Of this edition there have been printed 265 copies , of which only 250 are for sale. This is Number .. J. . . . There have also been printed 10 copies on Japanese Vellum. WITHO*) VIOIMYCIMa a HA >OT(l WAV YWOI-1TWA \\> vuVrtYiWiO ANTHONY VAN DYCK AND ENDYMION PORTER {Royal Collection at Madrid) SIR ANTHONY VAN DYCK HIS LIFE AND WORK BY JULES GUIFFREY Translated from the French by WILLIAM ALISON LONDON H HENRY & CO LIMITED 93 ST MARTIN’S LANE WC MDCCCXCVI \All rights reserved ■] A ANTOINE VAN DYCK SONNET Rubens est Men ton matt re, 6 Van Dyck, c'est Men lui Dont 7 influence altibre en ton oeuvre s'accuse : Ta palette tin doit le prisme dont elle use Et la fdcouditd qu'on t'envie aujourd'hui. Mats tu nempruntes pas a la lecon d'autrui La supreme dldgance en tes portraits infuse; Ce don que la nature a de plus grands refuse De ta gloire est le propre et le solide appui. L enfance admire en toi son naif interprete ; 7 on pmceau napprit pas la noblesse quit prete ri ses modules, tons ou pnuciers oil divins ; Non, cette grace tendre a ce gout fier unie, Pour l inspirer, l exemple et le conseil sont vains. Cest ta mere, apres Dieu, qui t'a fait ton genie! Sully Prudhommi TO SULLY PRUDHOMME My Dear Friend, This life of Van Dyck has kept me busy for many a year, as you know. I could not therefore offer you a work into which I had put more of myself. This consideration at least will, I hope, give to this act of homage some value in your eyes. My book has for its starting-point and is in the first instance based upon the researches, unheard of till yesterday, of a curious compiler of the last century. The old manuscript, which presents the life and work of Van Dyck in an entirely new light, and which was first called attention to by my erudite colleague, M. de Montaiglon, in a note lost at the foot of an article on the Brussels Gallery, was transferred, about 1850, from M. Godde’s library to that of the Louvre, where it has since remained. At that time it was known to but a few Dryasdusts, and it had not yet been heard of by the historians of the Flemish school of painting, when I conceived the idea of bringing it to light, and of giving its author the testimony due to his patient investigations. Barely had I finished copying this precious work when we departed for Italy, as you will remember; you in search of new poetic inspiration, I to follow the traces and to seek for souvenirs of Van Dyck at Turin and Genoa, at Florence and Rome. Since that time, constantly under the influence of the same idea, I have visited the greater part of the foreign museums, as well as the wealthier galleries of England. I have more than once returned to Belgium, in order to add some sheaves of undis¬ covered facts to the harvest I had already garnered. But I have sought in vain to lift the veil that hides from us Van Dyck’s mysterious biographer. All that I succeeded b To Sully Prudhomme viii in learning was that he maintained the most cordial relations with that other curious compiler, Counsellor Mols, of whom the Burgundian library possesses so many interesting notes on the head of the great Antwerp school. You know what vicissitudes the present work has undergone before seeing the light; I will not dwell upon them. One single point it is well to recall: the book’ should have appeared last year; the letterpress was ready in good time, the plates were not: the issue had to be postponed. I do not greatly complain of this delay, since it has enabled me to profit from the recent works of those erudite Antwerpers Messrs. Max Rooses and Van den Branden, and from the good counsels of Messrs. Pinchart and Hymans, the well-informed historians of Flemish Art. Only one word on the subject of the illustrations in this volume. I deter¬ mined, when selecting specimens of the divers aspects of the artist's talent, to have reproductions made of compositions that had not been etched before. This consideration induced me to turn my eyes in the direction of Turin, Courtrai, Munich, Vienna, and Madrid. I thought for an instant of presenting a specimen of the manner of the etchers of the various countries from which I had taken a Van Dyck picture; but I was soon forced to recognise that this project could not be carried out, and to content myself, in the matter of foreign etchings, with the two plates by Herr Hecht of Munich. The illustrations in the text consist mainly of original works rendered by mechanical processes which have the merit of scrupulous fidelity. By the side of some of the facsimiles of drawings are reproduced the old engravings, but only in a few instances. The admirable engravings by Bolswert, Pontius, and Vorsterman lose too much in a reduced reproduction, however greatly perfected the method of reproduction may be. These preliminaries, my dear friend, will perhaps seem very long to you. You will forgive me in that, believing them necessary, I have taken you for my confidant. The historian looks upon no detail as unimportant; his fear is rather that he may never have said enough. It is the fault of nature. How happy the poet! A few lines suffice him worthily to celebrate the greatest artists. Jules Guiffrey. CONTENTS A Antoine Van Dyck. Sonnet by Sully Prudhomme Dedication to Sully Prudhomme . Part the First : Van Dyck’s Family—Van Dyck under Van Balen and Rubens—His Early Work. Part the Second : Van Dyck’s Sojourn in Italy Part the Third : Van Dyck's Work in Flanders after his Italian Journey Part the Fourth : Van Dyck’s Residence in England—His Death Part the Fifth: Van Dyck’s Work—His Pupils Catalogue of Sir Anthony Van Dyck’s Painted and Engraved Works LIST OF PLATES Portrait of Anthony Van Dyck and Endy-*" mion Porter (Royal collection at Madrid). Etched by F. Milius . Frontispiece St. Martin (church at Saventhem, near Brussels). Etched by A. Boulard. The Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles (from a drawing in the Albertina collection at Vienna). Dujardin heliogravure . Portrait of the Painter John de Wael and his Wife (Munich Pinakothek). Etched by W. Hecht. Portrait of the Marchese Antonio Giulio di Brignole Sala (Brignole Sala Gallery at Genoa). Etched by Gaujean .... Portrait of a Cardinal (from a drawing in M. Dutuit’s collection). Dujardin heliogravure Portrait of Cardinal Guido Bentivoglio (Pitti Palace at Florence). Etched by Gaujean. Portraits of King Charles I. of England, and of Queen Henrietta Maria (Pitti Palace at Florence). Etched by Gaujean Dance of Angels (from a drawing in the collec¬ tion of H.R.H. the Due d’Aumale). Dujardin heliogravure. The Children of Charles I. (Turin Gallery). Etched by Gaujean. The Virgin and the Child Jesus adored by the Magdalen, King David, and St. John (Louvre). Etched by Masson St. Augustine (from a drawing in the collection of H.R.H. the Due d’Aumale). Dujardin heliogravure ....... , Christ Entombed, Angels Weeping (Antwerp Gallery). Etched by A. Boulard . . . i Christ Dead (Church of St. Giles at Nuremberg). Etched by Fraenkel.. The Crucifixion (M. Chaix d’Est-Ange’s collec tion). Etched by Courtry . Portrait of the Painter Cornelius Schu (from a drawing in the collection of M. Dutuit) Dujardin heliogravure .... Christ with the Reed (from the original etching by Van Dyck, first state). Dujardin helio gravure , Portrait of a Man (Munich Pinakothek) Etched by E. Salmon .... Portrait of the Painter Gerard Seghers (from a drawing in M. Armand’s collection). Dujardin heliogravure .... The Wife of Philip Le Roy, Lord of Ravels (Wallace collection). Etched by Gaujean The Erection of the Cross (Church of Our Lady at Courtrai). Etched by A. Boulard Danae (Dresden Gallery). Dujardin heliogravure The Five Children of Charles I. (Windsor Castle). Etched by Gaujean Portrait of King Charles I. of England (Louvre). Etched by A. Boulard . . . Portrait of Prince Rupert when a Youth (Belvedere Gallery at Vienna). Etched by W. Hecht.. Portrait of the Duke of Richmond (Louvre). Etched by Noel Masson.. Procession of Knights of the Garter (from a drawing in the collection of the Duke of Rutland), after the engraving by Richard Cooper ....... 2 Portraits of Constantine Huyghens and his Five Children (Royal Museum at the Hague). Etched by Courtry. . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT The Arms of Anthony Van Dyck . . . Title Headpiece from the border of a tapestry from the Royal works at Mortlake, executed under Charles I. Headpiece from the border of a tapestry from the Royal works at Mortlake .... Anthony Van Dyck. After the original etching by the artist ....... Adam Van Noort, painter. After the original etching by Van Dyck. Henry Van Balen , painter. Engraved by Paul Pontius after Van Dyck. Peter Paul Rubens, painter. Engraved by Paul Pontius after Van Dyck. Gaspard de Crayer, painter. From a drawing in M. Dutuit’s collection. Christ seised by the Soldiers. From a drawing in the Louvre ....... Christ seised by the Soldiers. From a drawing in the Albertina collection at Vienna . The Martyrdom of St. Catherine. From a drawing in M. Armand’s collection .... Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles. From a drawing in the Louvre (His de la Salle collection). Christ Mocked. From a drawing in M. Dutuit’s collection. The Brazen Serpent. From a drawing in the Mar¬ quis de Chennevihres’ collection The Garden of Love. From a sketch in M. Armand’s collection ..... The Discovery of Achilles. From a drawing in M. Benjamin Fillon’s collection Head of a Faun. From a pen-and-ink drawing in the Duke of Devonshire’s collection at Chatsworth. The Rest in Egypt. From a drawing in the Al¬ bertina collection at Vienna .... facob Callot, engraver. From the engraving by Lucas Vorsterman after Van Dyck . Orazio Gentileschi, Italian painter. From the engraving by Lucas Vorsterman after Van Dyck. Portrait of a Woman seated. From a drawing in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence .... Head of a Child. From a pen-and-ink study in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence .... 65 Study of a Woman and of a Hand. From a draw¬ ing in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence . . 67 Portrait of the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia. From the engraving by William Hondius after Van Dyck.69 Sketches after Titian. From drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck . 71 Studies of Heads. From a drawing in the Duke of Devonshire’s collection at Chatsworth . 72 Sketches after Titian. From drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck 73 Studies of Heads. From a drawing in the Duke of Devonshire’s collection at Chatsworth . . 74 Sketches after Titian. From drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck 75 Pen-and-ink Sketches. From a drawing in the Duke of Devonshire’s collection at Chatsworth. . 76 Sketches after Titian. From drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck . -77 Studies of Heads. From drawings in the Duke of Devonshire’s collection.78 Head of the Virgin. From a drawing in the Mar¬ quis de Chennevifcres’ collection . . .81 Francis Snyders, painter. After the original etching by Van Dyck.82 The Child Jesus standing on the Globe. From a drawing in the Albertina collection at Vienna . 87 Study for Jesus crowned with Thorns. From a drawing in the Dresden Gallery . . -91 Head of a Child. From a drawing in the Louvre 93 A Meeting of Magistrates. Fragment of a picture intended for the Town Hall at Brussels. From a bistre sketch in M. Armand’s collection . 97 Christ and the Man Sick of the Palsy. From a drawing in the Albertina collection at Vienna 99 Signatures on two of Van Dyck’s pictures at the Hague Museum.101 The Virgin at the Foot of the Cross. From a draw¬ ing in the British Museum . . . .109 The Trinity adored by a Nun. From a drawing in the collection of H.R.H. the Due d’Aumale 111 The Wedding of the Child Jesus and St. Rosalie. From a drawing in the Louvre . . .113 ■page Page 7 8 13 17 29 3 1 33 37 40 4i 43 44 45 53 55 56 63 XIV List of Illustrations i?i the Lext The Child Jesus blessing St. John. From a drawing in the British Museum . ... . The Virgin, with Donors. From the engraving by M. Bertinot, after the picture in the Louvre ........ The Child Jesus blessing St. Jerome. From a draw¬ ing in the Albertina collection at Vienna . The Child Jesus blessing St. Jerome. From a draw¬ ing in the Albertina collection at Vienna Simon de Vos, painter. From a drawing in the Louvre. Francis Franck, painter. After the etching by Van Dyck . Lucas Vorsterman, engraver. After the etching by Van Dyck. Robert Van Voerst, engraver. From a drawing in the Louvre. Anthony Cornelissen. From a drawing in M. Benjamin Fillon’s collection .... Deodorus Van Tulden , professor at Louvain. From a drawing in the Louvre Facsimile oj the Frontispiece oj the Iconography. Published by Giles Hendricx .... John Snellincx, painter. From a drawing in the Louvre. John Snellincx, painter. After the etching by Van Dyck. Gerard Seghers, painter. From the engraving by Paul Pontius after Van Dyck .... John Van Kessel, painter. From a drawing in M. Etienne Arago’s collection Martin Ryckaert, painter. From the engraving by Jacob Neefs after Van Dyck Study oj Drapery. From a drawing in the Louvre Study oj Drapery. From a drawing in the Louvre Charity. From a drawing in the Louvre Facsimile oj a Receipt in Van Dyck’s autograph Actieon changed to a Stag. From a drawing in the Louvre ........ Samson and Delilah. After the picture in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna .... Satyr squeezing a Bunch oj Grapes. From a draw¬ ing in the Weimar Gallery .... The Continence oj Scipio. From a drawing in the Louvre. Peace, an Allegorical Composition. From a drawing in rife "Louvre.165 Christ bearing His Cross. From a drawing in the Baron de Beurnonville’s collection . .167 Landscape Study. From a drawing in the British Museum. I 7° Head of a Man. From a drawing in the Albertina collection at Vienna. 1 7 1 Head of a Man. From a drawing in the Louvre . 173 The Virgin, the Child Jesus, and a Saint. From a drawing in the Marquis de Chennevieres’ col¬ lection . . . • • • • J 7S English Heralds at-Arms. From a draw ing in the Albertina collection at Vienna . • • J 79 Sir Kene/m Digly. From a drawing in the Al¬ bertina collection at Vienna . . ■ .181 Head of a Man. From a drawing in the Louvre . 183 The Three Children of Charles I. After the study in the Louvre.187 Head of a Man . From a drawing in the Dresden Gallery. J 95 Studies of Horses. From a drawing in the British Museum ....■••• ! 9 ^ Studies of Female Figures. From a drawing in the Louvre 201 Mythological Subject. From a drawing in the Louvre 207 Philip, Earl of Pembroke. From the engraving by Lombart after Van Dyck . . • -213 Gaspard Gevariius, jurisconsult. From a drawing in the Albertina collection at Vienna • • 219 Maria Ruthven. From the engraving by Bolswert after Van Dyck.225 Sir Inigo Jones. From the engraving by Robert Van Voerst after Van Dyck .... 229 Autograph Signature of Van Dyck . - -234 Portrait of a Man. After the picture in M. Edouard Andre’s collection . . • -237 Studies of Female Figures. From a drawing in the British Museum.245 Christ. From a drawing in the Louvre . .247 Fauns and Nymphs. From the engraving by the Comte de Caylus. 2 & l Headpiece from the border of a tapestry from the Royal works at Mortlake, executed under Charles 1. 2<5 3 U5 ”7 122 123 124 I2 5 127 129 J 3 1 135 136 i37 139 141 M 3 i45 147 149 i5 2 157 159 161 163 PART THE FIRST VAN DYCK’S FAMILY—VAN DYCK UNDER VAN BALEN AND RUBENS—HIS EARLY WORK Anthony Van Dyck was born at Antwerp on March 22nd, 1599, in a house at no great distance from the Town Hall, having for its sign Den Bei~e?ida?is , the Bears’ Dance. And thus our artist’s family dwelt in the heart of the ancient city, where, moreover, they had been established for many generations, contrary to the asser¬ tions of the older biographers. According to these authors, Anthony’s father was a native of Bois-le-Duc, and lived for some time in that city, where he followed the calling of a painter on glass. Nothing could be more incorrect; in fact, the Antwerp Cathedral used to contain a funeral inscription recording in precise terms that the artist’s grandfather, after years of business in the town, died there on March 3rd, 1580. He bore the same Christian name as his grandson, Anthony. His wife, Cornelia Pruystinck, survived him eleven years, and ended her days in the month of November, 1591- Their son, Francis Van Dyck, followed the paternal career. By means of his work and industry he achieved a certain competence, if not a fortune, and attained Van Dyck's Family dignities that are generally reserved for the richest and most eminent of the burgher class. In this manner he came to be entrusted with the office of Director of the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament in the cathedral. Although Anthony Van Dyck’s ancestors are not known beyond the second generation, authentic testimony shows that the name of Van Dyck was very common at Antwerp from the commencement ot the sixteenth century. No less than ten artists are quoted as being inscribed under this name on the registers of the guild or corporation of St. Luke. It may be that none of these obscure craftsmen, whose memory has only been saved from oblivion by a brief mention in the Liggeren , belonged to the family of the painter whose history we are relating. Did these forgotten predecessors of Rubens even deserve the title of artists? Barely do two of them seem to rise a little above the level of mediocrity. The first, Peter Van Dyck, received as a master in 1497, occupied a certain position; for youths aspiring to be master-painters in their turn came to him for advice, and between 1505 and 1521 he successively admitted four pupils to his painting-room. The other, described in the Liggeren by the name of Tuenken or Antoni Van Dyck, entered the corporation in 1556. I his was exactly the period in which our hero’s grandfather lived and worked at Antwerp. Nevertheless, in spite of the identity of name, in spite of the coincidence of dates, it seems difficult to identify the master-painter of 1556 with the worthy burgher who died in 1580. Had the latter dabbled in painting, his epitaph would not have omitted to mention this detail, as one glorious for his memory. Francis Van Dyck, our artist’s father, was born, we presume, about 1560, and was married for the first time in 1587. On October 4th, at one of the altars of the cathedral, an honour very properly paid to the pious Director of the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, he espoused Mary Comperis, by whom he had only one son, called John. This child died soon after its birth, on July 15th, 1589. On the 28th of the same month Mary Comperis followed her son to the grave. The Fleming does not take kindly to widowhood: of this the history of artists furnishes many proofs. Seven months atter the loss of his first wife, on February 6th, 1590, Francis led to the altar a second 3 Van Dyck's Family spouse, Mary Cupers or Cuypers. This union was more prosperous than the first. Between 1590 and April 16th, 1607, when she died, Mary Cuypers brought twelve children into the world. Anthony was the seventh. In order not to interrupt the biography or the artist, we will first exhaust all the particulars that are known about his family, especially about his brothers and sisters. The first child of Francis Van Dyck and Mary Cuypers was a daughter. Catherine Van Dyck was born on October 18th, 1590, and on May 2nd, 1610, married an Antwerp notary of the name of Adrian Diercx. She had many children, and survived her brother Anthony. Three other sisters—Cornelia, Susanna, and Elizabeth, the last of all—have left but a vague memory. At an early age they entered the beguinage of their native city, and passed a peaceful life absorbed in the practice of religious devotions. The fine print by Peter de Jode, after the picture of Saijit Augustine in Ecstasy , was dedicated by Anthony to the “ worthy and virtuous Dame Susanna Van Dyck, a beguine at Antwerp, his very dear sister.” A fifth daughter, Anne Van Dyck, sometimes called Gertrude, is better known. Born in 1601, she entered at the age of seventeen the Convent of Regular Canonesses of the Order of St. Augustine, at Woestmunster in Flanders. About 1626 she returned to Antwerp to a house belonging to the same Order, known by the name of the Facons Convent, where she died thirty years later. As a proof of his affection for his sister Anne, Anthony dedicated to her the print of Christ lying dead upon His mother’s knees, engraved by Paul Pontius after the painting in the beguine convent at Antwerp. Moreover, he painted a portrait of this favourite sister, and presented it to the Facons Convent, where this picture was long preserved. Counsellor Mols saw this picture in the last century; his evidence deserves to be quoted: “ In the Facons Convent we see the portrait of this nun painted by her brother’s hand. She is represented as being about twenty-four or twenty-five years old. She was a beautiful woman. ... A wretched dauber entirely ruined this picture. As it was in a very bad condition, he undertook to restore it, and succeeded in ruining it. There is no trace of Van Dyck’s brush to 4 Van Dyck's Family be perceived in it.” The same author has certain references that are worth preserving: “But, on the other hand, there is to be seen in the same room the portrait of a Regular Canon, Rector ot this house, which is also by the hand of Van Dyck, and which the nuns took care not to entrust to that dauber’s hand when they had seen the other brought to the plight in which it is at this day. I his portrait, although not one of Van Dyck’s finest, is painted with facility, and is a very good likeness. The Prioress assured me that there was formerly in the convent another picture by Van Dyck, representing Christ dead upon the Virgin’s knees, and that the tradition was that it had perished at the burning of the convent some hundred years ago/’ The only brother of Anthony whose memory is worth preserving was born in 1605. He bore the name of Theodore. Destined from his childhood, like the greater number of his sisters, for a religious life, he made his profession in the Order of the Premonstrants at the age of twenty, and took orders four years later. After attaining the degree of a Bachelor of Divinity, he at first resided in his native city as coadjutor in the parish of St. Michael. He bore, as do all the members of the Order of Premonstrants, the title of Canon. After having filled various offices, notably that of cellarer, he became a pro¬ fessor of theology. He was appointed vicar and afterwards curate of the parish of Minderhout, and in this spot passed the last twenty-eight years of his life. The epitaph in which these biographical details are preserved furthermore relates that Theodore Van Dyck, or the Reve¬ rend Brother Waltmann, died of an asthma on February 25th, 1668. As a proof of his affection for his younger brother, Anthony dedicated to him one of the finest engravings of his work, representing a Holy Family. He took the pains, according to Mariette, personally to make a finished drawing from his picture, in order to facilitate Bolswert’s task. The foregoing details throw a half light into the peaceful, honest home, absorbed in devotional exercises, in which our artist spent the early years of his existence. His brothers and sisters found themselves at an early age insensibly shaping for a religious life. It must not be concluded from this that the father of the family was a fanatic who opposed an inflexible will to the aspirations ot his children. He rather Va?i Dyck^s Family 5 appears to us in the light of a gentle, sober-minded tradesman, devoting to the practice of a somewhat narrow piety all the time left to him by his professional occupations. Insensible to the mundane recreations that make the charm and the joy of life, unacquainted with the poetry of art or the attractions of literature, 1 he led the majority of his children to the accomplishment of his dearest wish, unforced, and merely as the result of quiet submission. If, at a later date, he thought of charging Anthony, then already renowned, to acquit himself of a debt of gratitude towards the Dominican Convent at Antwerp, this in no way proves that he ever sought to influence his son’s vocation. Probably the Dominicans had seconded Francis Van Dyck in the fulfilment of his paternal duties when he was left entrusted with the care of a numerous family; the leanings of most of his daughters tend to support this conjecture. He therefore thought it but natural that his son should acquit the debts of his kindred. It was the last injunction he gave him when dying, a final proof of the religious preoccupation of his whole life. It was assuredly not to his father, absorbed by the duties of a narrow and monotonous life, that our artist owed the first lessons which left their ineffaceable trace behind. All the historians agree that from his earliest youth he gave unequivocal signs of wondrously endowed genius. Who, then, had transmitted this Divine spark to him ? Who was able to arouse in his budding intelligence the first aspirations towards the ideal ? Tradition relates that Mary Cuypers excelled in portraying, on gold or silk flowers, animals, and even human figures. It is. added that, during the last months preceding the birth of her seventh child, Anthony’s mother occupied her leisure in tracing with the needle, on the border of a chimney mantel, the adventure of the chaste Susanna. Whether we admit or deny the authenticity of this statement, one point is certain : that Mary Cuypers left among her contemporaries the reputation of a person of distinction, endowed with exceeding cleverness in those feminine works which demand not only patience but a refined taste and an 1 Nevertheless, according to documents discovered by M. Van den Branden, Francis Van Dyck seems to have possessed some works of art and a fine harpsichord by Ruckers. May it not have been Mary Cuypers who introduced these profane objects into his austere abode ? Van Dyck under Van Balen innate disposition for things artistic. And it may be admitted that his mother’s mind, character, and example exercised an ineffaceable influence upon our artist’s whole life. Mary Cuypers, then, was Anthony Van Dyck’s first preceptress in the domain of art. Henry Van Balen and Rubens himself come only in the second place. They showed him all that can be taught, but it was his mother who transmitted to him the exquisite delicacy and the distinction which give to the work of his brush its essential character, an exquisite and unrivalled charm. Van Dyck s genius, like his person, is marked by a certain femininity; in this lies his particular originality, in this the master quality which assures his glory and his immortality. And this quality he owes, for the greatest part, to the maternal influence. Mary Cuypers died in 1607, after giving birth to her twelfth child. Anthony was approaching his eighth year: he continued to live for two or three years in his father’s house, attending school, frequenting church. These early habits were not without their use to the artist. They brought him into relation with the clergy of the parishes and convents. They prepared for him much valuable protection in the world of priests and monks among whom his father dwelt. Turn over the list of Van Dyck’s portraits, and you will be struck by the number of religious personages whose features he has reproduced : bishops, abbots, Jesuits sit to him in turn, and take their places in this living gallery. Does not their presence among the statesmen, philosophers, and painters tend to show that the author of these portraits kept up his old and intimate relations with his sitters ? In the course of the year 1610—we owe the confirmation of this date to the recent discoveries of M. Van den Branden—Anthony Van Dyck was received as an apprentice in the studio of the painter Henry Van Balen. The choice of a master was a fortunate one. It happened that Rubens, who had returned from Italy in the autumn of 1608, had at first been received by his fellow-citizens with a certain degree of coldness. He was not long in making them over¬ come this first hostile feeling ; but at that time his reputation had not yet triumphed over the calumnies of the envious, and his powers of teaching had not yet acquired the world-wide reputation which he was before long to achieve. The question, in any case, remains whether so Vcui. Dyck under Va?i Bale?i 7 great a master would have consented to instruct a child of only ten years of age in the first principles of art. Henry Van Balen, on the other hand, had delivered his proofs ; he was looked upon as one of the best painters of his time. The date of his birth has been quite recently established; he was born in 1575. Following the general custom, alter commencing at Antwerp in the studio of Adam Van Noort, he spent long years in Italy studying the masters of the Renaissance and the masterpieces of antiquity. A fervent Adam Van Noort, Painter. After the original etching by Van Dyck. admirer of the old schools, vetustatis cultor , as he is described in the legend placed beneath his portrait in the engraving by Paul Pontius, he had acquired a distinguished place among his contemporaries. Whether peopling with miniature figures the gentle landscapes of “Velvet” Breughel the Elder, or covering religious or mythological scenes with groups of nude children of an exquisite gracefulness, he gave equal pleasure by the correctness of his drawing and the delicacy of his colouring. His somewhat frigid compositions doubtless lack those stronger qualities which proclaim the master; but neither do they display any 8 Van Dyck under Van Balen startling defects. How many reputations have no more valid starting- point! The glory of the pupil appears to some extent to have damaged the reputation of the master. The pictures by Van Balen which we meet with in the German galleries, notably at Vienna and Dresden, seem to us to deserve some esteem. They contain figures of children painted with singular grace and with great delicacy of tone. Note well this detail. We know with what grace Van Dyck endowed the little angels with which he loved to enliven his religious pictures, either grouping Henry Van Balen, Painter. Engraved by Paul Pontius, after Van Dyck. them into joyous rondos to refresh the eyes of the Child Jesus, or dispersing them among the clouds, bearing musical instruments. If his talent retained any trace of the lessons and tastes of his first master, it is assuredly to be found in this marked predilection for seductive child¬ hood. Nor could Van Balen’s teaching, in other respects, have exercised any but the most salutary influence on a young and very impressionable mind, rich in natural gilts. He joined to his practical qualities a well-developed taste for study and for the comparison of the varied manifestations of art. He had a keen sense of the splendours of antiquity, as we have Van Dyck under Ruben. 