popular of the
master's child portraits.  It will bear comparison for charm and
delicacy of handling with any of the productions of our great English
masters.  In fact, it was largely after a study of Van Dyck's wonderful
pictures of children that Gainsborough formed his last and greatest
manner.

[Illustration: Plate VI.]

======================================================================

The encouragement which Charles I. extended to the fine arts, and his
liberality in patronising them, induced him to think that a suitable
field for the exercise of his talents was open to him in our country.
Accordingly about 1632 he arrived in London.  England was not, however,
quite strange to him, for about eleven years previously--that is,
before his departure to Italy--he had already been here upon a visit.
Upon this occasion, however, he does not appear to have succeeded in
attracting the attentions of the king, and consequently he did not meet
with the success he had counted upon.  Remaining but a few months, he
decided to return to Antwerp, fully resolved to make it a permanent
place of abode.

Meanwhile, however, Rubens had been sent by the Infanta Isabella on a
diplomatic visit to Charles, who received him in the most gracious
manner and created him a knight.  The flattering attentions bestowed
upon Rubens during his stay, coupled with his estimation of the king's
character and taste, created a most favourable impression upon him, and
when he returned to Antwerp he probably dispelled in a measure Van
Dyck's antipathy to our country.  Meanwhile Charles had seen the
latter's portrait of Nicholas Lanière, his chapel master, and was so
impressed with its qualities that he sent an invitation to Van Dyck to
return.

An opportunity so favourable to advancement was not lightly to be
passed over, and Van Dyck decided once more to try his fortune here.

This decision constituted a turning-point in the life and style of the
artist, and we shall see him in England passing the most prosperous
years of his life.




IV

VAN DYCK IN ENGLAND

There never was a time in the history of the English Court when such
opportunities for advancement were presented to an artist possessing
the genius of Van Dyck as during the reign of Charles I.  He was one of
the few monarchs of England who recognised the civilising influence of
art on the nation and encouraged it in a manner quite beyond his means.
It mattered not of what period, school, or nationality a work happened
to be, so long as it possessed a high degree of merit, it appealed
strongly to the king.  We have only to consider the superb collection
he brought together, only to be ruthlessly dispersed by the
Commonwealth, to gauge the refinement of his taste.  Many of the
priceless possessions of foreign galleries formed part of his
collection, and if England had only been in a position to retain her
hold upon them we should no doubt to-day be in possession of the finest
assemblage of Italian art in the world.  I need only enumerate the
sumptuous portrait of Alfonso of Ferrara and Laura d'Dianti and the
"Entombment," by Titian, in the Louvre; the portrait of Erasmus, by
Holbein, in the Louvre, and the marvellous portrait of a young woman,
for so many years wrongly ascribed to the same master, at the Hague;
the portrait of Albrecht Dürer by himself in the Prado, and the two
masterpieces by Geertgen van St. Jans in the Imperial Gallery at
Vienna, to demonstrate the quality of his many possessions.  In England
we still have retained a few of his treasures.  Conspicuous among them
are those masterpieces of Andrea Mantegna, the "Triumph of Julius
Cæsar," at Hampton Court, the Albrecht Dürer, and the Lorenzo Lotto, in
the same gallery, together with the "Mercury, Cupid and Venus," by
Correggio, in the National Gallery.

Needless to say that a collector, who had sufficient taste to bring
together such a notable assemblage, would demand a very high degree of
talent indeed in a painter who was working for the Court.  Charles had,
moreover, been brought into contact with the brilliant achievements of
Rubens, and would in consequence expect a great deal from a pupil whose
merits he had heard so extolled.

The portrait of Nicholas Lanière appealed to him immediately.  He saw
in Van Dyck a man whose performances, even at this early age, far
surpassed those of any painter then working in England.  Charles, who
immensely admired the portraits of Rubens, saw in those of his pupil an
Italian quality lacking in the former, and this would additionally
attract him.