9 already stated; and his pupil portrayed him later with his hands resting upon a Roman bust which he had doubtless seen many a time in a corner of the painting-room in which were spent his first years of study. Perhaps Van Balen may be described as at once a meritorious artist and a distinguished connoisseur. These diffident lessons were doubtless to be very speedily effaced by the more substantial, the more invigorating teaching of Rubens. In any case, they were not of a nature to exercise any regrettable influence upon the mind of a beginner. But soon Rubens’ reputation commenced to spread in Flanders ; from all sides young men who aspired to walk in his footsteps flocked to his painting-room ; painters already celebrated, the master’s former fellow-pupils, older men than he, solicited the honour of profiting by his advice, of working under his direction. His marriage with Isabella Brandt, which was celebrated in 1609, had definitely fixed the great artist at Antwerp. Soon after he built himself the house and painting-room which were to become the meeting-place of all the celebrities of the country, the nursery of the new Flemish school. During the time when the head of the Antwerp school was completing his years of apprenticeship in Italy, the Flemish school was undergoing a crisis on which it is well that we should say a few words. Fashion, in imposing upon the descendants of the old, candid masters of the fifteenth century the cult and imitation of the Italian painters, had exposed the art of the North to one of the most serious risks that had ever threatened it. Abandoning the direct study of nature, the careful observation of characteristic forms and features presented by reality, in order to throw themselves into the pursuit of a conventional ideal, the best artists of the sixteenth century embarked on a road without outlet. The school of Van Orley, Franck, and Otto Venius had substituted the pallid make- believe of Italian work for the personal, living inspiration of Van Eyck, Van der Weyden, Bout, and Mending. The Flemish temperament refused to accommodate itself to this search after a conventional type. Nevertheless, it lacked the courage to break brusquely with the public infatuation, with the universal prejudice. IO Van Dych^ under Rubens Every Brussels or Antwerp artist was therefore compelled to journey to Italy and mould his talent upon the example of the artists in fashion. It involved the abdication of all individuality, but it was the necessary condition of success. And in this way the most gifted minds dragged themselves wretchedly in the track of the painters of the Italian decadence, and the school of the North had come to present a mere enfeebled reflection of the artists of the South. What remedy was it possible to oppose to this fatal influence ? To go back to the fountain-head, to take up art at the point where it had been left by the great naturalists of the fifteenth century, was not to be thought of. Any attempt in this direction would have failed miserably. The reformer must needs take into account the new aspirations, the laws revealed by Italy, while at the same time accom¬ modating these laws to the Flemish character ; he must give the ideal its due without neglecting the exigencies of nature and reality. This is the programme which it was Rubens’ glory to realise. None but a genius so personal as his would have been able to bring about a reaction against the baneful influence of the Southern schools, to take from this foreign art only that which agreed with the temperament of the nations of the North, and thus effect the alliance between the new idealism and the old naturalism. When he returned to Italy, the political situation of Flanders lent itself marvellously well to the success of a reform of this kind. After the intestine struggles and violence engendered by the religious disputes, there followed a period of comparative calm and of reparation. The despotic sway of the Duke of Alba and his earlier successors had made way for the gentler administration of the Archduke Albert and for that of his wife, the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, who remained sole governor of the Netherlands after her husband’s death. It was long since the Flemish provinces had known so paternal, so tolerant a govern¬ ment. The country began to recover from its long sufferings; wounds closed up little by little ; prosperity revived. Yet the continuance of the war with the United Provinces remained a cause of disquietude and impoverishment; but in 1607, at the very moment when Rubens was preparing to return to Flanders, an armistice was signed, soon to be followed by a twelve years’ truce, and the Flemings became free to V i an Dyck^ under Rubens 11 devote all their energies to the development of manufacture, commerce, and the other arts of peace. In the meanwhile Rubens established himself at Antwerp, and at the commencement of the year 1611 built a house with a vast and sumptuous painting-room. He had barely been two years in the country, and already his reputation had assumed such proportions that he found himself obliged to refuse numbers of pupils who came from all sides to solicit the honour of working under his guidance. “ I may tell you in very truth and without the least exaggeration,” he wrote on May nth, 1611, to Jacques de Bie the engraver, “that I have already refused more than a hundred pupils, some of them my own relations and some my wife’s, and that I have offended a large number of my best friends.” And yet it was into this inaccessible painting-room that Anthony Van Dyck aspired to enter. No doubt among those who came to present themselves for examination the master was able to discriminate between the youths who displayed a serious disposition and the idle amateurs who have at all times loved from curiosity to frequent the studios of celebrated artists. The latter found him inaccessible; but for aspirants endowed with a real vocation he reserved a different reception. He soon recognised the natural gifts of young Van Dyck, and did not delay in admitting him. What was the exact date of this important event ? The old historians assert that Anthony spent two years with Van Balen, and then passed in 1612 into Rubens’ studio, where he remained at least six years. Many learned Antwerpians, M. Van den Branden in particular, express a doubt as to Van Dyck’s having entered with Rubens as a pupil. According to them he was simply a collaborator employed by the head of the school in his great undertakings, and had on this account obtained permission to place his easel and to work at his leisure in a corner of the master’s vast painting-room. To believe this would be to exaggerate the importance of some trifling details recently discovered. We prefer to keep to the tradition which has always made Van Dyck a pupil of Rubens. We know that the painter of the Medici Gallery at an early date adopted the habit of entrusting the rough draught of his pictures to his disciples. So soon as the composition had been outlined by the cleverer among them, and the canvas entirely covered, the master came upon Van Dyck under Rubens the scene, and in a certain number of hours or days, according to circumstances, set the finishing touches to the work. This expeditious method enabled him to satisfy the demands that overwhelmed him from all sides. The pupils also found their advantage in it; nor could they better penetrate their instructor’s secrets than in seeking to imitate as closely as possible the studies which served them as models. It must be allowed that this system was not free from danger for the painter who was reduced to becoming the interpreter of so powerful an originality. Nevertheless, a man like Rubens would never have dreamt of expecting a servile imitation of his methods and results. He always left his assistants a certain liberty of manner. And so Anthony Van Dyck, together with his comrades, spent several years in draughting Rubens’ compositions,—an excellent practice, which initiated him into the resources of that marvellous execution. He thus learnt to sketch background in lightly, to cover shadows with a thin layer of colour, in order to preserve their depth and transparency, while the light portions, modelled in full colour, were made to stand out by means of vigorous impasto. Of Anthony’s work before the age when he resumed his whole independence, after his inscription on the registers of the Society of St. Luke, nothing exact is known. One single memory of this period has been preserved. We refer to an anecdote which has often been called into question, but which must nevertheless be founded upon fact. As it shows the esteem with which the young artist was able to inspire his rivals, it is well to recall it, while suppressing the improbable or over-elaborate developments which have been added to the story by biographers in quest of piquant details. We will follow the narrative of Mariette, who is a circumspect guide, and who, moreover, has taken the precaution of quoting his authorities and informing us that he received his version from Edelinck the engraver, who himself picked it up in his childhood in Antwerp. After working assiduously lor a great part of the day, Rubens was accustomed to mount one of the fine horses constantly kept in his stables, and used alternately as models and saddle-horses. He would ride out alone into the country for a few hours, following the banks of the Scheldt. This was his favourite recreation, his most reposeful moment. One day his Va?i Dyck under Rubens rushed in with the turbulence of youth, and one of the foremost intruders, pushed on from behind by his comrades, defaced an important portion of the painting, which was still wet. This is where Descamps endeavours to pupils, taking advantage of his absence, persuaded his old serving-man to admit them into the painting-room where the master always worked alone. A half-finished picture stood there. The door was hardly opened when all Peter Paul Rubens, Painter. Engraved by Paul Pontius, after Van Dyck. Van Dyck under Rubens 14 embellish the legend. He gravely affirms that the picture upon which Rubens was then at work was none other than the famous Descent from the Cross , in the cathedral at Antwerp; he even adds that it was Mary Magdalen’s head, one of the most celebrated portions of that fine canvas, which was the victim of the accident. According to Mariette’s version, the incomplete picture was the Virgin adored by the Saints , of the high altar of the Church of the Augustinians; and it would seem that the portion damaged by the indiscreet visitors was the nude breast of St. Sebastian. How would the master take it ? How would he punish this prank ? The least he would do would be to expel them. One of the culprits timidly suggested that they should at any rate endeavour to hide the mischief. Let one of them devote himself and try to paint over the damaged part. The proposal was echoed, and Anthony Van Dyck was unanimously chosen by his comrades as the best able to succeed in so hazardous an attempt. He resisted; they refused to listen to him, and he set to work. Some authors add that Rubens did not at first notice the retouching ; but we think it safe to believe those who declare that the next morning he, at the first glance, perceived that a strange hand had intervened, exacted a complete account of the escapade, and then, after obtaining a frank confession, far from growing angry with the foolhardy one who had tried to put him on the wrong scent, complimented him upon the manner in which he had carried out his attempt. This story can evidently not have been invented in every detail by the biographers; it rests upon a true and positive fact. Moreover, Mariette’s corroboration lends a certain weight to it. The latter relies upon an old local tradition which is worthy of serious consideration, since all that happened in so busily frequented a place as Rubens’ painting- room was bound to become the object of the gossip of the whole town. At that time this painting-room brought together not only young men at the outset of their career, but also painters at the height of their talent and reputation. These came, free from false shame, to profit by the teaching and advice of their illustrious rival. Among them worked Jacob Jordaens, who was a little older than Van Dyck, and Francis Snyders, who was almost the same age as their common master. David V i an Dyck under Rubens 15 Teniers, born in 1610, came later, when Anthony was on the road to Italy. Besides these illustrious names there crowds a throng of distinguished artists : Erasmus Quellyn the Elder, Gaspard de Crayer, John Van den Hoeck, Theodore Van Thulden, Abraham Van Diepenbecke, Justus Van Egmont, Peter Van Mol, some of the same age as Van Dyck, others younger. Rubens’ school was not recruited only among figure or historical painters; there were several landscape painters among them : John Wildens, Lucas Van Uden, James Foucquieres, Deodatus Van der Mont or Del monte, and many others with whom our artist preserved the most cordial relations, and who were destined to find a place later on in that immortal gallery of the Antwerp painters of the grand period. This life in common, these daily relations with the quickest intelligences, under the guidance of a man who was not contented with being a great artist, but who took a lively interest in science, history, archeology, in all the varied manifestations of human genius,—all these exceptional conditions were calculated marvellously to develop the faculties of the youths admitted into this circle. They had constantly before their eyes the admirable collection of Italian masters which Rubens had brought back from his travels. These included the works of the greatest painters. Titian was there with all his school, with the Bassani, II Palma, Tintoretto, and Paul Veronese. There were, moreover, pictures by Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci; but the number of Venetians clearly showed the preference of the master of the house. Antiquity also was worthily represented in this Pantheon whose arrangement had been borrowed from the most celebrated of the buildings of Ancient Rome. Recesses filled with classical statuary, columns surmounted by Roman busts, bas-reliefs fitted into the walls adorned the space left between the pictures, and showed that Rubens was insensible to no single method of expression in art. With what noble and profound dissertations must the sight of these masterpieces have inspired the learned scholars, the delicate and refined lovers of art who habitually frequented this marvellous collection! What counsels, what examples for the young men hanging on those eloquent lips, eager to gather the least words from those illustrious representatives of art and science ! And what confidence, what pride must have been i6 Van Dych^ under Rubens inspired by that revered master, whom they saw listened to with deference and treated with respect by men of the loftiest birth, the highest official eminence, the most famous erudition ! Never did artist, in Flanders at least, hold so great a position among his contemporaries. Was not this spectacle calculated to fire young minds, to inspire each beginner with an ardent passion for the art which could raise to so high an eminence and so rich a fortune a man who had issued , from the modest ranks of the middle-class ? Van Dyck’s gentle manners, prepossessing appearance, and rapid progress had won all Rubens’ sympathies. Nor was it long before a frank and solid friendship brought the two artists together. The jealousy which the master is said to have entertained of his pupil s rising talent may be put aside as fabulous; and no more faith should be given to the romance which attributes to Anthony a character vile enough to have abused the cordial hospitality which he received in Rubens’ household. These are wretched calumnies which former biographers wrongfully invented, or too readily accepted. Meanwhile the time came to tarn these invaluable lessons to profit. Young Van Dyck began by going through the formality incumbent upon all of his profession, and obtained his admission into the Guild of St. Luke. He paid his fees within the earlier months of 1618, namely, 23 florins on February nth, and 15 florins on July 17th. Thenceforth he had the right fearlessly to follow his art. He had only to await or provoke an occasion to distinguish himself. In the Church of St. Paul, formerly the Church of the Dominicans, at Antwerp, may be seen a picture which is accepted as one of Anthony’s first works. It represents Jesus bearing His Cross. We are not told what impression was made by this first essay. The chroniclers do not inform us whether it aroused any esteem for the artist’s talent among his contemporaries. Nowadays we judge it coldly, and it appears to be not free from defects. Moreover, it is hung under the most unfavourable conditions, much too high and in a bad light; and one has to examine it long and attentively in order to distinguish the expression of the faces and the details of the execution. Surely the first known picture of such an artist as Van Dyck ought to hang as a precious relic on the walls of the gallery of his native city, Van Dyck's Early Work 17 where it might at least be seen under more advantageous circum¬ stances, and in a better light. Gaspard de Crayer, Painter. From a drawing in M. Dutuit’s Collection. Many details in this picture betray the artist’s youth and in¬ experience. While the Virgin, on the left, presents an insignificant profile against the dark background, an executioner, through his 18 Van Dyck's Early IVork, strained attitude, his gestures of exaggerated violence, attracts all the attention, to the great detriment of the figure of Christ crawling on hands and knees in the background. And yet the head of the Divine Martyr has a certain dignity, the artist having set himself to idealise the features with tolerable success. There is no need to lay stress upon the faults of composition in this religious painting, in which appear those secondary figures which so often in Van Dyck’s pictures usurp the first place. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that the colouring is not lacking in power. The nude torso of the executioner in the foreground stands out vigorously against the rather opaque background, filled with a confu¬ sion of soldiers and other supernumeraries. The fact that a magnificent picture by Jordaens hangs close by does much to obscure the first work of his rival. It was for the Dominican Convent that our artist, on his return from Italy, and in obedience to his father’s dying wish, painted the Christ on the Cross between St. Dominic and St. Catherine which hangs in the Antwerp Gallery. We have just said that his first picture was painted for the Dominicans. It would be strange if this were a mere chance coincidence, and it seems quite natural to suppose that it was his family’s old-established relations with the regular and seculai clergy of the city which had procured this first windfall tor the young artist. May not these relations also have influenced the wording of the document in which Van Dyck appeared for the first time as an artist ot recognised merit, and as the most gifted and most cunning pupil of the head of the Antwerp school? In the contract entered into on March 29th, 1620, between Peter Paul Rubens of the one part and Father Tirinus, Superior of the professed house of the Society of Jesus, of the other, of which the text was recovered by Mols in the last century, and published by Baron Reiffenberg, the name of Anthony Van Dyck appears twice. These two paragraphs may be quoted verbatim. Article 2 contains this clause : “ Master Rubens shall with his own hands make the drawings, sketches on a reduced scale, of these thirty- nine pieces, and cause them to be carried out in large size by Van Dyck, V i an Dyck's Early Work r 9 in addition to other of his disciples, as may be required by the nature of the subjects and the position of the pictures.” The seventh and last paragraph is yet more honourable for the pupil. Its tenor is: “ The said Father Superior shall agree, at an opportune time and place, with the aforesaid Master Van Dyck, for one of the pictures for the four small altars of the aforesaid church.” This engagement was fulfilled, and we shall see later that Anthony painted two pictures for the Jesuit Church. They are now at Vienna. Suffice it for the moment to state that Van Dyck was already considered as the first and most distinguished of Rubens’ pupils. Alone among all his rivals, he is particularly indicated as having to take the largest part in the execution of the paintings, and this in spite of the fact that such painters as Jordaens, Quellyn, Van Thulden, Diepenbecke, and Van Egmont were not to be despised. This work doubdess kept him occupied during many months. It was a question of a series of thirty-nine compositions recording the principal facts in the history of the Company of Jesus. The canvases for the most part attained enormous dimensions, being thirteen to sixteen feet in height by thirteen in width. Any other but Rubens would have recoiled before such an undertaking. The immensity of the task may be judged by the three pictures preserved to this day in the Rubens’ Room in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna, representing the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin , St. Ignatius of Loyola delivering Me?i possessed , and St. Francis Xavier working Miracles in the Indies. The colossal decorations of the Jesuit Church were totally destroyed by fire in 1718, with the exception of the pictures preserved at the Belvedere and of a fourth canvas representing the Child Jesus between Mary and St. Joseph. The latter only escaped the fire to disappear some years later without the exact period of its loss being known. Fortunately a Dutch painter, Jacob de Wit, had the happy inspiration to copy all the subjects of this vast series. After their destruction he resolved to perpetuate in engraving the memory of this grand work. Doubtless he placed too much reliance in his strength, for he did not succeed in accomplishing one half of his task. Jacob de Wit had finished but ten etchings when John Punt, an Amsterdam engraver, undertook in 1751 to continue the work, and succeeded in bringing it 20 Van Dyck's Early JVork to a conclusion. The whole comprises thirty-six subjects, which used to adorn the upper and lower galleries of the church. The three altar- pieces had been etched by De Wit. Let us add, so that nothing may be omitted, that Preisler, a German, has reproduced half of the com¬ positions engraved by Punt. Never did Rubens undertake a work of greater magnitude. The Medici Gallery itself does not approach the dimensions of the series painted for the Jesuit Church. The three immense canvases at the Belvedere leave the spectator astounded at the fertile invention and rapid execution necessary to cover those vast spaces in a few months. The master, it is true, was only bound by his agreement to execute the sketches. Consequently the yet existing canvases are in a great measure the work of his pupils, perhaps of Van Dyck ; but how can we recognise and determine each one’s share in the incomplete results of this collaboration ? Even if one possessed the certainty that the Vienna pictures had been specially entrusted to Van Dyck’s growing talent, how could one distinguish the particular character, the traces of his brush in a work entirely inspired by Rubens, and finished, completed, that is to say, transformed, by him ? In a partnership of this kind the work of the assistant goes for very little, especially in the presence of so powerful a personality. It seems to us, therefore, superfluous to seek whether Van Dyck worked on the great canvases of Vienna. The terms of the contract leave no doubt as to his actual collaboration : there all certainty ceases. This work did not absorb his whole time. He painted many important pictures before his departure for Italy, that is to say, before the end of 1621. During the months immediately preceding this journey he had to display great energy in order to satisfy the numerous demands of the virtuosi. His reputation had by this time passed the Netherlands frontier and gained the neighbouring countries. In his excellent work on Van Dyck, Mr. Carpenter quotes a document, dated July 17th, 1620, which bears very valuable testimony to the esteem which the artist’s name already enjoyed among the English aristocracy. The letter—unsigned, it is true—is addressed to a person who occupies a great place in the history of art, namely, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. Van Dyck’s Early IVork 21 A few details on this eminent art-patron may not be considered out of place, for Lord Arundel’s exertions and persuasion eventually con¬ tributed greatly to induce Anthony Van Dyck to settle permanently in England. He thus exercised a considerable influence upon the painter’s destinies. The Earl of Arundel, as a member of the House of Howard, belonged to one of the oldest English families. He displayed at an early age a very lively and enlightened taste lor art. He purchased everywhere and on every hand the finest works of ancient or modem art. Thanks to the resources of every kind at his disposal, he rapidly formed one of the most magnificent collections that have ever existed. Before his time the taste for collecting had been looked upon as an exclusive attribute of crowned heads. None but popes and kings, princes at the most, were able to permit themselves so expensive a luxury. No private individual, before Lord Arundel, had dared to enter into rivalry on this ground with the sovereigns of Europe. The passion involved an enormous outlay. It was necessary to keep correspondents abroad, to have emissaries unceasingly travelling through Italy and Greece, to be constantly prepared to seize a bargain, to purchase entire collections for the sake of securing only the principal objects; in one word, to have at one’s disposal an almost inexhaustible fortune. Lord Arundel, possessed of immense wealth, neglected no opportunity of enriching his precious galleries. He had tried experts in his pay; he cultivated the society of distinguished artists. His diplomatic relations kept him informed of every chance discovery. He was more than once subjected to reproaches for these tastes, rare as they were in men of his station. His protection of artists excited the jealousy and aroused the murmurs of his peers, ignorant and infatuated with pride of birth. They found fault with his superciliousness, with a certain affectation of eccentricity. It matters little to us whether this noble patron of art joined certain faults of character to his rare good qualities. Such trifles do not weigh against the glorious part which Lord Arundel played in his time. It was .his example which inspired the Duke of Buckingham, and even King Charles I. himself, with the idea of those famous collections which England has to thank for her ownership of so many paintings of the first order. It was his discrimination 22 Van Dyck's Early IVork which discovered the talent of Inigo Jones. It was Lord Arundel who, while on an embassy at Prague, met Wenceslas Hollar and persuaded him to settle in London. It was he finally who, in 1620, divined the genius and future glory of Anthony Van Dyck, pressed him to come to the Court of James I., and exerted all his influence in order to attach him permanently to the King’s person. One of the many agents charged with the duty of informing the dilettante nobleman with all that happened in the world of art wrote to him, in the course of a letter giving an account of certain orders given to Rubens, as follows: “ Van Dyck lives with Rubens, and his works are beginning to be scarcely less esteemed than those of his master (e viene le sice opere stimate pocho ineno di quelle del suo maestro). He is a young man of twenty-one ; his parents are persons of considerable property in this city ; it will be difficult therefore to induce him to remove, especially as he must perceive the rapid fortune which Rubens is amassing.” In consequence of this advice, Lord Arundel tried the effect of a direct communication. Van Dyck was flattered at being sought out by one of the greatest personages in England, by the eminent virtuoso whom Rubens had called the evangelist of the world of art, and seems to have yielded to the noble Earl’s solicitations. At least this is the conclusion which one may draw from an entry discovered by Carpenter in the Order Books of the Exchequer, which runs as follows :— Jovis XXVI of February 1620-1 By Order dated XVI of Feb v 1620 Anthony Vandike To Anthony Vandike the some of one hundred pounds by way of reward in reward for for special! service by him pformed for his Ma tie without accompt imprest Service. or other charge to be sett uppon him for the same or for anie part thereof. The enigmatical wording of this paragraph has aroused the doubt of more than one biographer. Does it really refer to Rubens’ pupil ? In virtue of what service would he have received so important a gift? To tell the truth, in spite of the formal wording of the account, we hesitated long before admitting the genuineness of this first journey, surrounded by so many mysterious circumstances. But all scruples must give way before a positive proof; and this proof we are in a position to supply. The Earl of Arundel kept up a constant correspondence with Sir Dudley Van Dyck's Early Work 23 Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague, and employed him in purchasing pictures. Sir Dudley, who was acquainted with all the artists of the Netherlands, was in a better position than any other successfully to negotiate with a view of attracting Van Dyck to England. A letter dated Antwerp, November 25th, 1620, addressed by Toby Matthew to Sir Dudley Carleton, contains this postscript, whose meaning is entirely free from ambiguity : ££ Your L p will have heard how Van Dike his [Rubens’] famous Allieno is gone into England, and y l the Kinge hath given him a pension of ^100 p r ann.” 1 What more positive confirmation could be desired of the facts revealed by Carpenter ? It puts an end to all uncertainty. In the month of November, 1620, at latest on the 25th, the artist crossed the Channel, assured of Lord Arundel’s protection. He was presented at Court and warmly patronised in high places ; receiving, barely three months after his arrival, a present of one hundred pounds — no inconsiderable sum for that period, especially when we remember the traveller’s age. Nor is this all. If we are ignorant of the motives which recalled him to his native country, we at least know the exact date of his return, which is preserved in the following document:— Lord Steward Lord Chamberlien Lord Arundell and Bp. Winton M r Seer. Calvert M r of the Wards Feb. 28, 1620-1 A passe for Anthonie van Dyck gent, his Ma lies Servaunt to travaile for 8 Months he havinge obtayned his Ma lies leave in that behalf As was sygnifyed by the E of Arundell Without stopping to notice the singular wording of this passport, it will be observed that the King of England seems to refuse the artist a definite leave of absence. He is allowed to leave ; possibly he alleged his approaching journey to Italy; but a formal promise to return is exacted from him. He is already looked upon almost as an habitual guest at His Majesty’s table. 1 W. Noel Sainsbury. Original Unpublished Tapers Illustrative of the Life of Sir 'Peter Paul Pjtbens, etc. (London, Bradbury, 1859).—See p. 54. Mr. Sainsbury printed “his famous Allieno,” and the commentators strove in vain to understand this curious expression. It was a mere clerical error, allieno for allievo, as Mr. Max Rooses has pointed out in his history of the Antwerp school of painting, published in Flemish and translated into German. Van Dyck^s Early IVork L 24 When we collate and attentively examine the preceding documents we have the positive proof that Anthony Van Dyck made a short stay in England in the reign of James I. at the end of 1620, and that the papers discovered and printed by Carpenter do indeed apply to him. As to the works he painted during this stay, it is not easy to point to these with any certainty. His talent was obviously first of all employed in tracing the features of the King. In the St. George’s Hall at Windsor Castle there is a full-length portrait of James I., of which the head, we are assured, was painted by Van Dyck. It has been hitherto supposed that he painted this portrait ten or fifteen years later from materials furnished by Charles I. Is it not more probable that he painted it from nature during the early months of 1621? This would quite naturally explain King James’s act of munificence. Among the different portraits of the Earl of Arundel from Van Dyck’s pencil is one in which the noble Lord is made to appear fifteen or sixteen years younger than in the celebrated picture in the Orleans Gallery. May we not conclude that this picture, which represents the Earl in armour, with his commander’s staff in his hand, dates back to the journey of 1620? It would have been very natural for the beginner to hasten to prove his gratitude to his generous Mecasnas. Our artist returned to Antwerp early in March, 1621. He remained there only seven or eight months. Did he resume work on the large paintings for the Jesuit Church? 1 his seems at least doubtful. We know of a certain number of canvases which date back to this time or to the preceding year. They cannot have left him much leisure to work at the pictures for the Jesuits. However great his facility, it would be difficult to suppose that he was able, in fourteen or fifteen months, to employ himself on this vast scheme of decoration, and at the same time to paint the Saventhem pictures, the Christ in the Garden of Olives of Madrid, and the portrait of Isabella Brandt which he presented to his master when parting from him to go to Italy ; to say nothing of other paintings whose date is less certain, but among which may be mentioned twelve heads of the Apostles. We will return presently to these first youthful works. The Saventhem escapade enjoys immense favour. There are few anecdotes in the history of painting which have acquired a popularity ST. MARTIN (Savrnthcm Church) : ipp chat he pH ' ' would quite naturally expl; . • ! or sixteen years > • he jofirney of 1620? It would Have " f natural K r • . - ! to hasten to v prove Ins gratitude to his cuprous Mecai XII HAM .TS (fertMjVJ Van Dyck’s Early Work 2 5 so great. Nor have our worthy old-time chroniclers cast any doubt on this pleasant romance. On the contrary, they have been all too eager to enrich it with fresh details, in order to add to its piquancy. Why should inconsiderate pedantry rob us of a charming story ? Here, in a few words, is the tale as told by Descamps and his predecessors. Van Dyck, on leaving his native town, presented Rubens with his Christ in the Garde?i of Olives , and with the portrait ol his wife. Rubens, not to be outdone in generosity by his pupil, made him a present of a white horse, on which our traveller set out for Italy. Some weeks later, Rubens, having heard nothing of him, became uneasy at his silence. He made inquiries, and soon learnt that his pupil had stopped, after two or three days’ journey, at the little village of Saventhem, not far from Brussels, enslaved by the charms of a young peasant-girl, or, as others have it, a miller’s daughter. He was forgetting everything under the influence of his passion. Yet, in order to gratify the wishes of his fair friend, he had executed two chapel-paintings for the church in the village where love kept him prisoner. Such was the origin of the Virgin and Child Jesus , long since vanished, and the famous St. Marti?t^ which remains to this day on one of the altars of the church. Naturally uneasy as to the consequences of such an adventure, Rubens set out immediately, and by his forcible remonstrances at length dispelled the charm, and persuaded his disciple to proceed on his journey. Such is the fable which has been repeated for two centuries. It is really a pity to have to state that there is scarcely a word of truth in the whole story. Still, here is the truth, freed from romantic fiction, as we find it in authentic documents. A certain exalted personage of the last century, who was not given to indulging in fine phrases, and who had his reasons for doubting the accounts of the historians, was anxious to get at the rights of the matter. He took pains to explore it to its original source, and his researches led to the result which we shall now briefly set forth . 1 1 All the facts recapitulated here are borrowed from the anonymous manuscript which has been transferred from the library of M. Godde to that of the Louvre. The conclusions furnished by this manuscript were set forth in 1850 by M. de Montaiglon in his Study of the Brussels Museum 4 Van Dyck’s Early Work On March 27th, 1621, the manor of Saventhem was raised to a barony in favour of an individual occupying high rank at the Court of the Archduke Albert. This was a nobleman named Ferdinand de Boisschot. Loaded with favours by the rulers of the Low Countries, he possessed, in addition to the rank of a Knight of St. James, the titles of Count of Erps, Baron of Saventhem, Lord of Bygaerden, Sterrebeke, Quaderebbe, Nosseghem, Fontaine-Chateau, and Ban d’Anthee. He was successively called on to fill the posts of Auditor of State Councils and Privy Councillor to the Archdukes, Chancellor of Brabant, Lieutenant of the Feudal Court, and at length Ambassador Ordinary and Extraordinary to the Kings of France and England. 