Van Dyck's reception was most flattering.  He was given a lodging at
Blackfriars amongst the other painters, and was set to work immediately
for the king.  Charles was quite as much taken with the courtly
qualities and conversation of his newly-found painter as by his talent,
and greatly enjoyed his company.  He was accustomed to go to
Blackfriars by water, and to chat with Van Dyck whilst having his
portrait painted.  From this time date the innumerable portraits of
Charles and his Queen, Henrietta Maria, with which we are so familiar.

The fashion thus set by the king was speedily taken up by his Court,
and the nobility of England competed with one another for the privilege
of having their portraits painted by the brilliant Fleming.

Soon after his arrival Van Dyck received the honour of knighthood, and,
in addition to being appointed painter to his Majesty, had an annuity
of £200 per annum settled upon him.

The quantity of commissions which now flowed in upon him was
prodigious, and he was sorely taxed to keep pace with them.  He was
enabled in consequence to raise his prices considerably without in the
least diminishing the patronage bestowed upon him.  He commenced to
entertain on a lavish scale, and his table was frequented by the
highest in the land.  It is said that after occupying the morning in
painting portraits he would invite his sitters to dinner, and then,
from the study he had made of their countenances during the meal, would
work upon the portraits again in the afternoon.

Although Van Dyck had been accustomed to good society and living, the
overwhelming good fortune which was now his lot appears to have
developed bad habits in him.  He soon acquired luxurious habits, which
finally undermined his health.  Passionately fond of music, he
liberally encouraged all the professors of that art, and gratuitously
painted the portraits of its most celebrated exponents.

The demands upon his purse at this time must have been enormous, and in
order to increase his output, and consequently his income, he had
recourse to the means he had seen Rubens so successfully employ in
Antwerp.  He brought together a school of painters, who worked under
his directions.  The portraits dating from this period consequently not
only show the marked deterioration in his technique, but also, beyond
the heads and hands and a few other essential details, contained but
little of his own work.  His assistants were so thoroughly trained that
they were enabled to paint the draperies and their accessories in a
style which welded perfectly with his own brushwork.

These facts have to be carefully remembered whenever we are
contemplating a work of the English period of Van Dyck, for were we to
form our judgment solely upon the portraits he had painted prior to
going to England we should reject many of the former as not being from
his hand.  There is further the added difficulty that his assistants
executed pictures in his manner on their own account, and it is only by
the lack of that spark of genius he was enabled to infuse in those
parts of a portrait he executed with his own hand that we are enabled
to differentiate between them.  Many of the portraits of the king and
queen which were sent as presents all over Europe were but the
productions of his studio.

======================================================================

PLATE VII.--PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST'S WIFE

(In the Pinakothek, Munich)

A remarkably good example of Van Dyck's power of depicting female
character.  Whenever he is faced with a sitter in whom he is interested
he suited his technique to the points he wished to emphasise.  It is
the possession of this versatility which enables him to infuse so much
seductive charm into his women portraits and such trenchant vigour into
those of men.

[Illustration: Plate VII.]

======================================================================

It is only in such superb presentations of Charles as that in the
Louvre, at Windsor, and in the National Gallery that we are enabled to
judge of his capabilities at this period.  He now almost entirely
deserted historical painting.  There was no demand for it in England,
and his attention was exclusively devoted to portraiture.  Moreover, if
we may judge from the ever-increasing facility with which he was wont
to paint, it may be fairly said that his attention during these years
was being diverted from painting to pleasure.  He never lost interest
in his art, but he was impelled to adopt a more facile manner by the
pressure of his engagements and his ever-increasing expenses.

He kept a country house at Eltham in Kent, where he spent the summer--a
form of extravagance more defensible than many in which he was
accustomed to indulge.