1 Finally, he had the honour of being entrusted by the Infanta Isabella to represent the Spanish Low Countries on the occasion of the signing of the treaty concluded with England in 1623. It was well for the inhabitants of the village of Saventhem to be subject to a lord holding a great position at Court. Hence they spared no pains to give him a brilliant reception when he came to take possession of his barony. Anxious to acknowledge the kindly welcome of his vassals, and to present the country with a lasting memorial of his liberality, Ferdinand de Boisschot ordered of Van Dyck, whose name was already famous, and whose talent had just received, and the Saventhem picture ; but practically no account has been taken of this discovery, which is still ignored by the majority of historians. Moreover, the facts related by our anonymous writer were established in an inquiry ordered by Prince de Rubempre towards the middle of last century. It seems strange that it should require a hundred years for this important discovery to gain the light of day and supersede the hitherto accepted fable. 1 We have seen in an old library catalogue (Edwin Tross, 1854, Cat. xiii.) a description of a splendid manuscript which recounts the important posts filled by this personage. Here is the title of the volume : “ Pieces touchant les traictez faicts en Angleterre touchant la delivrance de Franquendal entre les mains de Son Altesse la Serenissime Infante et la suspension des armes en Allemagne; et autres pieces , grand in-folio de 56 feuil/ets.” This manuscript, on vellum, valued at 300 francs, was executed, adds the catalogue, for F. de Boisschot, ambassador of the Infanta in England. It contained many authentic documents concerning the ambassador’s family, and a large number of delicately painted coats-of-arms. Particularly to be noted are the arms of the Camudio family, which remind us that the Seigneur de Boisschot married Marie-Anne de C^amudio, of whom Van Dyck has left a portrait, which is still preserved in Prince Arenberg’s collection. Evidently this portrait was not painted until after the journey in Italy, and is consequently a fresh proof of the relations between Van Dyck and the Lord of Saventhem. The Dame de Boisschot bore the same Christian name as our artist’s alleged mistress. Is there in this fact only a chance coincidence ? May not the second Saventhem picture, now lost, have simply been ordered in honour of the patron saint of Marie-Anne de Camudio ? Van Dyck's Early JVork 2 7 as it were, official recognition at the Court of England, a picture representing the best-known episode in the life of St. Martin. The price was fixed at 300 florins. The artist, accustomed to reproduce the ideas of his master, con¬ sidered himself at liberty to borrow one of his compositions. The Saventhem St. Martin is inspired by a picture at present hung in one of the rooms at Windsor Castle. The principal characters retain the same gestures, the same attitudes, the same expression; only a certain number of accessory figures are absent. The subject is more limited. Despite the inexperience and lack of finish noticeable in this work, it possesses a delicate charm and youthful grace which fully justify its reputation as a famous picture. In this diffident copy there already appear the qualities which were in the future to assign to their author an honourable place among the immortals. The noble pose, the delicate and expressive head of the central figure, the graceful form of the horse, the contrast of this air of distinction with the repulsive deformities of the two beggars squatting in the foreground, produce a vivid and lasting impression. The romantic anecdote of the Saventhem love affair, embellished by various biographers, has undoubtedly added much to the reputation of the picture. 1 Nevertheless, making all allowance for the exaggerated clamour which has been raised around the St. Martin , we cannot but recognise in it those qualities of execution which were later to be developed by the journey to Italy, and which make Van Dyck one of the most fascinating painters of his school. In the eighteenth century there existed several sketches of the St. Martin in various collections in Holland and in that of the Prince of Wales. Mols, who cites them from Hoet’s catalogue, throws doubts on their authenticity. These sketches may very well have been simply contemporary copies from the artist, done in his manner, when his name began to grow famous. What became of them we do not know. The St. Marti?i was finished and placed in position in the month 1 Till recent years the picture was never engraved ; it was reproduced only eight or ten years ago by the skilful graver of M. Joseph Franck of Brussels. We give here an etching of this celebrated composition, which marks an important stage in the painter’s life. The reader can judge with what care M. Boulard’s delicate needle has accomplished its task. Van Dyck's Early IVork^ of June. Van Dyck then betook himself to Saventhem to see the effect produced by his painting. The wardens of the modest church, proud of the work fixed on one of the altars, asked the painter for a Holy Family as a companion picture to the St. Martin. He readily accepted this commission, stipulating for a moderate remuneration. Nevertheless, he did not execute this second painting until later, on his return from Italy. He could not therefore have endowed the Virgin with the features of a woman who had been long forgotten when he painted the picture. Such are the actual facts, whose existence was revealed to certain antiquaries of the last century by a patient investigation of the parish archives. Yet there is a substratum of truth in this youthful romance with which the art chroniclers have so long amused themselves. There really existed at Saventhem, as recent researches have proved, a young girl belonging, not to a common peasant family, but to a comparatively well-born house, and whose charms appear to have produced a lively impression on the artist’s heart. Her name was Isabella Van Ophem, daughter to Martin Van Ophem, first, Mayor of Saventhem, then bailie of the barony of that title, and Anne Van der Elst. She had scarcely reached her seventeenth year when Van Dyck visited the village where she was living with her parents. One of her sisters, her senior by several years, was named Anne; this circumstance has doubtless led to the confusion into which the old historians fell, and were followed by more recent biographers. Anne Van Ophem, who married in 1613, was the mother of several children at the time when Van Dyck had occasion to visit Saventhem. In all probability, then, it was the charming person of Isabella, and not that of her sister, which inspired the tender passion in our painter. The social position of the young girl put out of the question any youthful romance such as is entered into and broken off with equal facility. At twenty one never hesitates to bind oneself by solemn vows. Accordingly the artist offered his hand to the young girl, who, doubtless, was not insensible to the appearance, the graces, the hand¬ some lace, and the talent of her suitor. But old Martin Van Ophem, a man of sense and experience, would not yield to the prayers of the Van Dyck^s Fa?'ly Work^ 2 9 two lovers. Perhaps he regarded such a marriage as a mesalliance \ perhaps his daughter seemed to him too young to marry a youth like Van Dyck. Perhaps, also, the father’s determination was influenced by the intervention of Rubens. Whatever the reasons were, Van Dyck received a categorical refusal. A contemporary historian puts it in formal terms: “ Filia i?tcol llftwlr. jllj Sir ssi V j . -5: Christ seized by the Soldiers. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. deserve any more credence than the genealogy of the Saventhem inn¬ keepers, who boast of their descent from Van Dyck, in the direct line on the female side. More fortunate than the Holy Family, the St. Martin escaped the devastation of 1673. In the course of the eighteenth century a formal sale failed to deprive the little commune of its treasure. About 1758, the parish priest had disposed of the picture for the sum of 4,000 florins, to one Hoet of the Hague, probably the dealer who published a general catalogue of the sales of the last century. The purchaser had 3 2 Van Dyck^s Early Work only neglected one formality : satisfied with the consent of the wardens, he had not consulted either the lord of the manor or the council of the parish. He was, however, to learn that the peasants, proud of their picture, set great store on its possession. They began by surrounding the church to prevent the departure of the case ready packed. Their threatening attitude intimidated the purchaser, who resorted to flight, and made his escape across country. The affair did not end here. It was brought before a competent tribunal, and a formal judgment secured the possession of the precious painting to the Church of Saventhem. At the end of the last century, on August 19th, 1794, t ^ ie French soldiers sent the St. Martin to Paris, where it was restored, and remained on view until 1815. It was then given back to Belgium, where¬ upon it resumed its place on the modest altar of the little church. Some years later it excited the covetousness of a rich stranger. This unscrupulous virtuoso hired a man of doubtful character, 1 who undertook to carry off the picture. The attempt, undertaken at night, miscarried this time owing to the vigilance of the village dogs. They gave the alarm. The villagers turned out. The thieves had scarcely time to escape. Since this nocturnal expedition, minute precautions, we are assured, are taken to guard against the danger of similar attempts. 2 The St. Martin , as we see, has its story. It lacks nothing, neither romance nor drama. M. Galesloot has, in recent publications, con¬ tributed largely to bring to light the facts just related. To the same learned writer is due the knowledge of a series of thirteen pictures representing Christ and The Apostles , painted by Van Dyck before his departure for Italy, that is to say, in 1621 at the latest, and perhaps in the course of previous years. Towards 1660 a canon of Antwerp Cathedral purchased from a burgess of the town these thirteen panels attributed to Van Dyck. After the bargain had been concluded, and the price paid, the 1 The thief was named Janssens ; this was not his first offence, nor his last; some years later he was condemned to death for murder (Revue Universelle des Arts , I. 67). 2 Since this attempt at robbery, it is said that a watchman remains every night in the church. We have not been able to verify the accuracy of this statement. Van Dycky Early IVork 33 purchaser had some doubts as to the authenticity of the paintings. He The Martyrdom of St. Catherine. From a Drawing in M. Armand's Collection. discovered faults in them which he had not noticed when they took his fancy; ’twas ever thus with collectors. A law-suit followed. The 5 34 Van Dyck^s Early Work L inquiry ordered on this occasion has preserved to us some very curious evidence. Van Dyck’s contemporaries, old studio comrades, come forward to bear testimony one by one. First we have John Breughel recalling that he lived on intimate terms with the artist, and that they journeyed together to Italy—a valuable detail to pick up. According to the testimony of Breughel, it would be shortly before quitting Antwerp, when he was staying at the Dome de Cologne , near the Franciscan Monastery, that Van Dyck painted the heads of the Twelve Apostles and of the Saviour. For one of them, Peter de Jode the Elder, uncle to the witness, had sat as a model. Thus the recollections of Breughel are exact; he was a witness of the facts which he recalls, and when he related them he was scarcely sixty—age, therefore, had not yet enfeebled his memory. However, the object of this law-suit has to-day only a secondary interest. Whether these heads were the originals, as John Breughel maintained, or merely copies, as was declared by Jacob Jordaens and Abraham Van Diepenbecke, the proceedings resulted in showing that Anthony Van Dyck painted, before the end of the year 1621, the heads of Christ and the Twelve Apostles; that at this date he was living at Antwerp in a house at the sign of the Dome de Cologne ; and, finally, that John Breughel the Younger, if he did not set out for Italy with our artist, lived on intimate terms with him during part of his stay there. 1 To the same period belongs also a famous picture, The Seizing of Christ in the Garden of Olives , described in the catalogue of the Madrid Gallery by the title of II Prendimiento. This is the canvas which Van Dyck gave to Rubens, on quitting his native town, as a token of gratitude, as we have already mentioned. At least three copies of this scene are known. The picture in the Madrid Gallery is, in any case, of unquestionable authenticity. Rubens kept it in his collection till his death, and never tired of showing it 1 There is in existence a series of Apostles engraved by Cornelius Van Caukercken and published by Cornelius Galle. The Apostles are represented in half-length, each bearing the instrument of his martyrdom. The plates are undoubtedly reproductions of the series in question; the set engraved includes fourteen heads—the Twelve Apostles, Jesus, and St. Paul. The Director of the Munich Gallery recently discovered, at the Chateau of Schlessheim, a set of thirteen panels, representing the heads of the Twelve Apostles and of Christ, painted by Van Dyck. Van Dyck^s Early Work^ 35 to his guests as a work of the rarest merit. It appeared in the inventory of his belongings after his death. Offered for sale, it was purchased by King Philip IV. of Spain, and only left the Escurial to find a permanent resting-place in the Pardo. On a gloomy night, in the blood-red torchlight, Judas gives Jesus the kiss which points Him out to the soldiers who have come to seize Him. The troop of soldiers are rushing on their victim, whilst St. Peter offers a useless resistance. Seldom has the painter depicted such vigorous and agitated movement. Leaving out of the question religious expression, which one hardly looks for in the artists of the seventeenth century, the dramatic sense, in composition and colour, reaches a power of thrilling the spectator, rare enough in our artist. To judge by the drawings preserved in various public collections, of which we give two different examples, the Madrid picture was the result of long study before the artist resolved to carry his idea into execution. As for the copies of the same subject preserved until the beginning of this century in the collections of M. Erard and of Mr. Paul Methuen, we do not know if they can be regarded as original canvases. We can only say that most of Van Dyck’s celebrated works exist in duplicate, or even triplicate, and that in many cases it would be extremely difficult to say which is the actual original. It seems to us almost certain that, when fashion sought him, Van Dyck made no scruple of repeating subjects already welcomed by the public. Inferior to his master in many ways, he could not, like him, continue to produce new effects from the same subject. He probably adopted the course, following in this the example of Rubens, of having one or several copies of the same picture sketched in by the numerous pupils who worked at the groundwork and details of his portraits; his task was limited to putting the finishing-touch to canvases already almost completed. Nearly all the paintings of the period previous to the Italian journey show, in a certain straining after violence, an intentional exaggeration of gesture, in the obtrusiveness of dramatic effect, the distinct trace of Rubens’ influence. Such are the leading characteristics 36 Van Dyck^s Early IVork u of the Martyrdom of St. Catherine , known to Smith, and indicated by him (No. 423) as forming part of Sir Charles Bagot’s collection. The drawing from M. Armand’s collection, so dramatic and so agitated, will give an idea of this picture, inspired, it is said, by the martyrdom of St. Lievin. Other and better-known paintings belong, nevertheless, to the list of youthful works. In the first rank, by general consent, is the composition in the Berlin Gallery, made famous by the admirable print by Bolswert, representing Christ crowned with Thorns and mocked by the Soldiers. The arrangement betrays the inexperience of the artist fresh from the painting school. An exaggerated prominence is given to various secondary characters. We see again the repulsive head of the Saventhem beggar with its bandage of linen. The figures are huddled together one on top of the other; the air scarcely moves amongst the too densely packed groups ; the nude carnations show brick-coloured tints, reflections of red, awkwardly imitated from Rubens. In short, there is in the whole scene a tension, a straining after violence, an exaggeration of effect, almost never to be seen in Van Dyck’s religious pictures after his return from Italy. Certain similarities in colour, in arrangement, and in types with the Madrid picture tend to confirm the date which we assign to the Crown of Thorns. In the inventory of Rubens’ collection made after his death there appears a Crown of Thorns by Anthony Van Dyck. Is this the one of which we have just spoken ? The statement in the catalogue is too brief to admit of a categorical affirmative. On the other hand, there exists a precious document relating to the adventures of the great Berlin canvas, of unquestionable authenticity, and hitherto unknown. Un¬ happily this document does not go back to the origin of the picture; it only tells us through what turns of fortune and through what dangers it passed while in the collection of the King of Prussia. At the same time it supplies some details as to the manner in which the monasteries of Belgium were wont to treat the works of the great masters in the last century. We shall see by this example that if the Flemish towns have lost many of their ancient treasures, they have chiefly to blame the ignorant and greedy monks who compromised the existence of these precious trusts by their carelessness, or allowed themselves to be 3 8 Van Dyck^s Early JVork^ tempted by the interested offer of dealers. The recurrence of such events is no longer possible. It appears to us useful, nevertheless, to make known those of which positive evidence has come down to us. The narrative we are now about to read is all the more instructive inasmuch as it emanates from one of the interested principals. The worthy monk relates his misdeeds with the tranquil conscience of a man who has nothing to reproach himself with. One could hardly believe in the possibility of such an act of vandalism, if one did not possess the culprit’s own naive and self-satisfied confession. We lay the documents before our readers’ eyes. They were collected, in the course of the last century, by the indefatigable searcher from whom we have borrowed so much, the anonymous author of the biography preserved in the Louvre. The originals were in Flemish. We give a literal translation. Perhaps the letter of the Abbot of the Dunes was addressed to the conscientious scribe in consequence of the inquiry undertaken by him into this affair:— “ Sir,— “ In response to your request, I have the honour to inform you that the three pictures—to wit, the two St. Johns , 'The Coronation of Our Saviour, and The Descent of the Holy ghost —mentioned in your letter became the property of our monastery, according to tradition, in the following manner. Our prelate was travelling to Antwerp from the Saint Bernard’s Abbey on the Scheldt. He encountered on the way a heavy storm of thunder and rain, so that he was compelled to rest in an inn to await the cessation of the storm, which lasted so long that he could not reach the town of Antwerp before the closing of the gates. As there was no accommodation in the inn, he asked the landlord if he could not find him a lodging. The latter told him that there was a monastery at Hoboken , 1 where he was certain to find accommodation. Thereupon our prelate betook himself to this monastery, and lodged there. In the morning his attendant, strolling in the courtyard, saw these pictures in a wood-shed, lying under the wood, and going to waste. He asked the father prior if he was willing to sell them. The father prior said they had long been lying under the wood, and that he would make a present of them to our prelate. When they had been transported to Bruges, it was discovered that they had been painted by the painter Van Dyck, and were consequently of great value. The prelate, having learnt this, wrote to the aforesaid father prior to inform him that he would send the pictures back. The prior replied that he had made a present of them, and that, great value or small, he made a present of them 1 Hoboken, a village in the neighbourhood of Antwerp, where there was a Brigittine monastery, suppressed in 1784. Va?i Dyck^s Early JVor\ 39 afresh. On which the prelate thanked the prior, and sent him a cask of Touraine wine. Such is the tradition; for I find nothing written relating to this matter. “These three pictures were sold by our monastery to M. Schorel, living at Antwerp, not for 24,000 fl., but for 20,000 fl. sterling. M. Schorel bought them on commission. It is said that they are at present the property of the King of Prussia. 1 “ I do not find that M. Gerard de Bacre was ever prior in our abbey; but he was abbot from the year 1659 to die year 1666, the date of his death. “ I have the honour to be, with all reverence. Sir, your very obedient servant, “ F. Robert Van Severen, “ Abbot of the Dunes. “Bruges, September 28th, 1775.” As is his wont, our painstaking biographer does not leave his case to stand or fall by one solitary proof. He is not satisfied till he has mastered the facts for himself. To the Abbot’s letter there is added a note, a sort of minute of this unofficial inquiry :— “N.B.— On Sunday, November ist, 1775, I was at Hoboken, and I inquired of the Brigittine prior if he were acquainted with the story of these pictures. He answered me that he had heard almost the same thing from a former prior of the monastery, but that he did not believe it was the case, inasmuch as they had never bought paintings by Van Dyck, and that M. Heldewerwe (or Hillerwerwe ?), who died in this century, was the sole testator, and that in his will there was no mention of either Rubens or Van Dyck.” Every bad case may be denied. Nevertheless, this pitiful excuse of the Prior of Hoboken, notwithstanding his clumsy evasions, amounts rather to a confession than a formal denial. Still, the head of the Brigittines is less guilty than the Abbot of the Dunes, who for a sum of money shamelessly gave up a work which had been courteously presented to his monastery. Besides, our historian has made sure that his important discovery should lack no proof, and it is from him once more that we quote the text of the following receipt■ “Received by me, the undersigned. Abbot of the Dunes, from M. Schorel de Wilryck, the sum of twenty thousand florins, sterling of Brabant, for and in discharge of the sale of three old pictures painted by A. Van Dyck. “F. Robert Van Severen, “Abbot of the Dunes, Bruges. “ September nth, 1755.” 1 The three pictures in question are mentioned and described in a Description of the Royal Gallery and Museum of Sans-Souci, Potsdam, Christian Frederick Ross, 1764, in 8vo (Nos. 96, 97, and 98). 40 Van Dyck's Early IVork of the Dunes were included in this number. In this case they had just recently been added to the Royal collection. The four paintings referred to in the documents which we have just set forth have not left Prussia since the middle of the eighteenth century, and to-day form part of the Berlin Gallery. German critics Frederick II., in a letter dated November 30th, 1755, addressed to his sister, the Margravine of Bayreuth (Revue Universelle des Arts , V. 374), says distinctly that his collection already possessed eleven Van Dycks. It is not impossible that the canvases from the Abbey Christ mocked. From a Drawing in M. Dutuit’s Collection. Van Dychf Early IVork^ 4i assign them to the early period of the artist’s life. They discover in them the direct influence of Rubens, an obsession of the master, which thenceforth steadily diminishes. The Crown of Thorns especially shows very plainly the exaggeration of the pupil who strives to follow the pattern of his exemplar, and occasionally overshoots the mark. The drawing which we reproduce represents the first idea of this study. Here violence and exaggeration are carried to the extreme. The Brazen Serpent. From a Drawing in the Marquis de Chennevieres’ Collection. But careful thought has brought a skilful temperament to bear upon this outline of an idea. It is by the famous print by Bolswert that the Crown of 'Thorns picture is best known. The engraver in this instance shows himself superior to the painter; for of a work interesting, but as a whole incomplete, like all youthful efforts, he has made an admirable masterpiece. A drawing from the rich collection of the Marquis de Chennevieres, of which the facsimile is here shown, 6 42 Van Dyck^s Rarly Work^ indicates a rather skilful composition. Done in bistre-wash, the study represents a group of Jews before the brazen serpent. The authorship of the drawing is beyond all doubt. The similarity of this scene with drawings by the master, done in the same method, such as one sees in the Louvre and elsewhere, makes it impossible to think of any other name but that of Van Dyck. Moreover, the sureness of touch proves that we have before our eyes an original composition, an improvisation, and not a copy. Now, the Madrid Gallery possesses a large picture attributed to Rubens, in which the scene of the Marquis de Chennevieres’ drawing is exactly reproduced. This painting, it is true, bears in enormous letters a professed signature of Rubens—a circumstance all the more remarkable, as the catalogue gravely says, as the artist was not in the habit of putting his name to his paintings. This unaccustomed signing would be enough to arouse suspicion, the more so as the abnormal size of the letters in itself suggests the work of a forger. But does the painting itself belong to Rubens ? Must it not be restored to Van Dyck, as the Marquis de Chennevieres’ drawing seems to demand ? Let it suffice for us to put forward the question, to be considered by competent judges who may have an opportunity of examining The Brazen Serpe?it at Madrid. This example shows how difficult it is to distinguish the works of the master from those of the pupil. Their drawings bear a stamp of originality which an experienced eye cannot mistake; whilst, in the pictures which he executed on quitting the school, in those canvases in which he endeavoured to approach as nearly as possible to the style and colouring of Rubens, Van Dyck is occasionally very little behind his exemplar. Inevitably an imitator lacks the ease, the breadth, the confidence which only belong to the man thoroughly acquainted with every expedient and every secret of his art. He will exaggerate the tricks he has learnt, and this affectation will betray the still timid hand of the tyro. The Dresden Gallery exhibits two paintings very curious to study as a comparative case. Rubens and Van Dyck have often treated the same subject; but the identical compositions are rarely to be found together. Consequently it is difficult to study them simultaneously. Now, at the Dresden Gallery they have taken care to place side by 44 Van Dych^s Early IVork side two St. ‘Jero7nes of almost the same size, one by Rubens, the other by Van Dyck. Their juxtaposition renders more striking the differences which divide the two artists. The effects which the one obtains naturally, without apparent effort, are laboriously sought by his rival. Colour, in the case of Van Dyck, shows an exaggerated violence. Carnations, faded and hollowed by deep wrinkles, shine with glowing tints, before which the brilliant but harmonious colouring of Rubens shows almost pale. Here Van Dyck remains far beneath his exemplar. The study of the great Venetian painters is to produce a profound impression on his mind, and to lead to a complete transformation of his style. Amenable to every exterior influence, Van Dyck is to modify his ideal two or three times before creating for himself, out of his successive borrowings, an individuality in which the influence of Rubens strives with that of Titian, never, however, obscuring the innate qualities of the artist. Achilles discovered among the Daughters of Lycomedes. From a Drawing"in M. Benjamin Fillon’s Collection. PART THE SECOND VAN DYCK’S SOJOURN IN ITALY AN DYCK started on his journey in the early part of October, 1621, accompanied by the Chevalier Vanni, a friend of Rubens, assigned to him by the latter as “ guide, philosopher, and friend.” The journey occupied a consider¬ able time, and was made in short stages. What route the two companions took we do not know. Probably, in haste to reach their desti¬ nation, they took the shortest road. On November 20th we find them at Genoa. Neither the fascinations of Paris nor of the other cities through which they passed seem to have detained them. It has been supposed that it was during this journey that Van Dyck met two French artists, whose portraits he has left behind him—Jacob Callot and Simon Vouet. But he may very well have made the acquaintance of the Lorraine engraver in Italy; and similar opportunities of meeting Simon Vouet would not be wanting. The accounts given by historians of this visit to Italy are very vague. The two contemporary authors most worthy of belief, Soprani and Bellori, are very far short of being always in agreement. We know that the old biographers did not concern themselves much with strict accuracy; to alter facts, invert dates, and invent anecdotes were the least of their faults. Consequently it is often difficult to unravel the truth from among a mass of contradictory and often improbable stories. When an artist changes his abode as often as Van Dyck did 45 46 Van Dyck in Italy during the years that follow, it is very difficult to determine the order and date of his stay in each town. Nevertheless, thanks to the historians we have just mentioned, it is possible to trace almost exactly the route of his peregrinations. They agree on this point, that the young traveller, after crossing the Alps, arrived at Genoa during the second half of November, and that the hearty welcome accorded him by two Flemings, the brothers Lucas and Cornelius de Wael, induced him to remain there for several weeks. The De Wael brothers received Van Dyck with tokens of the warmest friendship; they would not hear of his living elsewhere than with them, and used every means to keep him in their adopted country. They did better still. They obtained introductions for him to aristocratic families, and procured him valuable patrons and a rich connection. Was Van Dyck acquainted with the De Wael brothers before his departure for Italy? We do not know; but the tie formed at Genoa may be taken as the starting-point of an intimacy of which our artist and his friends have left many proofs. In the first place must be mentioned the admirable etched portrait of John de Wael, father of Lucas and Cornelius, doyen of the Academy of Saint Luke in 1594, who died in 1633. His portrait formed one of those twenty marvellous etchings traced by the free and bold needle of Van Dyck himself. Less known is the superb canvas in the Munich Gallery, where the old Antwerp painter appears again in the same velvet costume, the same ruff, the same skull-cap, in the same attitude as in the original etching; only in the picture he appears face to face with his wife, a worthy old Flemish dame, with a dried and parchmenty countenance, painted with admirable skill of characterisation and masterly execution. Van Dyck is at home in the portrayal of artists. He is often fond of putting two half-length figures on the same canvas. “ John de Wael and his wife may be reckoned among the most remarkable of these dual portraits. The etching of the skilful Herr W. Hecht, of Munich, reproduces with great exactness the characteristic features of the original. The same family offers a second example of this arrangement. On a canvas in the Capitol Gallery, of which there is a study en grisaille Van Dyck in Italy 47 at Cassel, and which was reproduced by Hollar in 1646, the two brothers, Lucas and Cornelius, are represented side by side, in an easy attitude suitable to the subject. One of the artists, sitting sideways, rests his arm on the back of his chair; while his brother, standing near him, in a light costume, appears to be continuing an already commenced con¬ versation. They are both about twenty-five or thirty years old. The picture was certainly painted at Genoa, for the two artists had settled in Italy and never saw Flanders again. 1 radition has it that Van Dyck sometimes took pleasure in colla¬ borating with his friends. The Brignole Sala Gallery, now the property of the city of Genoa, possesses, thanks to the liberality of the Duchess of Galliera, a small battle-piece, the figures of which are attributed to Van Dyck and the landscape to Cornelius de Wael. All the guides retail the anecdote. At the same time, it must be remembered that John de Wael often painted war-pieces. Conflictuum represejitator , so the legend underneath his portrait describes him. More than once he worked on the same canvases as his brother. Hence it is very probable that he executed the battle ascribed to Van Dyck. To the evidence furnished by the portraits which we have just mentioned must be added yet another proof of the cordial relations between Van Dyck and the brothers De Wael. An engraving, executed by G. Brun after a picture by our artist, represents Hhe ^Education of Bacchus. Of mediocre workmanship, the print offers no interest beyond the dedication from Cornelius de Wael to Francis Grimaldi, a Genoese noble. The dedication is dated November, 1628; the picture, therefore, dates from the stay of Van Dyck in Italy. It is to be gathered, moreover, from the legend inscribed at the foot of the engraving, that the painting was left with Cornelius upon his friend’s departure as a token of affectionate remembrance. The original composition has disappeared. Perhaps it will one day be found buried in some old Italian palace. One cannot definitely pronounce judgment on its merits, for the engraving hardly gives a fair idea of it. The friendship of the De Wael brothers, the recommendations of Rubens, and also his own personal qualities, ensured to Van Dyck a most distinguished welcome amongst the leading families of Genoa. The open countenance, the courteous and sympathetic manners, of the 4 8 Van Dyck in Italy new-comer recalled the memory of his master, that other traveller whom Italy bitterly regretted having failed to retain. Anthony was exactly the painter agreeable to a polished society, an enervated and corrupt nobility. So his success was rapid and considerable. All the leaders of the local aristocracy came to him for their portraits. Did he not excel in giving to his models a charm, a fascination, often more striking than the resemblance ? The palaces of the town still preserve a number of canvases painted in 1622 or 1624 for families who have possessed them for more than two centuries. In the first rank of these paintings, many of which were only executed after an attentive study of the Italian schools, must be placed the admirable portraits in the Brignole Palace. The Marchese Antonio Giulio di Brignole Sala is represented on a grey horse advancing at a walk, nearly full face, whilst a dog is running by his side. To the right, beneath a portico, hangs a heavy crimson curtain, slightly raised by the wind. The horseman, dressed in a rich costume of black velvet, is bowing majestically, the same stretched-out hand holding both his hat and the reins of his horse. The pale and refined head and the hands, treated with extreme delicacy, stand out alone in light, amidst the sombre colouring of the groundwork. The grey trappings of the horse light up the dark shadows of the picture. Perhaps the painting has perceptibly darkened since it was executed. In spite of this fault, the portrait of the Marchese di Brignole Sala leaves a profound and lasting impression on visitors who have been able to examine it at leisure. That is why we have chosen it from amongst other canvases, perhaps superior or better preserved, to reproduce in etching. Not far from the equestrian portrait of the Marchese is to be seen that of his wife, Paulina Adorno. In a splendid gown of blue velvet and gold lace, with many trailing folds, a necklace crossing over the shoulder, the neck enclosed in a broad collar of a dull white, the noble dame stands upright, facing towards the left, holding a red flower in the right hand, the left arm falling carelessly at her side. A stone balustrade, rich grey and red curtains, and a colonnade adorn the background; on the arm of an easy-chair is perched a parrot of brilliant blue and red plumage. In the midst of this gathering of 9 Van Dyck in Italy 49 glowing colours the splendid beauty of the young noblewoman retains its bloom at this dawn of the twentieth century. Rarely has the painter been more inspired. And the cause of this success has been sought in considerations foreign to art. As he had become a constant guest at the Brignole Palace, scandalous chroniclers have declared that the young artist had come deeply under the influence of his model’s charms. From admiration to love is but one step. The beautiful Marchesa, on her part, had not remained insensible to the homage and the passion of the handsome cavalier. Such is the story which the ciceroni did not hesitate quite recently to repeat to travellers even within the walls of the palace. No discovery has hitherto confirmed the gossip of the guides. Nevertheless, the fascination which Van Dyck wrought by his talent, as well as by the effeminate grace of his features, would sufficiently warrant the good fortunes so liberally bestowed on him by the chronicles of gallantry. Amidst the loose, idle, and frivolous society of the seventeenth century such adventures were not rare, and shocked no one. It is always very difficult to affirm anything on so delicate a subject, and it is still more difficult to arrive at formal proofs and absolute certainty. Suffice it to mention the rumours that we have gathered, while putting the reader on his guard against their source. Several other canvases in the Brignole Palace deserve attention. We possess little information as to the Genoa pictures, except the vague and often erroneous local accounts. Hence it is desirable to dwell on the less-known galleries in the town of Genoa. Beside the beautiful Paulina Adorno is to be found one of her relatives, the Marchesa Jeronima, standing with a little girl, a charm¬ ing painting of superior quality; then the portraits of a Prince of Orange, and of two other personages unknown. In all, six pictures, for the most part of superb execution, and all in the master’s Italian manner. The influence of the great Venetians is still more marked in the two religious pieces by Van Dyck in the same palace. These canvases show Christ bearing His Cross and The Tribute to Ccesar. The second was exhibited in Paris in 1873, in the presidential palace of 7 5 ° Van Dyck in Italy the Corps Ugislatif. We may mention once more, so as to omit nothing, the small battle-scene ascribed to the collaboration of Van Dyck and Cornelius de Wael. We have already given our reasons for doubting this ascription. These portraits, these religious pieces, give an exact idea of the complete transformation produced in Van Dyck’s manner by seeing the Italian masters. The example of Titian and his school taught him to colour his carnations with warm and amber tones, to illuminate his backgrounds with violently brilliant sunsets, to contrast strong shadows with the bright light of projecting portions. Thus, although his pictures seldom bear any date, 1 one can easily recognise the canvases painted under the direct influence of the Venetians. Later on, after his return to the Low Countries, these studied excesses gradually disappear, and give place to a more gentle harmony. But when the artist arrives in Italy, the great colourists, whose influ¬ ence he has hitherto experienced only indirectly, exercise over him a sort of fascination. Perhaps unconsciously, owing to the excessive sensibility of his nature, he little by little forgets his master’s lessons, gives him¬ self up exclusively to the fascinations of Titian, and seems as it were the last of the Venetians strayed amongst the enfeebled schools of Italian decadence. Without proposing to mention all the paintings of Van Dyck in the galleries of Genoa, we will give a list of those which we have seen, of which we have ourselves been able to estimate the interest. By no means the least attraction of many of them is that they are to be found to this day, in the very room, on the very wainscotting, where they were placed immediately after their completion more than two hundred and fifty years ago. In the Royal Palace one finds to admire a Christ oil the Cross and the portrait of a woman. Another Christ o?i the Cross , a Madonna , an Equestrian Portrait of Agostino Spinola , amongst other portraits, of which we have only retained a vague recollection, adorn the Ferdinando Spinola Palace. The Balbi Palace possesses a Holy 1 The dates which are to be read on certain canvases with a signature, which we shall not omit to mention, in most cases suggest serious doubts as to their authenticity. It may be taken as an almost invariable rule that neither Rubens nor Van Dyck signed their paintings. Family , a beautiful Madonna known as the Virgin with the Pome¬ granate. , several family portraits, amongst which may be noted two gentlemen on horseback. A local tradition assigns a special importance to one of these canvases ; the head of the figure is said to have been repainted by Velasquez. Without deciding on the probability of this tradition, we may remark that, in associating the names of the two greatest portrait-painters of the seventeenth century, it has preserved the memory of the profound impression made upon Velasquez by the works of Van Dyck. Both were born in the same year, but the talent of the Spanish painter, the less precocious of the two, only reached its complete maturity after his journey to Italy, about ten years after the visit of Van Dyck. The works of our artist were thus able to exercise a real influence upon the taste and talent of the painter of Philip IV. Continuing the review of the Genoese collections, we find in the Pallavicini Palace, together with some portraits, several of which seem of doubtful authenticity, the largest historical picture left by Van Dyck in Genoa : Volumnia at the Feet of Coriolanus. The Durazzo Palace contains two exquisite child-figures, a Mother between her Two Sons (a delightful family picture), and, finally, Toung Tobias bringing in the miraculous fish. All the paintings enumerated in this rapid review do not date from the year 1622 ; the artist returned later to the town which had welcomed him so warmly, and sojourned there again on two different occasions, in 1624 and 1625. In default of being able to distinguish the works of these different periods, we have placed them all together, although a considerable number of them belong to the later visits of our artist to Italy. The palaces of the town have, moreover, lost more than one precious canvas that was formerly their pride. Many museums possess one or more pictures inspired by the Venetian school and painted in Italy. The collections of the English nobility have absorbed a certain number of portraits and religious pieces which were formerly to be found at Genoa. Amongst these are—to be content with a few examples—the large and beautiful composition representing the Lomellini family, purchased from the last descendants of the house by Mr. Andrew Wilson, and to-day preserved in Edinburgh in the Scottish National Gallery; 52 Van Dyck in Italy the portrait of Antonio de Zuniga and Davila, Marchese di Mirabella, in the possession of the Earl of Warwick; those of the Marchese di Spinola with his little daughter, of Don Livio Ordescalchi, and of the painter Orazio Gentileschi, which was perhaps only painted in England. This last is one of a series of portraits to which we shall devote special attention. We refer to the canvases upon which Van Dyck has re¬ produced the features of the artists of his day—painters, authors, or musicians. The numerous portraits of Rubens, of Snyders, of so many other artists, the admirable etchings executed by Van Dyck himself, are too famous to require dwelling upon at present; but it is less well known that this glorious collection was commenced during the stay in Italy. This circumstance has yielded us several fine canvases in the master’s Italian manner, in which certain celebrities of the Italian school come to life again. In the first rank may be mentioned Sophonisba di Cremona, a woman not less distinguished for her wit than for her talents. The Italian historians relate, with their usual extravagance, that Van Dyck himself acknowledged having received more light from a blind woman —Sophonisba had lost her sight in the latter days of her life—than from the contemplation of the pictures of the best masters. After due allowance has been made for exaggeration, one point remains clear : Van Dyck, when in Italy, was on terms of close friendship with a woman, universally esteemed, who still exercised a great fascination over those who came near her, in spite of her infirmity and her advanced age. As she died in 1622, our traveller must have made her acquaintance in the course of the year following his arrival. After having lived a long time in Sicily with her first husband, Fabrizzio di Moncada, a Sicilian noble, Sophonisba, now a widow, decided to settle at Genoa. She embarked on a galley commanded by a noble Genoese, Orazio Lomellini. The latter, smitten by the charms of the fair traveller, offered her his hand, and found his homage accepted. We have just said that Scotland possesses a large composition in which are brought together the members of the Lomellini family. Sophonisba di Cremona belonged to that family; it was to her then that our artist owed the commission to paint this important canvas. THE MARCHESE ANTONIO GIULIO DI BRIGNOLE SALA (Brignole Salci Gallery) ■■'l in f-iiglind. the port:. o: Hirers, authors, a . -i.iif. >* Ruhem, of Snyders, of so many .< j. in Van D; • - !ii If, an ip >n t ; lesenfc;. but le well . objection v I- ;■ inced *<• the sta-) . • fine canvases u 1 ■ master’s Jr 1 come *'• h«* •; r-'. • ■ ■ ■ advanced r ha. A4AS ajo^owa ia oliuio omotvia hshhd^m hht n\»2. »\otv£w&.) Va?i Dyck in Italy 53 He also reproduced the features of this famous woman in a picture now known through the engraving by William Baillie. It was probably in Italy also that Van Dyck allied himself with Jacob Callot and Simon Vouet, and executed the portraits published The Rest in Egypt. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. in the Iconography. The date which the prints bear is quite in agreement with this hypothesis. He also painted the features of several Italian artists now forgotten. We have already referred to Orazio Gentileschi, whom he knew at Genoa, and met again later at the Court of Charles I. Let us mention, moreover, Bernardino Castelli; John Roose ; Castellino Castello, who, in 54 Van Dyck in Italy his tarn, made a portrait of Van Dyck ; and Giambattista Paggi. The last named, who had been intimately allied with Rubens during the master’s residence in Italy, gave the most hearty welcome to his pupil. Their relations continued after Anthony’s departure, and were ended only by Paggi’s death, which occurred in 1627. Soprani states, apparently on good authority, that the two friends kept up a lively correspondence for several years. After the Genoese painter’s death, Van Dyck’s letters, like those of Rubens, were carefully collected by Alessandro Magnasco. What became of them afterwards ? Unfortunately no indication was left by which these precious documents could be traced. If the corre¬ spondence has not perished, chance alone may one day lead to its discovery. We have tarried long at Genoa, where our traveller originally spent only a few months. The time has now come to follow him in his wanderings throughout Italy. In February, 1622, he embarked in a felucca bound tor Civita-Vecchia, and reached Rome, where he went to con¬ template the great models of antiquity and the masterpieces of the Italian Renaissance. As for the Bolognese masters, who then held first rank among Italian painters, he does not seem to have paid them much attention. With his lively intelligence, his already cultured taste, he knew very well that it was not the company of the living, but rather the communion with great artists of the past, which would initiate him into the perfection of drawing, into the mysteries of colouring, into all the secrets he had come to learn in the classic fatherland of art. Hence it was doubtless no result of chance or mere caprice that in this journey Rome was the first halting-place. The experience and solicitude of Rubens, who watched over his pupil from afar, had probably prescribed this judicious line of route. Before exposing him to the magic fascinations of Venetian colouring, Rubens wished him to become acquainted with the splendours of sovereign beauty as it appears in the masterpieces of the great ages. At Rome Van Dyck met a fellow-countryman, the sculptor Francis Duquesnoy, whose counsels and example were not without influence on his progress and on his talent. There exists sufficient evidence of this friendship in Duquesnoy’s portrait, engraved in 1751 by Van Bleek. The original painting, a work of the rarest merit, now belongs to the Van Dyck in Italy 55 King of the Belgians. Moreover, it was during this first residence at Rome that our artist struck up a friendship with the landscape-painter Paul Bril, who had settled in Italy a long time before, and who died Jacob Callot, Engraver. From the Engraving by Lucas Vorsterman, after Van Dyck in his adopted country some years later. Meanwhile the Venetian school, of which he had found the opportunity of studying some remarkable specimens at Genoa and Rome, exercised an irresistible 56 Van Dyck in Italy charm over our traveller. Titian especially attracted him. Accordingly he set out for Venice; he did not, however, accomplish the distance in one journey. Several cities on the way detained him for a certain time. Florence was encountered on his way. Great as his haste was, he could not resist the opportunity of applying several weeks of studious attention to the great Florentine school and to the splendid collections formed by the most cultured Italian princes. The reigning sovereign, Prince Ferdinand II., had scarcely reached his twelfth year, and so was Orazio Gentileschi, Italian Painter. From the Engraving by Lucas Vorsterman, after Van Dyck. not of an age to appreciate the merits of the traveller who visited his palaces; but his uncle, Lorenzo de Medicis, gave Van Dyck a flattering reception. In return for his portrait, the Regent presented the painter with a purse containing a hundred gold sequins. As to the portrait of Van Dyck to be seen now in the Uffizi Gallery, it certainly does not belong to this period. The artist is more than twenty-four years old in this somewhat over-rated picture. From Florence to Venice the most frequented road was by Bologna. The traveller thus found an opportunity of visiting the cradle of the famous school which was seeking to raise Italian painting from its Van Dyck in Italy SI profound decadence. The Bolognese made little impression on his mind. He contemplated the works of the Carraccii, and continued on his route without delay. At length we find him in Venice, before the immortal canvases of Titian, admiring, studying, copying indefatigably his favourite painter’s masterpieces j without, however, neglecting the works of Palma, Giorgione, Bonifazio, Paul Veronese, Tintoretto, penetrating into the manner of each, but always returning to the master of masters, the leader of the school, unweariedly seeking counsel of him, striving to discover his secrets. It was especially at Venice, that city fallen from its ancient splendour, but still filled with the memory of the illustrious men and of the great deeds of the past, that Van Dyck completely modified his early manner. There he learnt the art of raising an individual physiog¬ nomy to the dignity of a type, indicating its leading characteristics, its distinctive features. Titian taught him the science of selection, that science of toning down accessories, secondary surroundings, unimportant details, in order to place in relief the essential portions of a work, as, in a portrait, to set off the face and hands. He also owes to the great colourist his taste for those rich draperies which give a figure fulness and dignity, that powerful colouring, those strong contrasts of light and shade, which stamp the works of the Venetian school with a special grandeur. After several weeks of profitable study, Van Dyck left Venice and returned to the more active towns, where he could exhibit to an enlightened public the result of the fortifying lessons he had just received. The town of Mantua lay on his road. The gallery of the Gonzago Princes, famed throughout Europe, and soon to be transferred bodily to England to form the principal nucleus of Charles I.’s magnificent collec¬ tion, was accounted one of the richest in Italy. Apart from the desire to see this famous gallery, another motive induced our traveller to stop at Mantua. Had not Rubens found a generous Mecaenas in this town, at this same Court ? Had not Vincenzo de Gonzago first discovered the genius of the Antwerp master, and had he not been on the point of robbing the Low Countries of him for ever ? Rubens’ protector had died in 1612- but his second son, Ferdinand, continued his noble traditions. Van Dyck accordingly received a warm welcome at the 8 5 « Van Dyck in Italy Mantuan Court, and was ordered to paint the portrait of the reigning prince; and a gold chain, with a medallion bearing the effigy of the Duke, a customary mark of approval from the sovereigns of that period, was conferred upon him. In the property left by Rubens there were found five or six gold chains, presented to the master under similar circumstances. From the commencement of the year 1623 we find our artist back in Rome. He returned there heralded by an established reputation. Thus all the familiars of the Sovereign Pontiff hastened to ask the fashionable young painter for their portraits or some other production of his facile brush. Rarely had talent presented itself under a more sympathetic exterior. The Italians, always impressionable to external advantages, admired the distinction, the elegance of this young man—frank, affable, in every way attractive. His refined, delicate features, the studied elegance of his dress, the charm of his whole personality, had brought him a very significant sobriquet. He was commonly referred to as II pittore cavalieresco. What a contrast between his modest, reserved manners and the blustering, depraved life led by most of his countrymen ! Several letters from Flemings who had settled in Italy, indeed, draw a far from edifying picture of the conduct of the painters who had come to Rome to perfect themselves in the study of the masters. Numerous documents collected in the Roman archives, and recently- published by the Cavaliere Bertolotti, 1 prove that the reputation of the young Flemings settled in that city was not ill deserved. Lucas de Wael and Hoeck relate that these roysterers formed a sort of club, whose meetings were held at the Siren tavern, on the Piazza d’Espagna. It certainly was not to devote themselves to study, to elucidate subtle points of aesthetics, that they chose such a gathering- place. And, indeed, there was scarcely a pretence in these meetings of anything but noisy pleasure-parties and Pantagruelian banquets. Such habits had given a sorry notoriety to the frequenters of the Siren. These coarse amusements were repellent to Van Dyck’s aristocratic Artisti Belgi ed Olandesi a Roma tiei secoli XVI 0 XVII; Firenze, 1880. Van Dyck in Italy 59 nature. He refused to join the bacchanalian society, and drew upon himself the animosity of the whole crew. Accused of pride, he was constantly assailed with sarcasms and persecuted in a thousand ways. It has even been said that the incessant stings of this worthless gang hastened his departure. Probably this is attaching too much importance to a secondary fact. Van Dyck had just passed eight months in Rome, after having stayed there several weeks on a previous occasion. His curiosity had been fully satisfied. Besides, his friends in Genoa were eagerly pressing him to return to them. These various motives no doubt influenced his decision. In the month of October, 1623, he quitted Rome, leaving in the pontifical city a certain number of portraits and several pictures deserving special mention. In the first rank we will name the portrait of Cardinal Barberini, who became Pope under the name of Urban VIII., in 1623, after the death of Gregory XV., and died in 1644 at the age of seventy-seven. This canvas gained universal approbation. The artist was thus assured of the new pontiff’s protection. Perhaps the beautiful drawing belonging to M. Dutuit, of which we give a heliogravure, and which has hitherto been regarded as a first idea for the portrait of Cardinal Bentivoglio, may be a study of Cardinal Barberini. We do not find in it the characteristic features of the noble figure which we admire in the Pitti Palace; the attitude shows numerous differences, and we know besides that Van Dyck put himself to but little cost of imagination for the pose of his models. Among the distinguished strangers who visited Italy the representatives of the English nobility were numerous. Attracted by the talent and the manners of Van Dyck, many of them ordered their portraits of him. It was thus that he became acquainted with and painted George Gage, with whom he preserved friendly relations, as is proved by the dedication of Hhe Dead Christ on the K?tees of the Virgin , the master¬ piece of the engraver Lucas Vorsterman. 1 It was also at Rome that our artist met and painted Robert Shirley and his wife in Persian costume. Shirley, a mere adventurer, called 1 The following is the text of this dedication : Perillustri apud Anglos domino D. Georgio Gagi, mutu* consuetudinis olim in Jrbe contract#, nunc perpetuum ejusdem amoris argumentum L.M.'D.C.Q. An L Van Dyck. 6o Van Dyck in Italy himself Persian ambassador, and travelled over Europe, seeking to stir up the Christian princes against the Turks. The eccentricity of his costume, which attracted the painter, did not fail to excite the eager curiosity of the public. However, none of the paintings completed at Rome obtained so great a fame as the portrait of Cardinal Bentivoglio, quoted to this day among its author’s masterpieces. Cardinal Guido Bentivoglio, of the celebrated family of that name, occupied a high position at the Pontifical Court. Successively privy chamberlain to Clement VIII., referendary to Paul V., Archbishop of Rhodes, Papal Nuncio in Flanders and in France, chosen by Louis XIII. as protector of the Court of France with the Pope, he was on the point of obtaining the tiara, after the death of Urban VIII., when he was himself carried off by a sudden illness. The artist has been marvellously happy in rendering the profound character of that piercing eye; of the thin, austere, almost ascetic countenance. Clothed in the Roman purple, the wide folds of which envelop his whole figure with a dazzling splendour, the Cardinal is seated before a small table laden with papers relating to the duties of his office. In the midst of this scale of harmonious tension the head and hands stand out in marvellous relief. It is life itself, taken in the act, transferred to the canvas, and with the life, the flashing look, the flame of intelligence, the distinction, of a superior nature. Of Van Dyck’s portraits, that of Cardinal Bentivoglio is justly regarded as one of the most perfect. The artist, when he painted it, had scarcely reached his twenty-fourth year. This admirable picture has been several times engraved. An Italian, named John Picchianti, reproduced it after a drawing by Petrucci. Morin, in a masterly plate, has given the half-length of the figure only. The facile needle of M. Gaujean enables us to put before the eyes of our readers a good reproduction of the whole. According to Smith 1 our artist painted, before leaving Venice, two pictures intended for the Spanish Church in Rome, no doubt San Giacomo 1 A catalogue raisonne of the works of the most eminent Dutch, Flemish, and French painters, by John Smith. 9 vols. 8vo. London, 1829-42. (See page 36, ante.') Van Dyck in Italy 61 d e gli Spagnuoli. One of these canvases, of which a duplicate exists in England, represented the Martyrdom of St. Stephen. Our author adds that the Prince de la Paix purchased the Martyrdom of St. Stephen for a considerable sum, and conveyed it to Spain. At the same time, precise and authentic information about this forgotten work is lacking, as well as about the decoration of a Chapel of Santa Maria del Popolo, mentioned by certain autnors . 1 None of the guides to Rome, ancient or modern, speaks of the Spanish Church pictures any more than of those of the Chapel of Santa Maria del Popolo. In the absence, then, of contrary proof, we doubt the exactness of the statements we have just referred to. If we have thought them worth speaking of, it is in order to put the reader on his guard against assumptions entirely hypothetical. Bellori mentions also, among the works of Van Dyck dating from his residence in Rome, a Christ on the Cross intended for Cardinal Bellarmin ; and the biographer adds that the Christ was represented dying, His eyes raised towards heaven. The description would apply almost equally to all Van Dycks Christs on the Cross, and can hardly help in identifying it amongst the three similar subjects which the Roman collections possess. There is, indeed, to be seen in the rich Borghese Gallery a Crucifixion^ perhaps Cardinal Bellarmin’s picture, although no positive information puts us on the trace of its origin. Moreover, the same collection includes a portrait of Marta de Medicis and a very fine Descent from the Cross. This scene is one of those which Van Dyck very often reproduced, without effecting any perceptible change in the composition. The private or public galleries of Rome have preserved a certain number of canvases worthy of mention. In the collections of princes must be noted: a Portrait of a Man in the Rospigliosi Palace; an Equestrian Portrait of a man, and the figure of a woman in full length, said to represent Lucrezia Colonna, in the Colonna Palace. We pass over in silence other at least doubtful paintings in the same gallery. It is well to be very cautious on the subject of several male portraits exhibited at the Corsini Palace, along with two equally to be suspected compositions : fesus before Pilate and The Child fiesus in the Manger. Let us mention the Christ on the Cross in the Villa Albani, and we shall have 2 See H. Chardon, Les Freres Creart de Chantelou, p. 68. 62 Van Dyck in Italy drawn an almost complete list of the works of Van Dyck preserved in the collections of the old Roman families. The public collections of the city possess a Resurrection , placed in the Quirinal, and a third Christ on the Cross , at Monte Cavallo. At the Capitol are to be seen two remarkable canvases, each showing two half- length figures. On the one are united the brothers De Wael; we have spoken of this picture. The other recalls the features of the engravers Peter de Jode, father and son. Finally, the Academy of St. Luke ascribes to our artist a Fir gin holding the Infant Jesus , of which the signed drawing is exhibited by the side of the picture, and a half-length female figure. If we occasionally mention works which are mediocre, or even of doubtful authenticity, it is in order that we may draw attention to pictures scarcely known, dispersed throughout a great number of collections, many of which belong unquestionably to the master’s Italian period. The pictures in the museums of Florence are more accessible to the public than those of Rome. Here at least carefully edited catalogues furnish precise information. Let us mention first the heroic portrait of Charles V,, half life-size, inspired by some painting by Titian, placed in the Tribune, in the Uffizi Gallery. It was a great honour to pay to this picture. We have never experienced any very lively enthusiasm for this conventional figure, badly proportioned, more pretentious than real. The Uffizi Gallery possesses also the portrait of Van Dyck by himself, a sketch of the Virgin in monochrome, the portrait of John de Montfort, that of Margaret of Lorraine, Duchess of Orleans, and finally another head of a woman said to represent Rubens’ mother. It is not in the painting-rooms, but in the gallery of the Bridge of Arno, in the long corridor reserved for the exhibition of drawings, that we have to seek the most expressive manifestations of Van Dyck’s talent. We find it there in every phase : pen-and-ink drawings, portraits in crayon or wash, compositions freely dashed off with a few strokes of the pencil. Still, we must make a strict selection amongst the sketches attributed to our master, and deduct from his work certain pages unworthy of him. If the Uffizi Gallery offers nothing very striking, the talent of the artist is, on the other hand, shown under its most brilliant aspects in the 64 Van Dyck in Italy rooms of the Pitti Palace. There, not far from the principal canvas, which represents Cardinal Bentivoglio, one same panel joins the heads of Charles I. and his wife Henrietta Maria, in a curious framing, the arrangement of which is reproduced in M. Gaujean’s etching. Need we add that this painting, doubtless presented to some Duke of Tuscany, could not have been of a date previous to the year 1632? In the same gallery we find also a Head of the Madonna , not of much importance, and one of those Holy Family pieces, in which a circle of cherubs have come to entertain with their dances, their songs, and the sound of their instruments, the Divine Child seated on the knees of His mother. This is undeniably one of Van Dyck’s most graceful conceptions. It excels, besides, in the drawing of the little bodies with their plump limbs, their round and merry heads, encircled with curly hair. The Holy Family of the Pitti Palace is well known by Bolswert’s magnificent engraving. A replica of the same subject, often described by the title of the Fyest in Egypt , belongs to the Hermitage Museum, where it is regarded as an original. In any case the Florence picture is an excellent work, of unquestionable authenticity. The master has often repeated this composition. Is it not natural that a subject so attractive, so adapted to set off the qualities of the artist, should have been several times asked of him ? The Church of St. Peter at Ghent possesses a good copy, and Lord Ashburton’s collection a possibly original replica. A superb drawing which has passed from M. Reiset’s collection into that of the Due d’Aumale, of which we give a reduced facsimile, shows us in a new aspect that delightful circle of cherubs introduced by Van Dyck into many of his religious pictures, and of which the Berlin Museum preserves a sketch. We left our traveller quitting Rome in the month of October, 1623, and making for the north of Italy. On the Genoa road, he met the Countess of Arundel, the wife of the noble Earl who had lately wished to keep him in England. The Earl was not content with loving the arts and lavishing his encouragement on budding talent. His chaplain, William Petti, had been charged to go to Greece to form a collection of antiques which had become famous through the observations of ' '.• id !sc:; is. ,:nci ded v. it!. t ..a • • ' replica of the same subject, often desc * . F t , belongs to the Hermitage Mus. 1 , work, of wnquv- tionable authenticity, has < ten repeated this composition. I' it nc natural - .r ’ctive, so dapted rr» set off the qualities tht passed from M. Reiser’s collection Un ■1 h we give a redqc facsimile, circle of cherubs introduced by ' Rorai. •-< the month of Octob* r > •, *.