Meanwhile, he had contracted a marriage with Mary Ruthven,
granddaughter of Lord Ruthven, Earl of Cowrie, by whom he had one
daughter.  His wife, however, brought him no dowrie, but was considered
one of the greatest beauties of her time.  Soon after his marriage he
left England with his wife for the purpose of showing her his native
country.  They travelled for some time, visiting his family and
friends.  Then the idea occurred to him that he would proceed to Paris,
with a view of sharing, if possible, in the contemplated decoration of
the Louvre, and thus win laurels equal to those Rubens had gained by
his works in the Luxembourg.  He arrived, however, too late: Nicholas
Poussin had been brought specially from Rome for the purpose, and the
work was in hand.  Disappointed in this, and still desiring to execute
some great work by which he might secure a lasting renown, he returned
to England and proposed to the king, through the medium of his old and
trusty friend Sir Kenelm Digby, to embellish the wall of the Banqueting
House at Whitehall with the history of the Order of the Garter.  The
ceiling of this sumptuous chamber had already been painted by Rubens,
and Van Dyck no doubt considered that his work would blend admirably
with that of his master.  The sum he asked for, £8000, although
considerable, would no doubt not have stood in the way of the execution
of the project had it occurred at an earlier date in the reign of the
unfortunate Charles.  The kingdom, however, was already in a turbulent
condition.  Funds were scarce, and such as existed might have to be
employed at any moment in raising an army to defend the king's cause.
Charles was now occupied in a life-and-death struggle with his people,
and had no time to devote to artistic pursuits.  Van Dyck consequently
waited in vain for an answer, and it is to be supposed that meanwhile
commissions did not come to him as easily as formerly.  Young as he
still was, the effects of his past luxurious life were beginning to
tell upon him, and, coupled with the disappointment occasioned by the
rejection of his proposal, contributed to bring on gout.  He began to
have financial worries too, but these can hardly have been sufficiently
great to have troubled him much, for he left at his death property to
the value of £20,000.  He therefore turned his attention, probably in
emulation, or by the advice, of his friend Sir Kenelm Digby, to the
pursuit of the philosopher's stone, and, needless to say, the results
of his experiments and the money he expended upon them only aggravated
the state of his health.  He rapidly sickened, and died in London on
December 9th, 1641, when forty-two years of age.  He was accorded a
magnificent funeral in St. Paul's Cathedral, and was buried in a tomb
beside that of John of Gaunt.




V

VAN DYCK'S POSITION IN ART

During the past twenty years the public has become so educated in
matters artistic that it wishes at once to definitely assign a certain
position to an artist with whose works it is familiar.  We live in an
age of comparison, and as opportunities for its exercise, owing to the
cheapening of travel, are so manifestly improved of recent years, a
more just estimation exists in the mind of the public regarding an
artist's worth than formerly.  Van Dyck, as I said at the beginning of
the opening chapter, has never fallen from the high position he
occupied in his own day.  He has always appealed to the student and the
artist of every nationality, and if we survey portrait painting since
his day, we shall see that he has exercised more influence than any
other artist who has ever lived.  It may be said that Titian, for a
couple of centuries after his death, was the idol almost exclusively
worshipped, and that during the last fifty years Velazquez and
Rembrandt have been the ideals painters have dangled before the public
and themselves.  But both of these mighty masters have had their ups
and downs.  The genius of Rembrandt was certainly not appreciated until
the end of the eighteenth century, and even then his stupendous powers
were not recognised as they have been in our own day.

The worship of Velazquez is quite a modern institution, and it is not
at all unlikely, in the opinion of well-informed critics, that if his
influence, which has now reached a decadent stage, is not curtailed it
will create as much havoc amongst modern portrait painters as the
example of Constable has had upon certain phases of landscape painting.

It can never be laid to the charge of Van Dyck that any period of his
art has exercised a permanently baneful influence.  True, immediately
after the Restoration, a school arose, headed by Sir Peter Lely and Sir
Godfrey Kneller, who claimed to have followed the traditions of Van
Dyck.  It requires, however, but little comparison between even his
later and slighter works and those of Lely, who was incomparably the
greatest of the portrait painters working in England in the interval
between Van Dyck and Hogarth, to see how far below Van Dyck's standard
portrait painting had fallen, and how little of his method there was
left in it.