*n hudd • lent. His chaplain, JA/KIflAJ A (tttnVvito<£> AH) Van Dyck in Italy 65 Selden, the description of Prideaux, and the assistance drawn from them by Petav, Saumaise, Vossius, and other savants. The Countess interested herself as much as her husband in artistic matters. Despite somewhat coarse features, and the ridiculous extra¬ vagance of a voluminous peruke, which resembles a sheep’s fleece rather than the headgear of a woman, her face, which Van Dyck painted From a Pen and-ink Study in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence. several times, ^breathes benevolence and goodness. She insisted that the artist should accompany her to Milan and Turin ; she herself introduced him to exalted society in these different towns, and did everything in her power to take him to England in her train. Van Dyck declined. He had promised his friends in Genoa to pay them a visit and devote several weeks to them before his departure. He could not, however, 9 66 Van Dyck in Italy refuse to paint the principal personages of the Court of Savoy. The chief of the house at that time was Charles Emmanuel, who had succeeded his father in 1580, and whose life was prolonged till 1630. Our traveller painted the portrait of this prince and those of his sons Victor Amedeus and Thomas de Carignan. The last named is repre¬ sented on horseback; the canvas, exhibited in the Turin Gallery, is justly regarded as one of the artist’s finest equestrian portraits. The Turin Gallery possesses besides the likenesses of several young princes and princesses of the House of Savoy, amongst which are to be noted some charming child-figures ; we also find two religious pictures, a large Holy Family and a Vi?-gin with the Holy Child at the B?~east. But how all these works, which nevertheless possess very great qualities, pale before another canvas of the master, likewise preserved in the Turin Gallery ! We refer to the picture in which are grouped the three young children of Charles I. : the Prince of Wales, the Princess Henrietta Maria, afterwards Duchess of Orleans, and the Duke of York. All three still wear frocks, the eldest being scarcely five or six years of age; all three are standing up, for which reason we cannot suppose the youngest to be less than eighteen months or two years. These facts date the picture ; it was painted in 1635. We are acquainted with the different portraits of Charles I.’s children scattered throughout the museums and palaces of Europe ; we have seen and admired the Dresden picture, those of Windsor, the sketch in the Louvre, and the canvas at Berlin, a replica of the great composition belonging to the Queen of England. Well, there is no hesitation possible; none of these pictures is to be compared with that of Turin. There nowhere exists a work of Van Dyck so delicate, so well preserved, so perfect in all points. It is difficult to imagine with what care, with what reverence, this masterpiece is treated. The most elaborate precautions are taken for its preservation, and it receives the most respectful regard. We have been assured that the management of the museum have steadily refused to move it for the convenience of photographers. A trifling detail, and not worth mentioning, it may be said. We think otherwise. We consider that the guardians of museums, when they possess such a masterpiece, are very right to neglect no Van Dyck in Italy 67 precaution, however insignificant it may appear, to ensure to it the longest possible preservation. M. Gaujean’s delicate etching, the first faithful reproduction of this peerless gem, gives a very exact idea of the arrangement and Study of a Woman and of a Hand. From a Drawing in the Uffizi Gallery at Florence. of the principal qualities of the picture; but how can we render in black and white the play of colour on the draperies, the delicacy of tone, the colouring of those frocks, red, white, and blue, with their exquisite harmony, their incomparable delicacy ? How can we describe the physiognomy, the grace, the pervading charm, of those 68 Van Dyck in Italy three child-figures ? One such work is sufficient to make the glory of a collection, especially when it has preserved all its freshness, and is, as it were, the flower of genius. Shall we speak after this of the portrait of the Archduchess Isabella Clara Eugenia, of which we find replicas almost everywhere—in Paris, Vienna, Parma, and in England ? The copy in the Turin Gallery seems one of the best. It is certainly authentic. One knows that heavy and rigid face, rather harsh, with hooked nose and thin, firm lips. When one has once seen it, it is difficult to forget it. Further¬ more, the engravings of this characteristic portrait are not less numerous than the painted copies. The majority of the Italian galleries possess canvases by Van Dyck. They are to be found in Milan, Venice, Modena, Naples, and elsewhere. At the Brera Palace there is a charming scene repre¬ senting St. Anthony of Padua in Adoration before the Infant Jesus , who is seated on His mother’s knee. An engraving by Rousselet, the plate of which is preserved in the Engravings Depart¬ ment of the Louvre, gives a rendering of the composition in the Milan Gallery, without expressing the charm of colour or the grace of the features. But it is in Rome, in Florence, in Turin, and especially in Genoa, that we must seek the most glorious souvenirs of Van Dyck’s residence in Italy. There are preserved the most characteristic and most perfect examples of that phase of his talent rightly called the Italian period. Meanwhile, the friends whom the artist had left at Genoa, the noble patricians whose sympathies he had gained, were pressing him more eagerly every day to return to them. His ever-increasing successes had not made him forget with what attention and considera¬ tion he had been treated on the occasion of his first visit, whilst he was still an obscure debutant. We find him accordingly at Genoa, where he remains during the first six months of the year 1624; and it was in this prosperous and prolific period that he painted the majority of the portraits and other pictures which are still the pride of the Genoese palaces, and on which we have already expatiated at length. As for the systematic attacks of mediocre artists, jealous of his success, of which so much has been made by the old historians, they may Van Dyck in Italy 69 have had the effect of distressing him, but we do not believe that they produced so keen an impression on him as to drive him out of a town he delighted in, and in which he could count on warm friends and powerful protectors. Portrait of the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia. From the Engraving by William Hondius, after Van Dyck. 70 Van Dyck in Italy After a few months’ rest he resumed his journey, and on this occasion directed his steps towards Sicily. The greatness of his reputation had decided the Viceroy, Emmanuel Philibert, of Savoy, Grand Prior of Castile, to summon him to his Court. To reply to so honourable an invitation by a refusal was almost impossible. Besides, our artist could not hope for a better opportunity of visiting the southern provinces, with which he was unacquainted. He accordingly set out towards the middle of the year 1624. Scarcely had he arrived, when the Viceroy ordered his portrait of him. This example was followed by all the courtiers. The artist had occupation enough to last several months, and purposed remaining some time at Palermo, when suddenly the plague broke out and inflicted terrible ravages. The Viceroy, one of the first to be attacked, succumbed at the age of thirty-six. Van Dyck fled before the scourge. Would he have done better to have uselessly exposed himself to infection ? He returned to Genoa and resumed his residence with the brothers De Wael. As soon as he returned to that city he set to work to complete various canvases which he had begun, notably a picture which the Con¬ fraternity of the Rosary of Palermo had ordered of him as a memorial of the plague. The Virgin appeared in this in the midst of a circle of angels, surmounting a group of the various patron saints of the town and of Sicily, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Rosalie, and three other saints. To indicate the circumstances alluded to, Van Dyck added to these holy personages a child holding its nostrils before a Death’s head. Meanwhile, home-sickness began to take possession of the traveller. He had been absent from Flanders for nearly four years. This period of study had been conscientiously turned to the best advantage. The artist was now thoroughly acquainted with all the Italian schools, and especially with those Venetian masters whose chefs-d? oeuvre had exercised such a profound influence on the development of his talent. Nor had these years of travel been wasted as regards his reputation. An old guide to Genoa mentions more than forty-five portraits or pictures pre¬ served in the palaces of the town. The number of canvases dispersed in other Italian towns is certainly not less; thus bringing the sum total of works painted during this journey to upwards of one hundred. Van Dyck in Italy & '~'44UU/) i t ^'c /l/h aj vr Sketches after Titian. From Drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck. 7 2 Van Dyck in Italy If we consider that in this total there are included six or eight equestrian portraits and numerous full-length portraits, almost life-size, we shall have an idea of the immense labour to which Van Dyck, who never was at rest, but who was constantly travelling from place to place, had devoted himself during those years of study. His prodigious activity had not in the least injured the quality of the productions of his energetic brush. Several veritable masterpieces figure among the paintings of this period : the pictures of Cardinal Bentivoglio, Prince Thomas de Carignan, and other excellent portraits. Van Dyck thus repaid royally, with the lavish liberality of genius, the hearty welcome and the useful instruction he had received in this hospitable land ; but while leaving behind him the pictures ordered of him by intelligent Mecamases, he took away a considerable stock of studies and copies, together with a number of sketches rapidly outlined on the leaves of his travelling memorandum- books. Several of these precious note-books still exist in England. The Duke of Devonshire’s rich collection formerly possessed one whose reputation was great in the last century. The anonymous author of the Louvre manuscript speaks of it with the highest praise,—without having seen it, but from what he has heard of it. This precious relic at one time disappeared; it was believed to be lost. It is to be found to-day, Van Dyck in Italy 73 IO Sketches after Titian. From Drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck. Van Dyck in Italy 74 it seems, in Lord Clifden’s library. We have not been able to verify its importance for ourselves; but we give here the reproductions of several album-pages covered with heads, which still form part of the Chatsworth House collection. The British Museum, on its part, preserves several pages of pen- and-ink drawings, with notes in Italian, which are regarded as originals by Van Dyck, and come, it is stated, from the Duke of Devonshire’s collections. This assumption will doubtless seem somewhat rash to the reader, before whose eyes we are placing the facsimile of these Studies of Heads. From a Drawing in the Duke of Devonshire’s Collection at Chatsworth. sketches. He will observe the notable differences of execution between these different sheets. Whilst some betray the inexperience and timidity of a scholar, others—notably the Madonnas—show the confidence of a practised hand, able to arrange in place a head or a group with a few brief strokes. In short, the British Museum drawings are very unequal; a few are not unworthy of Van Dyck: that is the least severe thing one can say of them. Before quitting Genoa, Van Dyck left a last token of friendly feeling to the brothers De Wael. He painted them both on one 7 6 Va.7i Dyck in Italy canvas. We have already spoken of this portrait, to-day preserved in the Gallery of the Capitol; a sketch of it is in the possession of the Cassel Gallery. A hundred years ago there was still to be seen at the Gentili Palace a small picture representing the Education of Bacchus. Van Dyck had presented it on his departure to his fellow-countrymen, who had hastened to engrave it. They also owed to his friendship a Madonna with the Child Jesus , the fate of which remains unknown. At last it was time to part. The sea passage threatened danger, on account of the war which the Genoese were waging against France. Besides, the admirable road which extends along the coast of the Mediterranean was well worth devoting several days to. This was probably the direction the traveller took, although the very hot season was just setting in. Leaving Genoa towards the end of June, he arrived at Marseilles on July 4th, but did not stay there long. Before returning to the north, he could not but pay a visit to the illustrious savant who for a long time had kept up an active correspondence with his master. It was on Rubens’ introduction that he went to present himself at Aix to Nicolas Claude Fabricius de Peiresc. One can imagine with what warmth Van Dyck was received in 77 Van Dyck in Italy Sketches after Titian. From Drawings in the British Museum, attributed to Van Dyck. 7 8 Van Dyck in Italy that hospitable house, known to all learned Europe. His host wished to keep him for the rest of the summer; but the traveller was in haste to be back among his own people. However, he was obliged to consent to granting a few weeks to Peiresc’s pressing entreaties; he’ even made a portrait of this celebrated personage—a portrait probably destined for Rubens. In vain have we sought in Peiresc’s correspondence, scattered to the four corners of Europe, for some information about this last halting-place of Van Dyck. The rapid inspection of several volumes has taught us nothing, and we have been obliged to renounce an enterprise which demanded immense labour without any likely compensation. When will some dauntless Studies of Heads. From Drawings in the Duke of Devonshire's Collection. scholar decide to devote his life to the publication of this vast and precious collection ? The task is, no doubt, of a kind to terrify the bravest; but the result will certainly reward largely the labourer who has the courage to attempt the undertaking, and the patience to carry it to a successful end . 1 The direct road from Provence to Belgium led Van Dyck to Paris. He, no doubt, stayed there a few days, if only to admire the vast compositions which his master had just completed in the 1 We learn that this publication has been undertaken by M. Tamizey de Larroque, a scholar who shrinks from no task, however long it may be. Three volumes have appeared in the Collection of Unpublished Documents to serve for the history of France, published by the Minister of Public Instruction. Van Dyck in Italy 79 great Gallery of the Luxembourg. This new production of Rubens’ inexhaustible talent was at that moment exciting general admiration. The traveller must certainly have heard it spoken of on his way. He could not miss so fine an opportunity of comparing the most recent effort of the Flemish genius with the masterpieces of Italy. It is probably to this period that we must trace the intimacy between Van Dyck and a man who kept up the most cordial relations with him to the end of his life. Francois Langlois, of Chartres, known after his native town by the name of Chartres or Ciartres, a well-informed man, a pleasant comrade, of not over strict morals, was at the same time, if we are to believe a certain enlightened virtuoso, a gifted connoisseur and an accomplished musician. 1 He lived on terms of familiarity with many artists of talent, and was intimately acquainted with Etienne de la Belle. Van Dyck has left us his portrait. He has represented him as a pipe player, his head covered by a broad-brimmed hat. The engraving of John Pesne has made this portrait famous. Pierre Gabriel Langlois, perhaps a distant relative of the model, reproduced it a second time in 1780, dedicating his plate to the Marquis de Paulmy. On the print of 1780 Ciartres bears this name, The Pipe Player. The picture, which had just passed several times through public sales, was no doubt known under this designation. A case rare enough in the history of art, The Pipe Player can be traced through its various owners from the middle of the seventeenth century to our own day. From the family of the bookseller Francois Langlois, it passed to the Marquise de Ruffec, then belonged successively to M. Dutrevoux, to M. de Lautrec, to the Chevalier de la Ferriere, and entered into the collection of the Prince of Conti. At the sale of that famous collection (1777) the Due de Praslin paid 8,000 francs for it. Sold after the death of this nobleman in 17935 it is bought for 8,000 francs by the appraiser Paillet, representing the family, it would seem, for it 1 See, with reference to this individual and his relations with Van Dyck, M. Faucheux’ article in the Revue Universelle des Arts , 1857, vol. vi., pp. 314-30, and the same authors note, vol. vii., p. 181. 8o Van Dyck in Italy appeared again at the sale of Choiseul-Praslin in 1808. It then undergoes the fate of all master-paintings which are not fixed in the public collections—it departs for England. This time it only reached the price of 6,003 francs. We find it again at the sale of the property of John Hoppner, R.A.; it then becomes the property of the celebrated connoisseur and dealer John Smith, who describes it in his catalogue under No. 305. Since this period it has not left England. It was long believed that The Pipe Player was painted in 1641, on the occasion of Van Dyck’s last visit to Paris, a few months before his death. But it has been recently remarked that in this picture Langlois does not appear to be more than thirty-five or forty years old; now, as he was born on May 12th, 1588, he had reached his fifty-third year in 1641. The age he is in the picture accordingly fixes its execution at the date of Van Dyck’s passage through Paris in 1625. Other considerations lend support to this chronological argument. The portrait of The Pipe Player is composed with a freedom of treatment rarely to be found in Van Dyck hereafter. He soon, in fact, adopts the habit of giving all his figures a formal pose,—a conventional attitude, of which he is unable to rid himself even when he paints artists with whom he is living on familiar terms. Let us mention also that Smith, who was able to examine the picture at his leisure, proves the very marked influence upon it of the Venetian school—a decisive argument, it seems to us, for placing the execution of the portrait in 1625 rather than in 1641. At what precise time did Van Dyck see his native town again? One of his recent historians has discovered a document which would defer the date of his arrival to the month of December, 1625, or even to January, 1626. In such a matter one must beware of too positive statement. It seems, however, certain that Van Dyck’s journey lasted longer than has hitherto been supposed. Before we undertake the narrative of the new period about to commence, it is necessary to pause an instant in order to point out the metamorphosis effected in the artist’s talent. When, in 1621, he quitted the studio of Rubens, he scarcely dared to rely on his own • j tin at ’' •' - •:!. inui'lv, ,o£ uiu positive 1 It ••tfrncy lit oi > ’hsji hi Before we undertake the ;■ • V nee, it is necessary to . - Van Dyck in Italy 81 forces, as one can see by the timid imitation of which several works of this time bear the traces—notably the St. Martin. Accustomed to yield to the ideas and the direction of his master, he docilely follows the examples which he has every day before his eyes; scarcely does any symptom of originality appear in him. The creative power, the gift of invention, are essentially lacking. Con¬ quered on his arrival in Italy by the masterpieces of the Venetian school, Van Dyck had at first no other ambition than to pass under the law of Titian. But was the young artist to remain all his life submissive to this new discipline? The portrait of Bentivoglio would suffice to dispel any such anxiety. This is no longer the work of a pupil, a timid copyist. Communion with Titian has had the effect of freeing Van Dyck from the engrossing influence of Rubens. He begins to regain his liberty; he feels for himself; he applies with discretion the difficult studies of his youth. In his turn he has become master. PART THE THIRD VAN DYCK’S WORK IN FLANDERS AFTER HIS ITALIAN JOURNEY VAN DYCK was eager to find him¬ self back in Flanders. His talent, ripened and fortified by the contem¬ plation of the masterpieces of Italy and acclaimed by all the connoisseurs of the various countries successively visited by him, now came to long for that confirmation which is sought by all great men, and without which fame is of little value. The traveller felt that his fellow-countrymen and his competitors, the witnesses of his early efforts, of his first successes, would be the most competent judges ol his progress and of the results obtained. It was his native country alone which could set the seal upon his rising reputation. The example of Rubens, admired by his rivals, pampered by the most exalted personages of the Low Countries, visited by every distin¬ guished stranger, sought after even by foreign princes and sovereigns, inspired young artists with the eager desire to tread in his glorious footsteps, and to gather for themselves some of the honours lavished upon genius. Had not the leader of the Flemish school just com¬ pleted, amidst universal plaudits, one of the most extensive decorations ever given to a painter to undertake ? Scarcely was the history of Maria de Medicis placed in position in the Gallery of the Luxembourg, S2 L iZ Francis Snyders, Painter. After the Original Etching by Van Dyck. I an Dyck in Flanders 8 3 when fresh negotiations were entered into for the execution of a second series, devoted to the memory of Henry IV. The allegorical history of the Queen Mother had been painted during Van Dyck’s journey in Italy. Evidently, if Rubens devoted himself to a new work of the same extent, he would be compelled to leave to his best pupils the execution of the portraits and religious pictures just ordered of him from every quarter. Perhaps even Van Dyck hoped that some favourable circumstance might enable him to measure himself directly against his master. Throughout his whole life, he never ceased to seek, though he never found, the oppor¬ tunity of undertaking one of those great works of decoration which had brought Rubens’ reputation to its zenith. At one time, at the Court of Charles I., he was on the point of gaining the realisation of this wish. Unforeseen circumstances and political emergencies prevented him from painting, as he desired, a counterpart to the famous ceiling at Whitehall. To his last day, when wasted by disease, he restlessly pursued his aim, and in France proceeded to seek the opportunity of fortune and glory thenceforth denied to him by the troubled state of England. But he died with¬ out obtaining this crowning satisfaction. Need we regret this disappointment ? Perhaps Van Dyck would never have achieved with credit this undertaking so ardently desired. He did not possess the inexhaustible fancy, the prodigious facility of composition, nor those great qualities which enabled Rubens success¬ fully to carry out such works as the Medicis Gallery, the decoration of the Church of the Jesuits, or the Whitehall ceiling. The six or seven years which he passed in his native country, after his return from Italy, may be reckoned among the most laborious of his life. From this period date his most carefully executed and most important works, those which do him the greatest honour. Unfortunately his biographers have hitherto taken little trouble to fix the exact chronology of the numerous works com¬ pleted in a short number of years. Apart from a few leading pictures, concerning which positive information has recently been discovered, it is often difficult to assign a date to the most impor¬ tant of them. We will endeavour, with the help of the materials 8 4 Van Dyck i?i Flanders at our disposal, to give a systematic account of the artist’s works from his return to Flanders, in the month of January, 1626, until his departure for England in 1632. Van Dyck’s father died, as we have mentioned, at the end of the year 1622. The Italian journey had scarcely commenced, and this bereavement seems to have made no change in Anthony’s plans. One almost wonders if this father, a stranger to the things of this world, who regarded the religious life alone as the happiest condition for his children, was able to inspire them with any very warm and ardent affection. Be that as it may, when he died he left his son a last injunction. Deeply touched by the attentions paid to him in his last moments by the Dominican nuns, he charged his son to pay this debt by painting a picture for the altar of their convent. According to the majority of historians, the artist decided to carry out the paternal wish only after a long delay. The Christ on the Cross , between St. Catherine and St. Dominic , at present preserved in the Antwerp Museum, was not painted and presented to the nuns until 1629. We can hardly accept that date. A careful examination of the picture and the inscription placed upon it by its author furnishes very serious argu¬ ments against the generally received opinion. If he had delayed three years to carry out the last wish of a dying man, Van Dyck would have shown very bad taste by proclaiming that he had painted this picture “ that the earth might lie light upon his father’s ashes.” It has often besides been remarked, and justly, that this Christ is one of the feeblest, one of the least well composed, of the master’s pictures. In the middle of the canvas appears the Redeemer, life-size, nailed to the cross, between St. Dominic and St. Catherine of Sienna, who is embracing the instrument of death; two little angels hover in the sky; a third, crouched at the foot of the cross, holding an inverted torch and a funeral lamp, completes the scene. The composition seems bare and cold. The different figures are not connected one with the other. This carelessness has been attributed to the artist’s haste. It is said that he was eager to get rid of an irksome task. Why not put the fault down to inexperience? It is true that by dating the execu¬ tion of the picture in the year 1629 we bring it into comparison with other compositions very much superior in every respect. It accordingly -— THE CHILDREN OF CHARLES I. (Turin Galley) Van Dyck i?i Flanders 85 becomes necessary to find some specific motive for this singular falling off. But where was the date assigned to this canvas taken from ? What authentic document can be quoted? The anonymous Louvre manuscript, on the other hand, declares—and this is in accordance with every probability—that the Christ executed in r626 is one of Van Dyck’s first works after his return. We have stated that the author of the manuscript is in general well informed, while the date of 1629 only springs from vague tradition. The Christ of the Dominicans has a history, the principal fortunes of which are related by the Lady Superior of the convent, Sister Sara Derkermis, in a journal of the house. As the reputation of the picture attracted a great stream of visitors, the Dominicans decided to go to the expense of an engraving. Its execution was entrusted to Schelte Bolswert, the most skilful master in the Low Countries, and Erasmus Quellyn was charged with the drawing. A little later they authorised Conrad Lauwers, son of the engraver Nicolas Lauwers, to engrave a copy of Bolswert’s plate. This happened in 1651. The canvas and the two plates remained in the hands of the nuns till the end of the eighteenth century. When the convent was suppressed, under Joseph II., the picture was transferred to Brussels. Offered for sale, it found no purchaser at 10,000 florins. The reserve price had to be lowered; it was eventually bought in for 6,000 florins, and restored to the house whence it had been confiscated. As for Bolswert’s plate, it fetched 235 florins. In 1794 the Christ still adorned the sacristy of the Dominican Church : when it was sent to Paris by the commissioners of the Convention. Restored to Belgium in 1815, it found a place in Antwerp, where it still remains. We find that the portrait of Nicolas Rockox also belongs to the first months following the artist’s return, if one refers to the date inscribed on certain states of the plate by Vorsterman. 1 According to the inscription to which we allude, this portrait was painted in 1 On a proof of this portrait Dr. Wibiral read the following engraved legend: Jtnlon van Dyck pinxit, 1625. But was not the inscription added afterwards ? If Van Dyck only arrived in Antwerp’ at the commencement of the year 1626, the falsity of the inscription would be thereby demonstrated. 86 Van Dyck in Flander . *625, that is to say, immediately after Van Dyck’s arrival; whilst the second likeness of the same individual, the engraving of which is signed by Pontius, represents him aged seventy-nine years,-—which defers its achievement till 1639. It is almost impossible to judge of a painter’s work through the medium of the engraver. If we refer here to the portrait of Rockox, it is chiefly because of its date, and also because the memory of the individual is closely bound up with the history of Rubens and his school. The Antwerp Gallery shows, amongst the masterpieces of Peter Paul, a fine half-length figure of Nicolas Rockox, painted on the shutter of the triptych, which represents The Incredulity of St. Thomas. At the very outset, then, Van Dyck entered into competition with the undisputed leader of the school. It was bold, and even somewhat presumptuous on his part. One particular circum¬ stance seems to extenuate the apparent rashness of this first effort. Rockox had at different times occupied the highest posts in the municipality of Antwerp. In 1625 h e exercised for the ninth and last time the functions of burgomaster. One can understand that the newly arrived artist, encouraged by his success abroad, may have been anxious to depict the features of the noble Nestor of the city. Perhaps he was attached to him by old family ties. This would quite naturally explain the choice of a model which must inevitably provoke dangerous comparisons. Some years ago there was offered to the Brussels Museum, which did not buy it, a portrait of Nicolas Rockox; perhaps it was the original of Vorsterman’s engraving. Among works of uncertain date, those which are inspired by the colouring or the recollection of Titian certainly date from the stay in Italy, or from the early days following the return to the Low Countries. Nearly every gallery possesses some picture of this period. At the Louvre two canvases—a religious composition and a portrait —offer a remarkable specimen of this interesting phase of the artist’s talent. The picture, which assembles together The Virgin and Child Jesus with the Magdalen , King David and St. John the Baptist ,' ' No. 1961 in the Catalogue of the Flemish School. M. Masson’s etching, which accompanies this work, faithfully reproduces the expression and physiognomy of the figures ; but it was very difficult to give an exact idea of the colouring of the picture. J an Dyck in Flander: 7 betrays an unquestionable Italian influence. The purple gleams of the setting sun, the clear amber tone of the carnations, the warm harmony The Child Jesus standing on the Globe. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. of the ensemble , would almost lead one to seek the author of this painting in the Venetian school, if its ascription left any room for doubt. It has been stated that Van Dyck joined on this canvas the 88 Van Dyck in Flanders portraits of those he loved best. The Virgin takes the figure of his mother, King David that of his father; and whilst he painted himself in the traditional costume of John the Baptist, he gave to the Magdalen the features of his mistress. What are we to think of such an arrangement, and of the delicacy of those who imagined it ? For our part, without attributing to Van Dyck and his epoch scruples which, in the seventeenth century, were hardly fashionable, we unhesitatingly suspect the accuracy of this tradition, and class it with the multitude of fables with which the history of artists abounds. This composition probably obtained a certain success, for two copies of it are mentioned — one in England, in the possession of the Baring family, the other in the collection of the King of Prussia at Berlin. The second picture in the Louvre belonging to the master’s Italian period 1 is the half-length portrait of an unknown cavalier, which recalls, perhaps even more than does "The Virgin adored by the Saints , the vigorous contrasts of the Titian school. The Belvedere Museum possesses another portrait in half-length of an anonymous person, in whom, in spite of some variations, one recognises at first glance the unknown gentleman of the Louvre. Certain modifications in the arrangement of the hair and the moustache seem to indicate that the two likenesses were not copies one from the other; otherwise there are the same features, the same pronounced Italian type, the same black costume with satin-slashed sleeves. With this stage of Venetian influence is connected a picture long exhibited in the Diisseldorf Gallery, and now to be seen in the rooms of the Pinakothek at Munich. 2 It represents the Martyrdotn of St. Sebastian. The executioners bind the body of their victim to a tree ; the subject is made the pretext for a well-studied academic figure. Nothing, moreover, in the countenance or in the attitude of the sufferer denotes the least terror. The face of the saint, perhaps, bears a faint resemblance to Van Dyck. In the back¬ ground there is a huge struggling crowd of soldiers, horses, and pages, 1 No. 1977 in the Catalogue of the Flemish School. - No. 824 in the Catalogue. Van Dyck in Flanders 89 placed there to give life to the composition. This painting has a fault common to many of our artist’s pictures: it errs in expression and arrangement. It inspires no emotion. An insipidly beautiful youth, still beardless, is tied nearly naked to a tree, without seeming to feel the slightest fear, and without showing the religious exaltation which must sustain him amidst the anguish of death. The foreground lacks absolutely any movement or animation, while the tumultuous crowd which occupies the background concentrates all attention. Without its warm and quite Italian colouring, it would present little interest. Nevertheless, it formerly enjoyed a genuine celebrity, and, it is said, gained its author much praise when he showed it to his companions. The circumstance has preserved for us the date of its execution: it was in 1626. Van Dyck was not endowed by nature with a very rich imagina¬ tion, and soon adopted the habit of repeating himself. He repainted the Martyrdojn of St. Sebastian five or six times. The Munich Gallery possesses one of these copies. Another is to be seen in the old collection of the Louvre. M. Lacaze had a third, of whose authenticity we are rather doubtful. The Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh, the Corsini Gallery in Rome, exhibit two St. Sebastians attributed to Van Dyck. There was sold in the Beurnonville collection a small sketch of the same subject. Still other repetitions are known. What is lacking in all these pictures, in those at Munich as in those in Paris, is dramatic sentiment, religious emotion. The artist has felt nothing of the poetry of this beautiful subject, has done nothing to move the spectator. In 1626 we must also fix the execution of one of those scenes drawn from the New Testament, which, in spite of all their limitations, constitute, with the exception of the portraits, the best part of Van Dyck’s artistic im¬ pedimenta. The Crucifixion , preserved to-day in the apse of the church at Termonde, shows the young master’s great qualities in all their brilliancy. Near the cross, which stands out against the tragic shadows of a sky darkened by thick clouds, the Virgin is standing in an attitude of mute desolation, by the side of St. John, whilst the Magdalen, clothed in a bright red and yellow costume, embraces the feet of the crucified God. A monk and a mounted soldier complete 90 Vci?i Dyck in Flanden the group. All nature seems to enter into this scene of desolation. Words give a poor idea of the dramatic effect of that blood-stained sky. Leaving aside the picture for the Dominican nuns at Antwerp, the date of which remains uncertain, the Termonde Christ is thus the first of those great religious compositions to which Van Dyck owed his reputation. Undoubtedly he gives evidence, in the subjects borrowed from the scenes of the Passion, of a constant pursuit of the pathetic. But when we closely consider the essential conditions of a religious life, consecrated to the glorification of Divine mysteries, to the edifi¬ cation of the faithful, we vainly seek in him the profound and con¬ tagious emotion which emanates from the old Italian and Flemish masters. It is nowadays an undisputed truth that the painters of the fifteenth century, or of an earlier period, have alone known how to give their figures that Divine majesty whose image they had perceived in the ecstasy of their mystical dreams. Never did the most famous artists of the Renaissance, still less their successors, find again that serene and imposing grandeur inspired by an ardent piety. Van Dyck yielded to the law common to all his contemporaries. In vain does he strive to impart a superhuman character to the Virgin or to Christ; he is no longer upheld by the faith of the early ages, and the expres¬ sion of Divine suffering will never reach with him the sublime type realised by the precursors of the Renaissance. These reservations made, it is only just to admire the infinite resources of his brush, the dramatic effect to which he has risen, and the majestic solemnity he is able to give to the grief of the Virgin and the mystery of the Cross. Still he sometimes falls into exaggeration. From a desire to strain effects he exceeds his limits. This is the rock on which religious painting inevitably splits when faith is lacking and its absence only concealed by the force of art and technical skill. These remarks apply not only to the Termonde Crucifixion , but to all the artist’s religious paintings; to the famous canvases of Ghent, Mechlin, and Courtrai, as well as to the Descent from the Cross and other sacred scenes in the galleries at Antwerp, Paris, Munich, and Berlin. 92 Van Dyck in Flanders Van Dyck’s refined, graceful, and delicate talent was eminently suited to subjects drawn from the infancy of Christ; consequently the number of his Madonnas is considerable. It would be impossible to pass them all in review here. The catalogue of the master’s works printed at the end of this volume will show the important position which the paintings of the Divine Child and His Mother occupy in the series of Van Dyck’s religious pictures. In the same church of Termonde, not far from the Crucifixion , is placed a picture of smaller dimensions, which offers a striking contrast to the former. Seated to the left, under a porch, the Virgin presents the Infant Jesus to the adoration of the shepherds; whilst, hovering in the air, three little angels proclaim the birth of the Saviour, repeating the hallowed phrase, inscribed on a scroll: Gloria in Excelsis Deo. The nude figure of the Bambino and the winged angels who celebrate his advent are exquisitely graceful. Few artists have been able to understand and render with such perfection the infinite charm of childhood, and in this respect the drawings ol the master are in no way inferior to his pictures. The Nativity was painted much later than the Crucifixion. We collate the two pictures because they are lodged in the same church; but it is known from authentic evidence that the Nativity dates from the last few months of Van Dyck’s residence in Flanders, and must be placed at the end of the year 1631 or at the beginning of 1632. The author of the Louvre biography appears to have had before him a letter of Anthony’s, dated November 21st, 1631, addressed to Cornelius Gheerolfs, syndic of Termonde, from which it is to be gathered that the picture was painted at the desire of this magistrate, whose family, to the end of the eighteenth century, still preserved the precious autograph. This document would lead one to suppose that Gheerolfs presented the picture. Nothing of the kind. M. de Vlaminck, keeper of the archives of the town of Termonde, has discovered a note in the church records which leaves no room for doubt. 1 These records contain, under the date of 1635, this entry, 1 We are indebted for our knowledge of this document to the courtesy of our friend and colleague M. Alexandre Pinchart, who had it from M. de Vlaminck himself. _ '■i4 i!> ifi aiicy ( t. ennseqv ' • ■■:■innus is considerable. It ■ imp m review here. The catalogue of end of this volume will show i she paintings of the Divine Child and i }•■.' - r•«**: of Van iVck’s religif* . • ;<:■ ch of Ten i mde, i . ; j of smaller dimem § g > a> > E- 3 X o ° S w to X u s: > > ^ - o 5 !> C} S >0 < to H . The Nativity \W , collate the two picti ^ but it is known ■a— r-T— ' - ... -JS^ Va?i Dyck in Flander. 93 translated literally from the Flemish: “ Paid to Mr. Anthony Van Dyck, painter, Antwerp, for the painting and design of the altar- Head of a Child. From a Drawing in the Louvre. piece of Notre Dame representing a Christmas Nighty the sum of 500 florins, plus 12 florins 18 sous for the canvas of the said piece; by receipt for 85 livres 9 sous 8 gros.” 94 Van Dyck in Flanders The date of this entry would seem to contradict the statement of the anonymous biographer. Nevertheless the two statements may be reconciled. Master Gheerolfs may, towards the end of 1631, have ordered a Nativity , finished in 1632. The artist sets out in the meantime for England. The price agreed upon is only paid him in 1635, in the course of his journeys on the Continent. This would explain the entry in the records of 1635. We wish, however, that the letter alluded to by our anonymous author could be found. The dates curiously increase the interest of the pictures we have just spoken of. In the Termonde Church, in fact, two pictures are to be found together; the one executed at the commencement of the artist’s residence in Flanders after his return from Italy, the other at the close of that period. But Van Dyck’s ambition was not satisfied with decorating the churches of the Low Countries. Such commissions might assist his reputation, but they were not enough solidly to establish his fortune. So he eagerly seized the first opportunity to penetrate to the Court of Brussels, where Rubens had succeeded in creating a glorious position for himself. In the year 1626 he was ordered to paint the portrait of the Archduchess Isabella. The ruler of the Low Countries had, as we know, after the death of her husband the Archduke Albert, adopted the rule and habit of the Order of Poor Clares. From the first day of her widowhood till her death she never wore any other dress than the black woollen gown bound by a cord round the waist. Her head is covered by a dark veil, whilst a broad white stomacher spread over her breast sets off her energetic features. The simplest attitude was here the most suitable, as the artist has thoroughly understood. Thus the figure is shown full face, motionless, resting a penetrating look on the spectator, holding back with the left hand the end of the black veil. This countenance, of disquieting stern¬ ness, with hooked nose, without grace or animation, bears everywhere the stamp of a tenacious will, of a gloomy energy. The religious habit accords wonderfully with the rigidity of this impassive mask. As we have mentioned, when speaking of the Turin Gallery, there exist numerous replicas of this portrait. Evidently one first Van Dyck in Flanders 95 picture, painted from nature, served as model for the copies scattered almost everywhere, the relative value of which could hardly be determined even if it were possible to collate them. The Louvre picture has always passed for an original work; it belonged to the King s collection, the nucleus of the gallery. Remarkable as are the portraits of the Princess preserved in Vienna or Turin, that in the Louvre seems to us superior. It is stated, nevertheless, that the prototype of these numerous canvases is the picture in the gallery at Parma. The portrait of the Archduchess figures in the iconography of Van Dyck; it has been engraved several times. The print by Hondius, reproduced on page 69, seems to us to have preserved the spirit of the original better than any other. The old historians state that the success of this portrait very soon made the artist popular at the Court of Brussels; but they have omitted to mention by name the lords or ladies who appealed to his talent, and we should risk falling into error were we to attempt fixing the chronological order of the numerous portraits executed in Flanders. It will suffice here to mention those most remarkable. In the first rank we will place that fine picture which, according to a very old tradition, represents President Richardot and his son. This magnificent canvas was long attributed to Rubens, and certainly recalls the great qualities of the leader of the Antwerp school. The author of such a masterpiece has entered on the full possession of his talent. He has taken his place among the masters, and ranks henceforth amongst the foremost of portrait-painters. Now at this time Van Dyck had barely reached his twenty- seventh year. How many others at this age are, so to speak, merely leaving school and beginning to show promise! But in the case of born artists, those on whom Nature has lavished her gifts, the works of youth are often the most exquisite. They still retain that fresh¬ ness, that bloom, which cannot be replaced by study, and of which finished skill or weariness sometimes robs the productions of maturity. While staying at Brussels the young master executed one of the most important paintings which he had ever had the opportunity of undertaking. 9 6 Van Dyck in Flanders It was then the fashion to order from renowned artists groups of portraits, representing either the magistrates of a municipality or the members of a private association. The best canvases of Frans Hals at Haarlem, of Van der Heist and Rembrandt at Amsterdam, are devoted to assemblages of this kind. The talent of the artist is the main thing in such a composition; it lends itself neither to movement nor to bright and varied colours. The painter must know how to make the most of sombre and uniform garments, common and bourgeois faces, for his models. Such was the task imposed on Van Dyck. The picture intended for the Town Hall at Brussels represented the Council of the Syndics of the city. It included no less than twenty-three figures. To the difficulties of such a subject were joined, in this particular case, a danger of another nature. The picture was ordered for a room already adorned with a celebrated work by Rubens, the "Judgment of Catnbyses. Such a juxtaposition was bound to provoke a comparison, which the envious endeavoured to turn to the disadvantage of the pupil. Unhappily these two pictures have long ceased to exist; they both perished by fire during the bombardment of Brussels in 1695 ; so we have no resource but to refer to the evidence of contemporaries, and this evidence gives us the most favourable idea of the great composition of Van Dyck. They praise the perfect resemblance ol the figures, the skilful arrangement of groups, and, finally (a detail which has its value), the ingenious fashion in which the artist has contrived to join allegory and reality. Such a feature would suffice to distinguish a Flemish work from a painting due to a Dutch master. This taste for mythological figures, which Van Dyck had acquired from Rubens, and had retained all his life-, enabled him to blend the ideal world with the real, and to animate with imaginary beings a subject which naturally lent itself little to movement or effect. He more than once made use of this device. Here is one of the best effects which he produced from it. Having been ordered to paint the Earl and Countess of Pembroke in the midst of their numerous family, he found means to join to the group of living persons two children whom the noble Earl had lost. He represented them in the form of two little winged angels, hovering in the sky. If the presence of these supernatural beings at first causes some surprise, 9 8 Van Dyck in Flanders one can, when the painter’s intention is known, only admire the ingenious and delicate art which could introduce into a family picture the beings snatched from their parents’ affection. The historians, very sparing of details concerning the great canvas of the Brussels Town Hall, say nothing of the part played by allegory in this composition. A drawing exhibited in Paris some years ago by a collector of delicate taste will relieve us of our difficulty. In M. Armand’s drawing, or rather sketch painted in bistre on wood, are assembled seven magistrates. Their features leave no doubt as to their nationality: they are distinctly of the Flemish race. Justice, blindfolded, seated on a raised throne, presides over the deliberations. No doubt this interesting sketch was a design, a first idea, for the great Brussels picture. It shows only the central group; probably the other magistrates were grouped in two sections, in various attitudes, to the right and left of those before us. But the most important part of the scene, where an allegorical figure had to be introduced into the midst of living persons, required a special study. Hence the necessity of arranging first of all the central group before seeking to dispose the accessory figures. M. Armand’s sketch, then, furnishes valuable intelligence of one of Van Dyck’s most important compositions, now lost without having been engraved. Received at Court, petted and patronised by the great, entrusted with honourable and largely remunerated works, the artist had nearly reached the acme of his desires. What could he hope for more ? Still, his ambition was not satisfied. Was he troubled by the inevitable comparison of his works with those of Rubens ? Did he aspire to works more glorious still ? Did he foresee in his dreams the possibility of playing, in attendance on a foreign prince, the role which Rubens had obtained for himself with the ruler of his own country ? Was he attracted by the mirage of that brilliant Court of Charles I., whose tendencies and sumptuous tastes agreed so well with his own aspirations ? A superior force drove him unconsciously as it were to seek in a foreign country a theatre more worthy of his talent, a scene on which he would occupy the first rank. Until his definite settlement in England, he only seems to have remained in his own country against his will. Van Dyck in Flanders 99 No doubt he recollected the hearty welcome extended to him some years before by the Earl of Arundel and the great nobles of the English Court. He could not forget the overtures and promises already made to induce him to forsake his native land; so, towards the end of the year 1627, he resolved to embark for England. Recent historians have thrown doubts on the 1627 journey. It must be allowed they have probability on their side. Nevertheless, the fact itself rests on a tradition surrounded with such precise circumstances that it is difficult not to take account of it. We shall recall briefly the Christ and the Man Sick of the Palsy. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. details to be found in old authors on this short stay of Van Dyck in England. The English painter Geldorp, custodian of the King s pictures, received Van Dyck with demonstrations of the warmest friendship, and offered him the hospitality of his own house. From another quarter, the ever-watchful protection of the Earl and Countess of Arundel was not lacking to the traveller. Anthony painted their portrait, and owed several works to their recommendation. All this only half satisfied him. His ambition was to penetrate to the Court, to reach the person of the King. The favourable opportunity did not offer itself, and the artist soon became disheartened. Charles I. s IOO Van Dyck in Flanders chief painters—Cornelius Janson, Van Ceulen, and Daniel Mytens—had doubtless watched the advent of this formidable rival with anxiety; his presence threatened their position. It was not only the prestige of his talent, but also the attractions of his personality, that they had to fear. They therefore seem to have heaped obstacles in his way, and to have sought by every means to debar him from access to the Court. Success responded to their desires only too well. After waiting some months, Van Dyck took his departure without having seen the King, without having gained any definite advantage by his attempt. It has been sought to establish the 1627 journey by the inscription on the portraits of Lord Sheffield and Anna Wake, which, after passing through the collections of M. Van Slingelandt and King William II. of the Netherlands, have found a final resting-place in the Gallery of the Hague. These portraits were probably painted in Holland, where an Earl of Sheffield was governor of Brielle; and as for the person bearing the name of Anna Wake, and whom the excellent Catalogue of the Hague Gallery names as the wife of Lord Sheffield, English authors have been unable to agree upon her biography. Some call her the wife of Isaac Wake, secretary to Dudley Carleton; others affirm that she married an Earl of Sussex. It would be useless to relate all the hypotheses that have been set forth on the subject. M. Henri Hymans, the learned custodian of the Collection of Prints at Antwerp, presents us with a very plausible conjecture. According to him, Anna Wake was sister or wife to Lionel Wake, an English merchant settled in Antwerp, with whom Rubens was in regular correspondence. In any case, she had nothing in common with the nobleman to whom she finds herself united in the Gallery of the Hague. The history of these two portraits, then, remains wrapped in profound obscurity, and is only to be handled with extreme caution. One particular circumstance renders them of great interest, and has attracted the attention of historians. Each of the canvases bears a signature and a date by the side of the armorial bearings of the subject. On the pedestal of the column placed to the left of Lord Sheffield we read: [atis] su turn alibi, ad fidelem populum habitarum gravibus laboribus omnia alia boni religiosi ac Christiana charitatis officia adjunxit, donee tandem ecclesiastica sacristia prastitutus, ejus rei tam sategit lit earn Van Dyck in Flanders 103 “Thus we obtained the three pictures in the year 1628, and consequently they would be completed and placed in position in the same year—in the month of June, if I reckon aright,—the more so as they were undertaken expressly by our orders. “ Your very humble servant, “Fr. Ignatius Coenen, Prior. “ From our Monastery at Antwerp, May 15th, 1764. “From the R.R. F.F. of St. Augustine.” Need we mention an old anecdote concerning Marinus Jansenius, which Mariette obtained from the painter Vleughels, and which the latter professed to have heard from his father? The story went at Antwerp that Van Dyck had given to St. Nicholas of Tolentino, who accompanies St. Augustine, the features of the monk who procured him the commission. Now the poor monk possessed an enormous nose, shaped like a melon, and Anthony took pains to copy it exactly. All this seems very improbable; moreover, St. Nicholas’s nose in the painting is not of any very extraordinary proportions. The St. Augustine picture has particularly stirred the imagination of the biographers. Each has striven to outdo the other in inventing anecdotes all more or less inadmissible. Compilers of the school of Houbraken, Weyerman, and Descamps have carefully avoided the trouble of questioning the Lliar turn of the monastery; they have preferred to gather blindly the oldwives’ fables that were rife in their time. Accord¬ ing to them, the monks, joining bad faith with rapacity, refused, after the delivery of the picture, to pay the sum agreed on; and, by dint of quibbling and unhandsome conduct, succeeded in obtaining a sub¬ stantial reduction. Not satisfied with this initial success, they further demanded, before making payment in full, a Christ on the Cross , which for a long time adorned the chamber of the Prior of the monastery. This ought to be sufficient; but the chroniclers are not inclined to desist when once they have started. The saint’s robe, they add, was first painted in white. The costume of their Order aurea argenteaque supellectile omnisque generis ornament is divitaverit. ...” No special mention of Van Dyck’s picture. The good monk died on May 31st, 1648.—From 1628 to 1630 the Prior of the Augustinian Monastery at Antwerp was named Melchior Beydaels. (From Inscriptions funeraires d'Anvers, IV. 278, and information supplied by M. Genard, Keeper of the Records of the town of Antwerp, as well as by M. Alexandre Pinchart, head of a department in the Royal Archives at Brussels.) Van Dyck in Flander. 104 being black, the monks desired that St. Augustine should wear vest¬ ments of that pattern, a requirement which destroyed the entire harmony of the picture. The engraving by Peter de Jode, on its part, lent some colour to this last statement. In fact, in this famous print St. Augustine wears a white robe. Sir Joshua Reynolds, accustomed to the effect which the engraving had substituted for that of the painting, was quite astonished when he saw the canvas for the first time. Con¬ sequently his judgment resented the deception practised on it. One knows what value to attach to all these tales; what is really known is this: the picture was probably commissioned and presented by Father Marinus Jansenius; Van Dyck received 600 florins, certainly a very fair remuneration, and one with which Rubens himself would have been satisfied. As for the small Crucifixion preserved in the monastery, it was a token of gratitude from the painter, and not an additional work extorted by bad faith. If we are to believe all the legends so naively accepted by public credulity, the churches and monasteries of the Low Countries were decorated only by means of unavowable tricks, and obtained their paintings by conduct far from creditable. The fact that positive proofs, drawn from authentic documents, continually give the lie to these malevolent insinuations makes little difference; the malice of the public blindly accepts these frequently ridiculous stories rather than submit them to the test of strict criticism. So the legends are perpetuated, and are continually embellished with piquant details, without account being taken of discoveries and of certain information due to patient investigation. On the question of the robe of the St. Augustine having been entirely repainted, ordinary common sense indicates that it would have been at least very imprudent of Van Dyck to complete the picture before having submitted a sketch of it to the Prior. Things did not happen in that way. The artist, beyond doubt, knew the costume of the monks, and would not have allowed himself such an infraction of the truth without the consent of the interested parties. That the colour of St. Augustine’s vestments may have been changed later for the purpose of engraving may easily be imagined. How was ST. (H.R.H. the AUGUSTINE Due it'Aumale's Collection) :wiTg!joy_A .Tf? (vtoWiaWoD p/atauiutCb mQ »i\\ A\.5\V\) :• malice of Vci7i Dyck in Flanders *°5 that large, dark mass which enshadows the centre of the composition, to be transferred on to a plate ? It was then that the white robe was substituted for the black one. This is probably how the thing happened without the artist, in any case, having had to protest against a demand that was perfectly natural, and easy to foresee. The Ecstasy of St. ^V • The Trinity adored by a Nun. From a Drawing in the Collection of H.R.H. the Due d’Aumale. subject of the second renders it particularly attractive. The figure of the Holy Child is exquisitely graceful ; St. Rosalie’s robe, of gorgeous material with a golden ground, lights up the whole canvas. By the Virgin’s side stands St. Paul in an attitude full of nobility and grandeur. Certainly, if the confraternity were not satisfied, their bad taste was to blame; but let us be wary of old stories! The picture at Vienna differs perceptibly in many portions from the drawing in the Louvre reproduced on page ii3. I 12 Van Dyck in Flcmders To the years 1628 and 1629, moreover, are attributed several other known pictures, though it is impossible to fix the order of their execution. These two years stand out in Van Dyck’s life as a period of exceptional activity. After his fruitless efforts in England and France, he gathers his forces and devotes himself to work with feverish intensity. To the year 1628 are usually assigned two pictures in the Munich Gallery, both removed from Diisseldorf, which are as different in subject as they are in the sentiment inspiring them. In one the chaste Susannah is defending herself against the two lascivious elders, and despairingly clasps to her breast some bright-toned drapery, the last veil of her modesty. The painter has striven after violence in gesture and colouring. There is in this canvas as it were a suggestion of the Venetians, and for this it would perhaps be well to fix the date of its execution a little earlier. The thin, swarthy, somewhat barbarous type of Susannah in no way recalls the Flemish women of Rubens. Van Dyck evidently painted, from an Italian model—a fact which confirms the theory suggested by the general scheme of colouring. The other picture in the Munich Gallery placed under the date of 1628 owes its reputation to Lucas Vorsterman’s admirable engraving. It is 'The Dead Christ lying on the Knees of the Virgin and worshipped by Ajigels. There exist several replicas of this scene, which was one of those most frequently ordered 6f Van Dyck by his pious contem¬ poraries. The Munich Gallery possesses both the finished picture, 1 which is superb in expression and colour, and a sketch in brown monochrome on paper. A painted study, of the same size as Vorsterman’s plate, adorns the Louvre Gallery. Sketches by painters like Rubens or Van Dyck are equal in value to their pictures. That in the Louvre seems to be a copy intended to facilitate the work of the engraver rather than a first study. It differs only in size from the Munich picture. Otherwise, the same arrangement, the same figures, the same attitudes and expression, are there; nothing is altered. Here, again, we find that reflection of the Venetian sky, of which the recollection continues steadily to diminish, without completely disappearing. The principal group, and particularly No. 830 in the Catalogue of the Old Pinakothek ; the Susannah is No. 822. H 4 Van Dyck in Flanders the body of Christ, lying almost front face, between the knees of His weeping mother, shows very remarkable qualities of execution. Never has Van Dyck modelled or painted the human body with more delicacy and perfection. We admire less the two adult angels kneeling before the corpse. Their grief has something theatrical about it. In general, Van Dyck’s angels, when they do not take the form of infants, have an affected and almost simpering expression. Lucas Vorsterman’s print has long enjoyed a deserved reputation. The skilful engraver has rarely rendered so faithfully the delicacy of Van Dyck’s painting; rarely has he carried further the knowledge of process, the craft of the graving-tool. The Christ mourned by Angels is justly regarded as his masterpiece, as one of the wonders of engraving. Amongst the Descents from the Cross , the Munich picture deserves the first place. Van Dyck has many times repeated this subject; never has his inspiration been more evident. The Christ in the 'Tomb , given to the Franciscan Church at Antwerp by the Abbot Caesar Alexander Scaglia, and now preserved in the gallery of the town, is not, in spite of its reputation, equal to the Munich Christ. Here the stiffened body of Christ stretches awkwardly across the picture. The Virgin no longer has that admirable expression of pathetic grief. What is the meaning of that gesture of St. John, in raising the hand of his Master to show the wound to the weeping angels ? Unquestionably we recognise the master-hand in the fineness of colour, in the delicacy of those harmonious greys which he turns so happily to account. Unfortunately indiscreet restorations have seriously affected the surface of the picture \ the harmony of the painting suffers from this harsh treatment. The numerous canvases on which Van Dyck has represented the entombment of Christ might be classed in two categories. To the first would belong the Munich pictures, the sketch in the Louvre, and the Christ of the Antwerp Franciscans. These different canvases have this point of resemblance between them, that the body of Christ is shown stretched at full length, whilst the Virgin supports on her knees the head or shoulders of her Son. Moreover, in both the breadth is greater than the height. In the second category, on the contrary, the scene is Va?i Dyck i?2 Flanders 116 same subject. He compassed the work by having the pictures of which repetitions were ordered copied by clever pupils or by his ordinary fellow-workers ; he then completed this copy with a few strokes of the brush j after which he presented it as his own work. Was not this the habitual practice of Rubens ? In such cases it often becomes difficult to distinguish, among the different examples, the genuine original which served as model to the copyists. Prior to devoting all his time to portraiture, Van Dyck for several years gave himself up almost exclusively to the painting of religious scenes. The number of secular subjects which he has treated is very limited. Rarely does he allow himself an excursion into the domain of the Old Testament. Three subjects often recur in his work. He repeats them constantly, without any perceptible modifications, and without public favour seeming to weary of them. These three subjects are: The Madonna with the Infant Jesus , Christ on the Cross , and The Descent from the Cross , or The Entomb¬ ment of Christ. We have already endeavoured to class the pictures which come under the last category. To the second belong the Christ of the Antwerp Dominicans, now in the gallery of the city, the picture in St. Michael’s at Ghent, and that of Mechlin Cathedral. Apart from these leading works, there exists a large number of Crucifixions , of limited proportions, and of which examples are to be found almost everywhere. The Vienna Gallery possesses a fine specimen. That in the Antwerp Gallery came from the Augustinian Monastery in the town. We have stated under what circumstances it was presented to the prior of that house. Others are to be met with in Italy, at Genoa, and elsewhere. As all these compositions resemble each other, we have chosen one of the least known for reproduction. It is the Christ on the Cross which forms part of M. Chaix d’Est-Ange’s collection in Paris, and of which the conspicuous qualities and unquestionable authenticity were long since demonstrated by M. Charles Blanc. The scene seldom varies. The body of the Divine Martyr, nearly front face, is attached by three nails to the raised cross. A white cloth is wrapped round His loins; a large scroll is affixed to the top of the cross. The head is inclined over the left shoulder with an expression Van Dyck in Flanders 11 5 shown upright; Christ appears seated against a rock or half supported on the knees of His mother, surrounded by the Magdalen and St. John, and one or more angels. This is the arrangement adopted for the picture in the Antwerp Gallery formerly on the high altar of the beguine convent in the town. 1 Such also is the arrangement of the subjects in the Berlin Gallery and in the Church of St. Giles in Nurem¬ berg, of which the one is only a copy or faithful replica of the other. Such also is the composition in the Royal Gallery at Madrid, similar in all points to those of the beguine convent at Antwerp and of the Belvedere in Vienna. The success and the ever-growing popularity of these religious pieces compelled the artist frequently to reproduce the No. 403 in the Catalogue. Van Dyck in Flanders 116 same subject. He compassed the work by having the pictures of which repetitions were ordered copied by clever pupils or by his ordinary fellow-workers ; he then completed this copy with a few strokes of the brush; after which he presented it as his own work. Was not this the habitual practice of Rubens ? In such cases it often becomes difficult to distinguish, among the different examples, the genuine original which served as model to the copyists. Prior to devoting all his time to portraiture, Van Dyck for several years gave himself up almost exclusively to the painting of religious scenes. The number of secular subjects which he has treated is very limited. Rarely does he allow himself an excursion into the domain of the Old Testament. Three subjects often recur in his work. He repeats them constantly, without any perceptible modifications, and without public favour seeming to weary of them. These three subjects are: "The Mado? 77 ia with the Infant Jesus , Christ on the Cross , and The Descent from the Cross , or The Entomb¬ ment of Christ. We have already endeavoured to class the pictures which come under the last category. To the second belong the Christ of the Antwerp Dominicans, now in the gallery of the city, the picture in St. Michael’s at Ghent, and that of Mechlin Cathedral. Apart from these leading works, there exists a large number of Crucifixiojis , of limited proportions, and of which examples are to be found almost everywhere. The Vienna Gallery possesses a fine specimen. That in the Antwerp Gallery came from the Augustinian Monastery in the town. We have stated under what circumstances it was presented to the prior of that house. Others are to be met with in Italy, at Genoa, and elsewhere. As all these compositions resemble each other, we have chosen one of the least known for reproduction. It is the Christ on the Cross which forms part of M. Chaix d’Est-Ange’s collection in Paris, and of which the conspicuous qualities and unquestionable authenticity were long since demonstrated by M. Charles Blanc. The scene seldom varies. The body of the Divine Martyr, nearly front face, is attached by three nails to the raised cross. A white cloth is wrapped round His loins- a large scroll is affixed to the top of the cross. The head is inclined over the left shoulder with an expression same subject. He cc :cpetit ions ".a<• on! • 1 «■., . • fellow-’w fkersj he i'liof to devoting his time to portraits ears gave himself up almost exclusively to i •u-s. The number of secular subjects wh: li Rarely doe- he ' ' .. . i without ; :r • 1 . pi« tures of which . his ordinary ekes of the ot this the ■i • which i hese three subjects < Vfehgi c<>! ie i. nder flu; la . .. . ggr\ , ! o tt* in % s 'z ”*P I g .. - met with ir * I semble each .action. li ’C: :i!l( t re unite loth be top of the Va?i Dyck in Elander. 