Van Dyck has exercised more influence in England than abroad.  Many of
our greatest eighteenth-century portrait painters have largely formed
themselves upon his example.  Gainsborough was the most conspicuous
instance of this.  From his earliest days he worshipped the great
Fleming, and that the spell never left him may be gauged from his dying
words: "We are all going to Heaven, and Van Dyck is of the company."
Even prior to his departure for Bath, his portraits possessed many of
the qualities of Van Dyck, but after arriving in the western city, then
the centre of a rich and fashionable world, he had manifold
opportunities of studying his favourite master.  His brushwork became
at once more refined, his colouring more transparent, and his method in
every way more facile.  Before leaving Bath he had produced portraits
which are worthy to be placed alongside those of Van Dyck, and after a
few years' residence in London had created those marvels of the brush
which contend for supremacy with the finest works of the Fleming.  For
example, what portrait of the latter master could be cited to surpass
the portrait of Mrs. Graham in the Gallery at Edinburgh, the superb
group at Dulwich, or the "Blue Boy," in the possession of the Duke of
Westminster?

Reynolds appears to have worked more in emulation of Titian than Van
Dyck.  He painted in a solider and apparently slower manner, and if the
slickness--if I may be allowed an Americanism--of the Flemish master
appealed to him, it yet had no visible effect upon his own technique.

The minor masters of our school demonstrate materially how much they
owed to Van Dyck.  Allan Ramsay and Cotes bear adequate witness of this.

Full justice, however, has not been done to the good wrought for
English art by his immediate followers and pupils.  It is only of late
years that the portraits of old Stone are beginning to be sorted out
from those of the later period of Van Dyck.  Stone was occupied in
copying or making replicas of the portraits of Van Dyck, and so well
did he succeed in his task that, even to this day, numerous works by
him are to be found in the country houses of England passing under the
name of the great master.

======================================================================

PLATE VIII.--THE MARCHESE CATTANEO

(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




  IN THE SAME SERIES


  ARTIST.                    AUTHOR.

  VELAZQUEZ.                 S. L. BENSUSAN.
  REYNOLDS.                  S. L. BENSUSAN.
  TURNER.                    C. LEWIS HIND.
  ROMNEY.                    C. LEWIS HIND.
  GREUZE.                    ALYS EYRE MACKLIN.
  BOTTICELLI.                HENRY B. BINNS.
  ROSSETTI.                  LUCIEN PISSARRO.
  BELLINI.                   GEORGE HAY.
  FRA ANGELICO.              JAMES MASON.
  REMBRANDT.                 JOSEF ISRAELS.
  LEIGHTON.                  A. LYS BALDRY.
  RAPHAEL.                   PAUL G. KONODY.
  HOLMAN HUNT.               MARY E. COLERIDGE.
  TITIAN.                    S. L. BENSUSAN.
  MILLAIS.                   A. LYS BALDRY.
  CARLO DOLCI.               GEORGE HAY.
  GAINSBOROUGH.              MAX ROTHSCHILD.
  TINTORETTO.                S. L. BENSUSAN.
  LUINI.                     JAMES MASON.
  FRANZ HALS.                EDGCUMBE STALEY.
  VAN DYCK.                  PERCY M. TURNER.


  _In Preparation_

  WHISTLER.                  T. MARTIN WOOD.
  LEONARDO DA VINCI.         M. W. BROCKWELL.
  RUBENS.                    S. L. BENSUSAN.
  BURNE-JONES.               A. LYS BALDRY.
  J. F. MILLET.              PERCY M. TURNER.
  CHARDIN.                   PAUL G. KONODY.
  FRAGONARD.                 C. HALDANE MACFALL.
  HOLBEIN.                   S. L. BENSUSAN.
  BOUCHER.                   C. HALDANE MACFALL.
  VIGÉE LE BRUN.             C. HALDANE MACFALL.
  WATTEAU.                   C. LEWIS HIND.
  MURILLO.                   S. L. BENSUSAN.

  AND OTHERS.