118 of sad resignation ; drops of blood fall from the gaping wounds in the feet and hands. For background there are some rocks, or the con¬ fused buildings of a distant town. The horizon rarely reaches as high as the feet of Christ, and the cross is enveloped in sombre clouds traversed by the blood-red rays of the setting sun. Against this dark sky the body of the crucified One stands out luminous and delicately modelled; and sometimes the extremities already display a deathly hue. One cannot deny to these pictures an expression of deep and acute sorrow enhanced by very noble qualities of painting. If the artist never possessed the treasures of Rubens’ palate, he knew how to borrow from him and adapt to his own uses a gamut of luminous greys, of exquisite harmony. The same motive often reappears in his work; what matter, so long as the note which he has struck wakes a deep and vivid emotion in all hearts ? Of his favourite subjects, the one which Van Dyck repeated the greatest number of times, to which he owed his best inspirations, is undoubtedly the Madonna and Itifajit Jesus. There are few galleries which do not possess at least one of these Madonnas. The majority of these compositions have been popularised by engraving. We will recall the most famous. First there is the Rest in Egypt, where a circle of angels come to entertain the Holy Child with their play. We have already referred to the different copies or studies of this subject preserved in Italy, Russia, Prussia, England, and' at Chantilly. Bolswert has reproduced this charming scene admirably. Indeed, Bolswert may be regarded as the appointed engraver of Van Dyck’s Madonnas . Mariette mentions as one of his masterpieces the fine plate dedicated by the painter to his brother, the venerable and learned Theodore Waltmann. The picture which the engraver reproduced, preserved now in the Munich Gallery, may be regarded, in point of composition and of colour, as one of the master’s best. The body of the Child sleeping on the breast of His mother is of infinite grace and delicacy. Scarcely inferior is that other composition in the Munich Gallery, in which the Virgin supports the Child Jesus, standing on the ledge of a pillar, whilst St. John leans towards Him holding out a scroll on which is the inscription: “ Ecce (Agnus Dei)” Vcm Dyck in Flanders 119 It would be impossible to describe and classify all Van Dyck’s Madonnas. But we cannot omit mention of that picture, the reproduc¬ tion of which, so well engraved by Paul Pontius, was dedicated by the painter to the very illustrious and very reverend lord Anthony Triest, Bishop of Ghent, omnium i? 7 genuarum artium admiratori wiico et Mcecejiati. Finally, let us recall that composition in which the Holy Child, lying on His mother’s knee, is worshipped by an angel, who kneels, with hands crossed over his breast. Bolswert’s print bears a kindly dedication from Van Dyck to the reverend father Gaspard Van der Meeren or Marinus, a friar of the Order of St. Augustine, the same to whom is attributed such a singular part in the business of the St. Augustine picture. If the majority of Van Dyck’s Madonnas and Holy Families brought fortune to his ordinary interpreters by taking a distinct position among the masterpieces of Antwerp engraving, they have sometimes also found worthy reproduction at the hands of modern artists. It is enough to mention the fine print by M. Bertinot, reproduced here, in part, after the Virgin , with Donors in the Louvre. These religious subjects do not all date from Van Dyck’s residence in Flanders. We place them together here in consequence of the impossibility of assigning an approximate date to each. Moreover, if the artist painted a certain number of similar pieces at Genoa, Rome, or his other halting-places in Italy, the Venetian influence, clearly visible in these paintings, renders them easy to distinguish. After his settlement in England the many portraits demanded of him hardly left him leisure to undertake historical or religious compositions. Consequently the majority of the Holy Families , Christ on the Cross , and Pietas , date from the period extending from 1626 to 1632, a period of the most diligent labour. Van Dyck of course does not always confine himself to the narrow circle we have just indicated. Other New Testament episodes, or some scene from the Golden Legend, are asked of him from time to time. In this category come several canvases already mentioned: Fhe Ecstasy of St. Augustme , the St. Rosalie , Fhe Mystic Marriage of the Blessed Her mail Joseph and the Virgin , St. Jerome , several St. Sebastians , I 20 Van Dyck in Flanders. besides others. To this list may be added the St. Anthony of Padua in Adoration before the Holy Child , engraved by Rousselet when the picture formed part of the collection of the King of France; the Com¬ munion of St. Bonavejttura ; the Martyrdom of St. Peter , the St. Francis , and the St. Anthony , in the Brussels Gallery; the Pe?itecost and the two St. Johjis in Berlin; St. Agatha , St. Cecilia , St. Magdalen, etc. The larger number of these pictures have been repro¬ duced by engraving. We have had occasion to mention that Rubens did not cease to lavish tokens of the most kindly sympathy on his pupil. He grudged him neither advice nor encouragement, and bought several of his pictures. He possessed no fewer than ten canvases from Van Dyck’s brush. Amongst these were some very important ones, 1 without count¬ ing £C a number of faces drawn from life on wood and canvas,” as the inventory taken after Rubens’ death puts it. In the face of such proofs, of what worth are the imputations of these historians who represent Van Dyck as the preferred rival of his benefactor with Isabella Brandt, or as an unfortunate aspirant to the hand of his master’s daughter ? All this has not the merit of probability, for Rubens’ first wife left sons only, and Helen Fourment’s first daughter was not born until 1632. Therefore, obviously the proposal could not 1 The following is the list of compositions by Van Dyck found in Rubens’ house after his death, with notes as to the subsequent fate of several of these pictures, added by Counsellor Mols :— Charles V., by Chevalier Van Dyck, after Titian. Jupiter and Antiope , by Chevalier Van Dyck. St. Jerome accompanied by an Angel , by the same. Another St. Jerome , etc., a large piece, by the same. Gone to Spain (sold to the King of Spain by Rubens’ heirs, about 1641, for the sum of 500 florins). The same subject, but smaller, by the same. A St. Ambrose , by the same. An Imprisonment of Our Lord , by the same (sold for 1,200 florins to the King of Spain). A St. Martin , by the same. A Crown of Thorns , by the same (sold for 1,200 florins to the King of Spain). This is perhaps the picture now to be found in Berlin, which came from the Monastery of the Dunes, as described in the documents published at the end of Part I. of this work. A half-length St. George , painted by the same. Another half-length Man in Armour , painted on wood, by the same. A Portrait of Van Dyck , by himself, valued at 18 florins ; it was presented to one of the auctioneers charged with the sale of Rubens’ goods. Va?i Dyck in Flanders i 21 have been made, much less rejected. Are further proofs of the cordial relations which never ceased to reign between the two great artists necessary ? In the correspondence of Rubens these proofs abound, and, if need be, the superb portraits which Van Dyck has left of his master would supply conclusive evidence of their intimacy founded upon mutual esteem. These portraits are now scattered in various galleries. One of them is to be seen at Althorp, in the rich collection of Earl Spencer. The Child Jesus blessing St. Jerome. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. M. Six of Amsterdam preserves a sketch in monochrome, certainly intended to guide Pontius in his engraving in the Iconography. But what has become of the original of that fine portrait in which Van Dyck is shown on the same canvas as Rubens ? Often hampered by the unreasonableness and caprice of his sitters, by the extravagance and the variations of feminine fashion, our painter shows the full measure of his talent only when he studies and renders the physiognomy of his household, of his friends, of Antwerp artists or connoisseurs, whose features, character, and habits he had long been acquainted with. 6 122 Van Dyck in Flander. Among his studio companions there is one who always inspires him with a particular sympathy. He never tires of reproducing his distinguished features; he paints him con amove , sometimes alone, sometimes together with his wife and daughter. Hence the portraits of Francis Snyders, not to speak of the etched head, one of the purest gems of art, rank among Van Dyck’s finest works. At the Manchester Exhibition in 1857, according to the testimony of the best judges, the one of Anthony’s works which eclipsed all the rest without exception, even the great show-pieces and the celebrated equestrian portrait of The Child Jesus blessing St. Jerome. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. Charles I., was the portrait of Snyders, belonging to the Earl of Carlisle. W. Burger’s enthusiastic description should be read. This keen critic does not hesitate to place this canvas with the works of the greatest geniuses, to class it as one of the marvels of painting. Near this masterpiece was temporarily found the wife of Snyders, a superb portrait also, though a degree inferior to that of Master Francis. These two noble portraits were formerly in France; the Orleans Gallery possessed them both. France has now lost them for ever. The grave and sympathetic countenance of Snyders is to be found Van Dyck in Flanders 123 again at Munich, and in excellent company. There too it eclipses all its neighbours. Decidedly friendship brought Van Dyck success. At Cassel there is another excellent portrait of Snyders, depicted this Simon de Vos, Painter. From a Drawing in the Louvre (His de la Salle Collection). time on the same canvas with his wife, and shown in half-length as at Munich. Unless he is obliged, Van Dyck prefers painting a figure thus to a full-length portrait. All his portraits of artists are ended Van Dyck in Flander. 124 at the bust or at the waist. Another family picture representing Snyders and his wife is at St. Petersburg. Here the painter is standing in a careless attitude behind the arm-chair on which his wife is seated. To judge from the opinion of connoisseurs who have visited the Hermitage—it is not given to many to realise such a dream this canvas is a fresh triumph for the painter. But how to describe the admirable etching by Van Dyck himself? Never has he shown himself more profoundly an observer of human physiognomy, more thoroughly a master of process. And what After the Original Etching by Van Dyck. simplicity of means ! When one has once, and only once, seen those features, of melancholy distinction, and gentle, almost sad, gravity, they are never effaced from the memory. His painted portraits might disappear, but this single etching would secure Francis Snyders immortality. He shares, too, this good fortune with a number of artists, illustrious or obscure, whose names Van Dyck has for ever associated with his immortal work. How many owe to him a celebrity which their compositions did not merit! Side by side with celebrated painters, with Gaspard de Crayer, .V. ■ -; : : : : r ;.. v : ;. v . Van Dyck in Flanders 1 2 .5 Francis Franck the Younger, Jacob Jordaens, G. Seghers, P. P. Rubens, and Francis Snyders, how many more modest or all but forgotten names meet in this Pantheon of the glories of the Antwerp school! lhere are Martin Pepyn, Theodore Rombouts, Cornelius Schut, John Snellincx, Justus Suttermans, Theodore Van Lonius, the four members of the De Vos family, Cornelius, William, Paul, and Simon, old John de Wael, who also lives again on the canvas in the Munich Gallery, then Artus Wolfaert, Wenceslaus Coeberger, Deodatus del Mont, Sebastian Vrancx, Peter Snayers, Andrew Van Ertvelt, Charles Van der Lucas Vorsterman, Engraver. After the Original Etching by Van Dyck. Lamen, Anthony Van Obstal—all contemporaries, all rivals, all pupils of Rubens. The list is not yet complete; far from it. Let us not forget the landscape-painters: Adam de Coster, who made night effects his special study; old Josse de Momper, whose portrait had the signal honour of being reproduced twice, first by Van Dyck himself in one of his inimitable etchings, and secondly in an engraving by Lucas Vorsterman; Peter and John Breughel, John Wildens, Lucas Van Uden, Adrian Stalbent, and Adrian Brouwer, that painter of drinking- bouts, pictor grittorum , as the legend placed under his name described Van Dyck in Flanders 126 him. A few sculptors—Flanders only possessed a small number at this period—are added to the phalanx of painters: we have Hubert Van den Eynden, Andrew Colyns de Nole, John Van Mildert. The engravers who worked on the immortal monument raised to the renown of Flemish painting well deserved a place in this gallery; the master recompensed them royally. The portraits of Vorsterman and Paul Pontius rank amongst the most brilliant and most perfect etchings from Van Dyck’s hand. The others are treated not less . well; we see marching past in turn the two Peter de Jodes, Theodore Galle, J. B. Barbe, and finally Charles de Mallery, of whom a superbly painted portrait adorns the Pinakothek at Munich. Van Dyck does not confine himself to the Antwerp school and the Flemings. The Dutch also find a place in this Iconography. Their school is represented by some of the most worthy of the masters. We have Daniel Mytens, Gerard Honthorst, Cornelius Poelembourg, John Livens, the burly Palamedes Palamedessen, John Van Ravensteyn, Michael Mirevelt, Henry Stenwyck, Cornelius Sachtleven, then two engravers, William Hondius and Robert Van Voerst, and finally two Frenchmen, almost strangers in this Netherlandish Pleiades, Jacob Callot and Simon Vouet. Of the hundred and fifty portraits, or thereabouts, which make up the Iconography, as increased by successive additions, more than two- thirds are recruited from among Flemish or foreign artists. We have not yet named the people of rank, the distinguished connoisseurs. Let us mention briefly that musician of the mincing graces, Henry Liberti, whose portrait, repeated as many as three times, is to be found at Madrid, at Munich, and in England; the Antwerp Burgomaster already referred to, Nicholas Rockox; the connoisseurs Philip Le Roy, Anthony Cornelissen, Peter Stevens, Cornelius Van der Geest; the professors or savants Gaspar Gevartius, the friend of Rubens, Deodorus Van Tulden, Justus Lipse, Constantine Huyghens, Claude Fabricius de Peiresc; finally the members of the clergy, in the first rank of whom must be mentioned Anthony Triest, Bishop of Ghent; his portrait is at the Hermitage with that of John Malderus, Bishop of Antwerp ; then come the Jesuit John de la Faille, probably a relative of the Antwerp senator Alexander de la Faille, Ctesar Alexander Scaglia, Abbot of 128 Van Dyck in Flanders Staffarde, Anthony de Tassis, canon and connoisseur, Senator Paul Halmalius, and many others. The success of the first portraits engraved under his supervision or etched by his own hand appears soon to have suggested to Van Dyck the notion of forming a complete gallery of his most illustrious con¬ temporaries. This idea was inspired perhaps by the example of Rubens. It is known that the great Antwerp painter, thanks to the privilege granted by the archdukes, himself exploited the reproduction of his compositions. Anthony could not contend with his master on this ground, so he endeavoured to strike out an independent and hitherto untried line for himself. He excelled in portraiture. He bethought him of utilising his leisure by publishing a series of portraits of celebrities to which there should every year be added an instalment of fresh plates. At what date did the Iconography see the light ? In what year were the first proofs offered for sale ? With what portraits did the publication commence ? Was Van Dyck working on his own behalf or for Martin Van den Enden, the publisher whose name appears with his in the first state of his plates ? All these questions remain unanswered to this day, although for the last thirty or forty years the plates of the Iconography have been the object of many searching studies. It is sufficient to recall the names of Messrs. W. H. Carpenter, Herman Weber, Szwykowski, G. Duplessis, F. Wibiral, and lastly of M. Dutuit. In spite of all research, how many points remain obscure ! Scarcely are the authorities agreed as to the exact number of the master’s original etchings, those marvellous plates stamped with so powerful an originality. M. Duplessis, in the publication in facsimile of Van Dyck s etched work, has reduced the number of original etchings to twenty-one. There still remains some doubt as to the authenticity of the John Wiaverius , traced with a more timid needle than the other portraits. The complete series would thus consist of twenty indisputable plates, namely: two compositions, Christ crowned with Thorns and Titian s Mistress , then eighteen portraits which reappeared in the Iconography. The following is the list of these: John Breughel, Peter Breughel, Anthony Cornelissen, Anthony Van Dyck, D. Erasmus, Francis Francken Van Dyck hi Fla?iders r 29 the Younger, Philip Le Roy, Lord of Ravels, J. de Momper, Adam Van Noort, Paul Pontius, John Snellincx, Francis Snyders, Justus Suttermans, Anthony Triest, Lucas Vorsterman, William de Vos, Paul de Vos, and John de Wael. Some, including the Van Dyck, the Snyders, the Vorsterman, and the Pontius, hold their place among the masterpieces Anthony Cornelissen. From a Drawing in M. Benjamin Fillon's Collection. of etching. No master of the needle would disown them. When we consider that a painter arrived at this result, at the very commencement, without groping his way we remain struck with admiration, for the intuition of genius that grasps and applies, as though by divination, a difficult process which costs so many others long years of apprenticeship. 1 7 i 3 ° Van Dyck in Flanders M. Charles Blanc, a critic of the greatest authority, has set forth with singular happiness of expression the qualities of these etchings. ££ Take the plates of Van Dyck,” he says , 1 £< notably his portraits of artists, in the state of pure etching, before the burin has touched them : they are exquisite works, produced by slight means ■ they are sketches, but perfect. Snyders, Francis Franck, John Breughel, Vorsterman, De Vos, and others live in them ; they move, speak to you, call you, extend their hands to you. With a few strokes of the needle, Van Dyck has indicated the structure of the forehead, the foreshortening of the temples, the projection of the cheek-bones, the cartilage of the nose, the modelling of the cheek and of the chin. Two strokes more, a few points added here and there, a little biting, and you can touch those beautiful hands, etc. But what has come over those marvellous etchings when the Antwerp engravers have finished them with the burin ? What heaviness ! What coldness! What a suppression of all the tones of life! ” Hence the proofs in pure etching, before recutting, are eagerly sought after and fetch fabulous prices. It is only fair. They are equal to original drawings. And as the number printed was very limited, they continue to rank among the most rare and charming works of genius. It would be unjust to the Crown of Thorns not to allow it a certain measure of this praise. Here the painter no longer has nature for a guide, and one might expect awkwardness and weakness. But no: his sure hand has given, from his first attempt, an admirable model for the phalanx of engravers who make it their study to interpret him. And what preparatory studies have achieved this marvellous result! All the great public collections, and many private collectors too, provided they are millionaires, possess some of these drawings in pen-and-ink or Italian earth, sketched in lightly at first, barely indicated, then gone over again, shaded in bold strokes, nimbly modelled, so that every light, every value, is carefully indicated. Nothing is left to the risk of improvisation, and it is by a slow and methodical process that those effects are produced which are apparently Gazette des Beaux-Arts, vol. xxi., p. 429, and Grammaire des Arts du dessin, 1867 edition. 132 Van Dyck in Fla?iders due to chance inspiration. The etching has to succeed the first time. If it is jeopardised by any accident in the biting, the master will touch it no more; it is thus that the unfinished portrait of Erasmus has come down to us just as it left the acid. What sacrilege to have laid hands on these masterpieces! Without doubt, those of that day did not anticipate the admiration of posterity. They were satisfied with printing a few trial proofs, and the plate was given up to the tender mercies of the engraver to be deadened, disfigured, and, in short, touched up to suit the taste of the amateur. By good fortune, some few have escaped this hard treatment, and still show, after centuries of wear, a masterly style in which the genius of the artist may be recognised. We give further on, opposite the portrait of Gerard Seghers, engraved by Pontius, the fine drawing which served as the model. This arrangement will show with what fidelity the reproducer has respected Van Dyck’s slightest hints; but, moreover, what an admirable guide directed his graver! The majority of Van Dyck’s etchings were probably executed before he definitely settled in England. In vain has it been sought to fix the date. No detail, no document, has come forth to lead historians out of their perplexity. As for the plates of the Iconography, it is supposed that they were produced when Van Dyck had already quitted Flanders. From his new abode he superintended the work; on various occasions, moreover, he paid flying visits to the Continent. But it appears to us likely that the drawings for these numerous portraits, for those at least which were published by Martin Van den Enden, as well as the master’s own etchings, date from those six years which Van Dyck passed in his own country after the journey in Italy. He was then living on a footing of equality, of cordial comradeship, with all the artists whose features he reproduced. It would be in the private conversations of the studio, during the long winter evenings passed together, that he would sketch the outlines of those portraits afterwards rapidly finished in one or two sittings. The necessity of glancing simultaneously over certain works of the same nature whose date is undetermined has turned us aside from the methodical narrative of the painter’s biography. We must now take Van Dyck in Flander. 133 up again the sequence of his life and works, at the point where we left off, that is to say in the year 1629. The portrait of Charles Scribanius, now at the Belvedere in Vienna, must have been executed before the death of this individual, which occurred on June 24th, 1629 ; it is not impossible that it was done two or three years sooner. It is under the date 1629 that the old Catalogue of the Diisseldorf Gallery, edited by Pigage, places the portrait of Wolfgang William, Count Palatine of the Rhine and Neuburg. This noble personage is about fifty years of age; he stands in the most simple and natural attitude, dressed in a dark costume, with a large dog, a kind of mastiff, by his side. One hand rests on the hilt of his sWord, the other is passed through a ribbon bearing the Order of the Golden Fleece. A dim background, composed of a red curtain of subdued tones and of a vista of the country, completes this fine picture. 1 2 The Count Palatine Wolfgang William was a keen and enlightened lover of the arts. He founded the Diisseldorf Gallery, which his portrait long adorned. Now, this canvas is placed in one of the rooms of the Old Pinakothek at Munich, on a wall almost entirely furnished with full-length portraits by the same artist. All are per¬ sonages of distinction, belonging to the official world or to the nobility. There is, in the first place, a couple said to be a Burgomaster of Antwerp and his wife. How is it that their name has remained unknown ? Whoever he may be, the man is magnificently painted, with his short cloak showing the close-fitting coat, the left hand, gloved, resting on the hip, the other hand brought forward in front of the waist. The expression and execution of the portrait of his wife are still more remarkable. The hands treated with infinite delicacy, the face brightly lit up, the unimaginable look of intensity of life, the richness of the lace and silk stuffs of the dress, all contribute to give to this figure an unusual brilliancy and distinction. The Portrait of a Man? also full length, placed beside the Count Palatine, after which 1 The gallery in the Chateau of Chantilly possesses an original copy of this portrait; but the figure ends above the knees. 2 No. 843 in the Catalogue of the Old Pinakothek. J 34 Van Dyck in Flander: was executed M. Salmon’s etching here shown, offers perhaps rather less attraction, although the portrait may nevertheless be reckoned amongst the artist’s finer paintings; but we lack space to dwell on such works as are not absolutely characteristic, and we will pass over in silence that portrait of a woman to whom a negro presents a basket filled with flowers, the authenticity of which is, moreover, regarded as doubtful in the catalogue itself. At the other end, towards the left, this wall, devoted entirely to the fame of Van Dyck, ends with the portrait of Duke Charles Alexander de Croi, Marquis d’Havre, placed close by Genevieve d’Urfe, his wife. In spite of the Marquise’s reputation for beauty, we do not hesitate to prefer the superb picture which introduces us to her husband, a fat individual with long black curls, a pear-shaped face, and double chin. He is mounting on a step towards the left, resting his wrist on the hilt of his sword. There is more simplicity and nobility in this figure, albeit somewhat massive at first sight, than in the portrait of the beautiful Genevieve d’Urfe. The latter pleases us in¬ differently ; the light satin flowering on the forepart of the dress scatters the light which our artist as a rule understands so well how to focus upon the essential parts of the portrait, namely the face and the hands. The portrait of Duke Charles Alexander raises a rather delicate problem. According to the historians, this personage ceased to exist in 1624. Van Dyck was then travelling in Italy, and certainly could not have painted it earlier. On the other hand, a portrait such as this was certainly done from life. Out of respect for chronology, then, it must be supposed that the picture was painted at Genoa, or at Rome, during the Italian journey. Van Dyck several times reproduced the features of the beautiful Genevieve d’Urfe, so that points of comparison are not lacking. On Peter de Jode’s print, the characteristic features of the Munich portrait are to be recognised, without our being able to discover in this over¬ accentuated face the irresistible charms which captivated three successive husbands. The history of this family is full of doubt and obscurity. We should never end if we attempted to solve all the questions which occur at every step. The aspect of the pictures of which we have just spoken produces 136 Van Dyck in Flanders a singular impression at first. Although there are here two or three works of the first order— The Burgomaster s Wife, Duke Charles Alexander , !The Count Talatine Wolfgang William —each of these pictures would gain decidedly by being surrounded by historical com¬ positions or landscapes. Placing them together has been a mistake. Perhaps it was intended to give visitors the opportunity of com¬ paring these different canvases. But as long as we are unable mentally John Sneluncx, Painter. From a Drawing in the Louvre. to isolate each picture, the whole produces an effect scarcely agreeable, and almost disappointing. In time, reasoned analysis gives to each picture its value, and we end by unreservedly admiring the manner in which the artist has turned the costume of his contemporaries to account. To say truth, this costume did not lend itself to brilliant effects of colour. In most cases, the clothing, exclusively made up of black materials, darkens the whole picture. The face and hands, the collar and wristbands, the only luminous parts of the canvas, occupy Van Dyck hi Flanders *37 very little space. Moreover, in these semi-official portraits the painter has not the right to give himself up to fancy, and to vary according to his inclination the attitude of his model. The latter insists on preserving the dignity of his rank; hence this enforced monotony and these rather unnatural postures. Another difficulty presents itself: the noble sitter desires to be represented in full length. Consequently the head is placed in the upper part of the picture, leaving a vast empty space only imperfectly lit up by the hands. So, when the artist is in a position John Snellincx, Painter. After the Original Etching by Van Dyck. to arrange a portrait to his own liking, he omits the lower parts of the figure, and leaves off at the waist or thighs. It is thus that he has treated all the artists whose features he has reproduced. Notice, without leaving the Munich Gallery, the portraits of Henry Liberti the effeminate organist, Charles de Mallery the engraver, John de Wael and his wife, and that of Colyns de Nole’s wife with her little girl; or again, in the Dresden Gallery, the fine figure of the one-armed Martin Ryckaert, of which numerous copies exist; and then at Cassel, where the galleries are adorned by the portraits of Snyders Van Dyck in Flanders 138 and his wife, of the jurisconsult Justus Van Merstraeten, and so many others. Van Dyck’s full-length portraits, then, are much less numerous than his half- or three-quarter-length figures. Why should he impose a difficulty upon himself which adds nothing to the merit or interest of the picture ? Later on, when he is appointed painter to the Court and to the noble families of England, he has to submit to the require¬ ments of his sitters. Full-length figures then become more common, especially when the models are women. Still, the latter offer certain opportunities. The brilliancy and play of colour on satins, the variety of hues, admit of adorning the canvas and avoiding the dismal mono¬ chromatic aspect presented by a masculine costume composed of dark materials. In the present day artists bitterly complain of the paucity of resource afforded them by modern dress—so dull, so paltry. With the exception of the lace on collar and cuffs, we see no great advantage which the seventeenth century had over ours. Nevertheless, the painters of that time, out of these unpromising materials, were able to create immortal masterpieces. Van Dyck was not alone in turning them to good account. With what boldness and spirit his con¬ temporaries handled and overcame these almost insurmountable diffi¬ culties the examples of Hals and Van der Heist suffice to show. Moreover, these had not the good fortune, which so often fell to Van Dyck, to paint dashing cavaliers covered with jewels and buckles. Let us hear no more of the poverty of modern costume. Talent is enough for any task, and the more thankless the conditions imposed appear the more it finds resources within itself with which to overcome difficulties. To return to our former observations, when several of Van Dyck’s portraits are placed together the comparison betrays an evident lack of imagination. The artist rarely takes the trouble of inventing. Apart from this, it would be enough to run through the volume of his Iconography, to arrive at the same conclusion. Let us take those portraits in the treatment of which the master was fully at liberty— that is to say, the series of artists. Whilst each head preserves a distinct individual type, what monotony in attitude, in gesture, in the arrange- Van Dyck in Flander r 39 ment of the hands, in costume! All these details are treated with a superb disdain. Either a cloak, thrown over the shoulder and almost entirely hiding the left arm, passes under the right arm, showing the Gerard Seghers, Painter. From the Engraving by Paul Pontius, after Van Dyck. fore-arm and hand (the arrangement most frequently adopted); or, if the figure be clothed in a plain doublet, one hand hangs carelessly by the side, whilst the other is arranged before the waist or rests 140 Va?i Dyck in Flanders upon a table or some other support. Seldom or never is there any action. Figures like those of Liberti or Ryckaert (who escape this almost invariable rule) are rare exceptions. Do not seek in these impassive faces for any expression of joy or grief. All are shown preserving that calm, that imperturbable serenity characteristic of the true Fleming. If we pass on to the rulers, princes, statesmen, and generals, the rule which we have just laid down applies still more strictly. The form of the skull, the abundance or scarcity of hair, the size of the eyes, the shape of the nose, the presence of moustaches and beard, distinguish one from the other; but we cannot recognise them by their dress or action. They all stand upright before the spectator in the same portrait attitude, cuirass on breast, helmet by their side, the right hand resting on a commander’s baton, the left on the hip or on a sword-hilt. Consequently one could, without trouble, put other heads on these unvaried bodies. This substitution has in fact been attempted, as is known, by unscrupulous dealers, even in the case of equestrian portraits. It was in this way that the large print representing Charles I. on horseback became, after the downfall of the Monarchy, the portrait of Oliver Cromwell. The portraits of women suggest similar remarks. These, however, belong chiefly to the English period. We shall speak later of the expeditious methods thought of by Van Dyck in order to satisfy his numerous and impatient sitters. The most beautiful women, the greatest ladies of the Court of Charles I., came one after the other to sit to him in his studio, so that the old mansions of the leading English families are full of these paintings. It would be useless to attempt to fix their approximate number. Waagen noticed upwards of three hundred portraits attributed to Van Dyck. He no doubt passed over several apocryphal canvases in the number; but Waagen had . not been everywhere, nor seen everything. Now these elegant ladies, notwithstanding the endless varieties of feminine dress, show certain characteristics in common which are almost invariable. In most cases the attitude is the same: the hands hang idly by the side, or rest on the waist. All display a profusion of jewels—natural enough no doubt among persons Van Dyck in Flander. 141 belonging to the most exalted nobility, attached to an elegant and luxurious Court. Nevertheless, the painter has overstepped the bounds of probability. When one reckons up the number of precious stones, especially pearls, with which he loads his models, one is forced to the conclusion that all the wealth of Great Britain would not have sufficed to pay for so many jewels. Observe particularly that narrow collar of huge pearls which encircles the neck of all the women, John Van Kessel, Painter. From a Drawing in M. Etienne Arago's Collection. whether in low- or high-necked dresses. It is a characteristic feature ; few of the portraits lack it. Resuming the chronological narrative of events, we find, in the course of the year 1630, several facts worth noting. In the beginning of the year the artist takes a share in a loan which the town of Antwerp had been authorised to raise. By the investment of a sum of 4,800 florins he secured an annual income of 300 florins. Thus his works had found their legitimate recompense and placed him beyond the reach of want. His successes had procured him other 1+2 l'’an Dyck i?i Inlanders advantages, in particular the title of Court Painter, to which was attached a pension of 250 florins. It sometimes happened, notwith¬ standing, that Anthony obtained payment for his works only with difficulty. He even had to sue at law certain sitters who refused to pay the price of pictures ordered by them. These small facts, which were recently discovered in the Antwerp archives, prove that by this time Van Dyck had arrived at a condition of fortune which was, if not brilliant, at least honourable. His reputation now extended beyond the frontiers of his native country. Already regarded as one of the first portrait-painters of his time, he was summoned, in the course of the year 1630, to the Hague, to depict the features of the Stadtholder, Frederick Henry of Nassau, Prince of Orange, and of his wife. The Princess of Orange, Amelia of Solms, all her life displayed an enlightened taste for the arts. To her the world owes that famous room in the “ House in the Wood ”■ near the Hague, where Jordaens has surpassed himself. At her death she left a rich collection of pictures by the most eminent artists of her time, amongst which are seven important canvases by Van Dyck. 1 1 We have to thank M. Pinchart for a document containing the list of pictures by Van Dyck found in the estate of Amelia of Solms, with the valuation of each canvas and the name of the heir to whose share it fell :— St. Mary , 1,200 florins. Bequeathed to Marie, wife of Lewis Henry of Bavaria, Count Palatine of Zimmeren. Thetis demanding Arms from Vulcan for Achilles, 800 florins. To Prince Lewis of Brandenburg, son of Louisa Henrietta, eldest daughter of Amelia of Solms, who died in 1667, and of Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg. A large picture representing 'Portraits of the Royal House of England, 1,200 florins. (The son of Frederick Henry and Amelia of Solms, William II., married the eldest daughter of Charles I.) Bequeathed to Prince Frederick of Brandenburg, brother to Lewis. Charity (life-size), 3,000 florins. Bequeathed to Albertina Agnes, Princess of Nassau-Dietz, second daughter of the Princess of Orange. A Young Prince wearing a Cap, 400 florins. Bequeathed to the same. Reynaldo and Armida, 2,400 florins. Bequeathed to Henrietta Catherine, wife of George, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau. Portraits of Prince Frederick Henry and of his wife Amelia , 100 florins. Bequeathed to the same. Perhaps one could discover in Amelia of Solms’ accounts the price paid for each picture. One finds, at the sale of pictures in the Castle of Loo, belonging to the Stadtholders, several canvases by Van Dyck bid up by the purchasers to pretty high prices : 1. A Holy Family , with a rondo of angels, knocked down for 12,050 florins. 2. Time clipping the Wings of hove, 3,000 florins. 3. Achilles at Scyros, 3,100 florins. 4. Allegory of Love, with four figures, 3,125 florins. 5. The School of Love, 3,600 florins. 6. Reynaldo and Armida. Van Dyck i?i Flanders r 43 In the town of the Hague there were staying at that time many great personages, together with the ambassadors of the Powers, who had come in order to negotiate a lasting peace between the United Provinces, England, and the Spanish monarchy. No artist could wish for a more favourable field. Historians state that Van Dyck suc¬ ceeded in giving complete satisfaction to the ruler of the United Provinces. He painted the features of the Princess on several occasions. The Galleries of Madrid and Vienna each boast of possessing the Martin Ryckaert, Painter. From the Engraving by Jacob Neffs, after Van Dyck. original portrait of Amelia of Solms. While in the Madrid Gallery she appears in all the splendour of youth and beauty, the Belvedere canvas shows her more aged, and consequently painted at a later date. Satisfied with his portrait, the Prince of Orange desired a mytho¬ logical picture. It is said that Van Dyck chose a scene taken from Guarini’s Pastor Fido. This would be the Garden of Love , which was sold with other pictures in 1713, and of which M. Armand possesses a bistre study, of which we have given a reproduction on P a ge 43 - 144 V ia;z Dyck in Fla?iders It is in the course of this journey in Holland that the anecdote of the visit to Frans Hals is laid. That Van Dyck reproduced with his brush the features of the great Haarlem artist is an undoubted fact; this portrait of Frans Hals was engraved by D. Coster. As for the anecdote repeated by all biographers on the subject of this picture, its authenticity seems to us very doubtful indeed. Here it is, briefly summed up. Anthony calls on Hals without announcing his name, giving himself out as a traveller drawn by the artist’s reputa¬ tion, and come to order his portrait of him. The Dutch master made him sit down, and plied his brush so diligently that at the end of an hour or two the painting was finished. “ Now,” said the visitor, “ let us see how I should manage if I could do as much.” He took his place in his turn before the easel, and in a few minutes had outlined the portrait of Hals. At the sight of this sureness of touch Frans Hals recognised Van Dyck, embraced him, and, adds the story, which would be incomplete without this conclusion, carried him to a tavern. Is this natural, is it probable ? To give credit to such stories it is necessary to accept the old legends about the drunken habits of Flemish and Dutch artists. In vain has justice been meted out to these ridiculous anecdotes. No matter. Public malice has possessed itself of this vulgar idea, and will not easily give it up. Van Dyck turned to account his visit to the United Provinces, where he stayed for part of the year 1630, by designing the portraits of the Dutch artists who were to find a place in the Iconography. The plan of the work was already resolved on, and the execution commenced. On the watch for every incident calculated to extend the circle of his admirers, our artist depicted the features of the engraver William Hondius, of the painters Michael Mirevelt, Cornelius Sachtleven, Palamedessen, Gerard Honthorst, Poelembourg, and John Van Ravesteyn. This first extension of the collection afterwards sug¬ gested to him the idea of exhibiting in it the portraits of celebrities whom he had never seen, but whose names were then in every mouth. A few years later he painted in bistre, in monochrome, the portrait of Count Tilly and those of Wallenstein and Gustavus Adolphus, done with a view to engraving, and now preserved in the gallery at Munich. 146 Van Dyck^ in Flanders To the year 1630 belong the fine lull-length portraits of Philip Le Roy, Lord of Ravels (one of the few works signed and dated by Van Dyck) and of his wife. The first bears inscription: FEtatis slice 34. A. Van Dyck. A" 1630. The other, executed in the beginning of the next year, is dated 1631, with inscription: Adltatis slice 16. The Lord of Ravels ranked amongst Anthony’s intimate friends. Nor do we need any evidence of this beyond the brilliant etching which is ranked amongst the master’s best. Philip Le Roy had just married, as his wife was only - sixteen in 1631: then or never was the opportunity for Van Dyck’s friendship to show itself by undertaking the task of reproducing his features and those of his young wife. After having figured in the collection of William II., King of the Netherlands, these two pictures became the property of the Marquis of Hertford, who paid 30,000 or 40,000 guilders for them, which was not too much. Thore, who saw them at Manchester, is unwearied in praise of the face, the hands, the hair, of the young woman. After an enthusiastic description, he exclaims: cc The virtuoso who could marry Lady Le Roy de Ravels to the fruit-painter Francis Snyders, and attract them both to himself, would be very lucky ! ” This is setting this painting in the rank of the painter’s masterpieces, placing it among the most perfect of his female portraits. In 1631, it is true, Van Dyck had not yet been surfeited with feminine beauty by his daily relations with the noble ladies of the English aristocracy, so the artist owes to the delightful and youthful figure of the Lady of Ravels one of his best inspirations. 1 The year 1630 saw the commencement of a picture which holds a high place in the master’s work. We refer to the Erection of the Cross , still to be seen in the chapel in the apse of the Church of Notre Dame at Courtrai. The following is how Descamps relates the difficulty to which this picture gave rise : “ Van Dyck was summoned to Courtrai by the canons 1 We give here an etching, in part, of this portrait. The original picture, now preserved in Sir Richard Wallace’s collection, represents the young woman in full length. She is dressed in black, and holds a fan. The head of Philip Le Roy is exactly similar to that of the etching ; only he is accompanied in the picture by a large dog. In the opinion of all connoisseurs, these two canvases may be ranked among the master’s finest works. 148 Van Dyck in Flandei\ of the collegiate church, and arranged terms for a high-altar-piece. He painted it at Antwerp, and went himself to fix it in place; the chapter flocked to see it. In vain the painter begged for time till next day for setting it up, saying they could judge it better then. They would not give in to all he could say. They fetched workmen, and uncovered it. What was the surprise of Van Dyck when the entire chapter were seen to regard the work and the author with contempt! He was treated as a miserable dauber, he was told that the Christ had the air of a street-porter, that the other faces were like masks, and every one turned his back on him. He stayed behind alone with a carpenter and some servants, who endeavoured to console him by advising him to take away his picture, assuring him that all would not be lost and that his canvas could be used for making screens. He was not dis¬ couraged, but placed his picture, and next day went from door to door requesting those gentlemen to come again \ he only got fresh insults from them. Finally, after four or five days, he was paid, but with so bad a grace that he felt the slight for the rest of his life.” What a tissue of improbabilities ! How could a serious author, without examination, without proof, accept such lies and gravely repeat them with this naive assurance ! One would really think he had been present on the occasion, and heard the conversations that took place ! And yet evidence was not far to seek : an inscription in the church even gave the lie direct to this tale. Descamps did not know where to find it. But one of his contemporaries, the author of the Louvre manuscript, has done justice to this legend. “ It was enough for a conscientious historian,” remarks this judicious writer, “to look about him, and he would certainly have been struck by the terms of the following funeral inscription, placed, in the Church of Notre Dame, under the marble medallion of the individual:— Monumentum — Rogerii Braye HUJUS - ECCLESI^E canonici QUEM -MUNIFICUM DOMUS DOMINI CULTOREM - ARCHIVA CAPITULI TABULAQUE HUIC ALTARI DONATA-TESTANTUR-OBIIT XVII OCTOBRIS MDCXXXII. R. I. P.” The mention of the picture and the date must necessarily attract Van Dyck in Flanders 149 the attention of a visitor at all observant. These indications do not allow us to attribute with certainty the ordering of The Erection of the Cross to Canon Braye ; but the inscription, by referring to the archives of the chapter, furnished the means of completing these first hints. Guided by these directions, our anonymous biographer endeavoured to Charity. From a Drawing in the Louvre. ascertain the whole truth. The Chapter ot Courtrai granted him authority to make investigations in the archives. He was not long in finding the proofs sought for; these proofs consist of two autograph letters which leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the picture was painted. Not content with making a faithful copy of these precious documents, I 5 ° Van Dyck in Flander . he took the precaution of obtaining from the chapter a formal certificate of their authenticity and of the exactness of the transcription. It is from these deeds that the true story of the Courtrai picture has been recovered. Canon Roger Braye, after having devoted part of his fortune to the decoration of his collegiate church, resolved to give before his death one last proof of his munificence. To this end he bethought him of ordering a large altar-piece for one of the principal chapels of the church. To apply to Rubens, then overburdened with work, meant being prepared beforehand to wait a long time. Now age and infirmity prevented the good Canon from reckoning on lengthy days; indeed, his funeral inscription tells us that he died the following year. Accordingly Anthony Van Dyck was selected for the execution of the picture, which was to represent *The Erection of the Cross. A study submitted to the Canon received his approbation. After an exchange of letters, which we do not reproduce here because their authenticity is doubtful, the price was fixed at <£ioo in current money, or 600 florins of the country. An Antwerp merchant, Master Marcus Van Woonsel, acted as agent between Van Dyck and his client. The picture was finished in the beginning of May, 1631, for on May 5th Master Braye informed his correspondent that the sum agreed on would be forwarded by the Lille courier. Three days later Master Van Woonsel addressed the following letter to the Canon. The original text is in Flemish ; we give a literal translation “ Laus Deo. Anno 1631, 8th May, Antwerp. “ Reverend and Most Devout Sir,— “ After having greeted you with all my heart and commended myself to your prayers and good graces, this is to inform you that I have received your letter of the 5th instant, and that the picture directed to your name, with voucher, set out this morning by wagon. I hope it will be delivered to you to-morrow evening with the bill of carriage, which you can settle. I hope also that you and the other gentlemen will be satisfied with it, as the painter and I are very desirous to know. But one can only judge of the merits of this picture when it is placed in the spot for which it is painted, for works of this sort must not be looked at close. I beg you not to unrol it before its framework is ready to receive it. Its width can be taken without unrolling ; as for the length, it measures three or four feet longer than the width, as I stated. In Van Dyck in Flanders I 5 I rolling and unrolling, it may get scratched or peel. We ourselves have not unrolled it, but have left it just as the painter sent it to us. When the canvas is stretched on a framework or on lathes, which must measure a hand’s-breadth in width and an inch in thickness, it will be necessary to wedge the framework behind, in order to press out the corners and stretch the canvas,- as painters and carpenters know. I beg to inform you also that I have received to-day by the carrier a letter from Francis Tervacque touching the hundred livres sent from Lille by the wagoner. The money is enclosed in a coffer; those entrusted with it are at Brussels. They are expected here to-day or to-morrow, which I do not doubt. When I have received the money, I shall keep it without delivering it, till your advice to make payment has reached me. I shall expect it within the next eight days by Michael the carrier, and shall be glad to be instructed. On making this payment I shall ask Van Dyck for the study; I have spoken of it twice to his servant (not having been able to speak to himself). He answered me that it was not the custom. To which I replied that I was aware of that, but that you had written to me on the subject and that you would not be ungrateful, and I shall make the same observation to the master. “ Having nothing further to communicate to you, I conclude this letter, and am always “ Your very affectionate friend, “ Marcus Van Woonsel.” Things took place as the author of the letter set forth. The rolled picture arrived at Courtrai on the 9th or 10th, 1 and three days later, that is to say on May 13th, Roger Braye wrote direct to Van Dyck to express his own satisfaction and that of the members of the chapter. The Canon’s letter was accompanied by a package containing a dozen honeycombs. Payment followed close, as witness the following receipt, dis¬ covered in the papers of the keeper of the archives of the chapter, Charles Francis de Meulenaere, in the month of March, 1777, of which we give a facsimile 2 followed by a translation :— 1 On May 10th, 1631, so M. Van den Branden informs us, Van Dyck stood sponsor at the baptismal font, in Antwerp, to the daughter of Lucas Vorsterman, the engraver, and gave her the name of Antoinette. This little fact goes to corroborate what is already known of the intimate relations between the two artists, and proves that, if a passing cloud had obscured the engraver’s faculties, Vorsterman had since quite recovered his reason. 2 The original document, written entirely in Van Dyck’s hand, is carefully preserved in the archives of the church. The church authorities of Notre Dame have kindly permitted us to reproduce it for this work. We hereby express to them our sincere thanks. *52 Van Dyck in Flanders “ I, the undersigned, acknowledge by these presents to have received from the hands of Master Van Woonsel the sum of one hundred pounds Flemish, and this in payment of a piece of painting done for Courtrai, which is the Crucifixion of Christ, which piece was ordered by Master de Braye, canon in the said town. In testimony whereof I have signed these presents, the 18 th of May, 1631, at Antwerp. “Ant. Van Dyck .” 1 It the artist had had to complain in any way of the conduct of the Canon of Courtrai, nothing was easier than to be content with giving a receipt, without entering at the last moment into direct relations with his client. But the latter had paid him certain attentions which deserved a word of thanks, although no doubt they were not 1 The reproduction of this receipt is accompanied, in the manuscript in the Royal Library of Brussels ( 5 > 735 r )» by a notarial certificate in order to guarantee its exactness. The following is the text of this certificate: «Compared with its original by me, the under¬ signed notary public residing in the town of Courtrai, this document is found to agree verbatim with the said original which was placed in my hands by the very reverend sir and master Francis Augustine de Moerman, Dean of the Chapter of the Collegiate Church of Notre Dame in that town, who declares, moreover, that the original receipt was found in the house of the late sir and master Charles Francis de Meulenaere, Canon and Precentor of the said Collegiate Church, recently deceased. Executed on the 18th of March, 1777.—Van Marcke, Notary.” This document, like the receipt itself, is drawn up in Flemish. It would be difficult to under¬ stand this superabundance of precautions taken to make sure of the authenticity of the receipt, if we did not find, by a passage in the manuscripts of Mols (5,730, fol. 116), that the Canons of Courtrai, particularly Master de Meulenaere, had at first shown a certain distrust of researches being made in their archives to bring to light the history of their picture, so that when, a little later, they brought forth the letters which we reproduce they were suspected of having’ omitted certain passages unfavourable to their predecessors. THE PAINTER CORNELIUS SCHUT (M. Dutuits Collection) ’s— - jVi’.r ''/jit < ■-■/' Natter Van If >,•/. ,; v w •■/' • •. ••• a pi-if ■? pilin'. C v'Wfi Wm// : in ill ;m\ conduct of the Canoi of ( irt. > giving i •-« i; thn ' t th'i direct TUHD? 8ULIT/T»03 H.TIMIA4 3HT (woWvflWA a’ViMWiCX AC) Van Dyck in Flanders l 53 quite disinterested. Van Dyck did not wish to be outdone in politeness by the worthy priest who had sent him such good honeycombs. Accordingly, on May 20th, two days after giving the receipt for the price of the picture, he addressed him a letter which gives evidence of the excellent and cordial relations with the Canon which he maintained to the last. This document has been several times reproduced. The Isographie des hommes celebres has published it in facsimile. However, it would be unsatisfactory not to give it here. The original text is in Flemish; it is to be found in the Isographie. The following is the translation:— “ Master Braye,— “I have received your welcome letter of the 1 •gth instant, with the dozen honeycombs. I have also received from Master Marcus Van Woonsel the sum of one hundred pounds as payment of the picture done by your orders, and I have handed receipt to the said Master Van Wions el; 1 thank you for the payment as well as for the honeycombs. I have had the keenest desire to give you satisfaction by this work, and I learn with great pleasure, from your kind letter, that you are satisfied, as well as Master Dean and the other canons. “ % ou ask of me as a souvenir the study for the said picture. I do not wish to refuse it you, although I do not do this for others. Accordingly I have sent it to Master Van Wions el so that he may forward it to you. Whereupon I conclude, offering you my services, according to my power, and am, cordially greeting you and wishing you a long and happy life, “ Sir, “ Tour very humble servant, “ Anthony Van Dyck. “ Antwerp, loth May, 1631.” The superscription reads “ To the Reverend, Vtry Devout Sir, Master Roger Braye, the worthy Canon at Courtrai .” 1 To the letters which we have just reproduced is attached a certificate attesting their perfect authenticity, sent by the keeper of the archives of the chapter, Master de Meulenaere, to a certain M. Baert, This letter was published, in 1825, in the Messager des Sciences et des Arts, of Ghent, with a facsimile of Van Dyck’s signature. The original exists in the archives of the Church of Notre Dame at Courtrai. 20 154 Van Dyck in Flanders of Brussels, who had written to him to ask if the anecdote related by Descamps rested on any foundation. Here is this curious document :— “ We, Dean, Canons, and Chapter of the Collegiate Church oj Notre Dame at Courtrai, declare that the copy of the two foregoing letters conforms word for word to the originals, and that the picture painted by Master Van Dyck therein mentioned was placed, to the general and perfect satisfaction of our predecessors, in the year 1631, on the high altar of the Rood, where it was permanently until 1750, at which time is was placed in the chapel behind the choir, because there it gets no false light, and is preserved from the rays of the sun, etc., etc. Actum in Congregatione capitulari ordinaria, habita hoc die nona decembris 1771, apposito Capituli sigillo. (Seal.) “ De mandato, “ Leslie, can. et secret .” The good Canon Braye had gained his end: he had obtained the study he so eagerly coveted. Did he owe this result to his letter of congratulations or to his naive present of a dozen honeycombs ? In any case he did not live long to enjoy his success, as we know by the inscription on his tomb that he died on October 17th, 1632. An old pencil-note added to Van Dyck’s autograph letter states that the sketch for the Erection of the Cross was bought at Courtrai by the painter Snyers, and then passed into the hands of a collector named Van Lankeren. On the death of the latter it was purchased by Messrs. De Both, who resold it to the famous collector Del Marmol. The note ends with this remark : “ This study is very lightly painted.” It is now to be found, we are informed, in a chateau in the neighbourhood of Courtrai. A few words remain to be said of the picture which has caused this long digression. It deserves particular attention; it is one of Van Dyck’s most remarkable works. The painter has chosen the moment when the executioners are erecting the instrument of death on Golgotha. Such a subject offered great difficulties; it required qualities which at first sight would seem foreign to our artist. Whilst his Crucifixions usually show the sacrifice accomplished, and only demand the calm and serene tranquillity of death, here all has to be movement, exertion, violence. On one side three men with swelling muscles are supporting the enormous weight of the cross, which cuts transversely with its arms V i an Dyck in Flcwiders 155 the space of the canvas. They work energetically, with shoulder and thigh, to raise the shameful gibbet. With arms extended, legs bent, chests panting, they are scarcely equal to this severe task. On the other side, a soldier mounted on a grey 'horse—we know that the artist had a marked predilection for horses of this shade—superintends the operation. At the foot of the cross, a spaniel, though distracting the attention, excites admiration by the truth of its attitude. But the most highly praised portion of the picture—the point on which the artist has concentrated all the efforts of his talent, all the art of his brush—is the torso, and, above all, the visage of die Crucified One. Never has he painted so sympathetically, modelled with more delicacy, drawn with more perfection, the human form. Never has he rendered with equal intensity of expression the superhuman anguish of an expiring God. 1 he canvas has never quitted the church at Courtrai, except to pass fifteen years in the Louvre; it has, consequently, suffered little at the hands of time and of the daubers who, to the great detriment of art, undertake the restoration of old pictures. Nevertheless, the dampness of the chapel in which it is placed may be fatal to it eventually. Besides, the light which comes from two side-windows is most unfavourable to it. It is necessary to get behind a pillar to perceive the general effect, thus masking one of the glancing lights which blacken it. Hence it was only with the greatest difficulty that M. Boulard succeeded in drawing the picture in order to prepare the excellent etching published in this work. 1 It is very doubtful if Van Dyck meant to put into the Courtrai picture the poetic or philosophical intentions which a modern writer has discovered there. Did he think of symbolising in Christ the revolt of unfortunate innocence, of oppressed justice, against executioners and tyrants? Such ideas did not belong to his time, and scarcely accorded with his temperament or his character. Young, fond of luxury, inclined to pleasure, elegant in his person, gifted with a delicate taste, he painted religious subjects in Flanders, just as, later, It is our pleasant duty to thank the Commissioners of Historic Monuments of Belgium, and particularly M. Adolphe Siret and Canon Van de Putte, for the facilities which they procured for having the picture photographed. *56 Van Dyck in Flander. in England, he devoted himself to portraiture. No doubt he would more willingly have employed his brush on mythological, historical, or allegorical scenes; but he had to satisfy the only customers in a position to order and pay for important works—namely, the churches, the corporations, the guilds, and persons of rank. Accordingly he found himself forcibly confined to the circle of religious subjects. Perhaps he would not willingly have adopted this special line; indeed, many indications prove this. Necessity first, and then his own successes, having imposed it on him, he merely devoted himself to doing his best. As his mind possessed, in the absence of exaltation, a great flexibility, he succeeded in making good, by means of art and intelligence, what he lacked in regard to sentiment. Hence the distinguished, but also cold and monotonous, character of his religious paintings. In the beginning of the year 1629, Sir Endymion Porter, one of the gentlemen of the chamber to Charles I., asked Van Dyck to paint a picture for the King’s collection. A scene from the Passion would hardly suit a prince of the reformed religion. The artist chose a subject in profane history, and represented an episode from ‘Jerusalem Delivered : the Doves of Reynaldo and Armida . On March 23rd following, Endymion Porter delivered this picture to the King, for the sum of ^78. Unfortunately the entry in the accounts of the Treasury, to which we owe the knowledge of this fact, only gives the title of the subject, without any other details. Hence it is impossible to identify with certainty the painting done for Endymion Porter with that which is now to be seen in the Louvre. The painter has treated this subject twice. The two compositions are engraved : that in the Louvre by Peter de Baillu ; the other, belonging to the Duke of Newcastle, by Conrad Waumans. This latter canvas, a very striking one with life-size figures, appeared at the Manchester Exhibition in 1857. We prefer the arrangement of the scene in the Louvre; it shows details of exquisite grace; its colouring is warm and harmonious. The artist had not often the opportunity of treating such subjects. Mythological or historical scenes are rarely to be found in his work. The enumeration of those known would only take up a few lines. Alongside of the Loves of Reyjialdo and Armida , the Louvre shows l 5$ Van Dyck in Flanders a Venus demanding Armour for ALneas of Vulcati. On a canvas at the Belvedere, it is Minerva who comes to implore the subterranean god for the armour of Achilles. Not far off, in the same gallery, is exhibited a small composition the subject of which has been furnished by the Bible: Delilah delivering Samson to the Philistines} In the Dresden Gallery, a Bacchanale , celebrated by an excellent engraving by Bolswert, hangs next to a Danae , who displays against a background of rich-coloured stuffs the charms of her white and delicate body. This picture, a reproduction of which in heliogravure will be found in this work, and the Jupiter surprising Aittiope Asleep , are almost the only compositions in which the artist has sought to render the graces of feminine beauty entirely undraped. The Susannah at Munich is fully half-hidden behind the drapery which the elders are trying to drag from her. Romantic history has only furnished three subjects : Achilles dis¬ covered among the Daughters of Lycomedesp the Continence of Scipio, 1 * 3 and Belisarius recetvmg Alms. The first two now form part of English collections. If we add to this a few Cupids , a few rather insipid allegories, 'Time clipping the JVings of Love , and a Charity, 4 we shall have mentioned nearly all the paintings of Van Dyck which do not come under the head of sacred history or portraiture. We must not omit, however, if only to express a doubt of its authenticity, the Battle of Saint-Martm-Eglise , better known under the name of the Battle of Arques, attributed to Van Dyck, in the Munich Catalogue. The Procession of the K?iights of the Order of the Garter , intended for the decoration of the walls of the grand hall at Whitehall, ought to be included here, if the course of political events had not prevented this vast composition from ever getting further than the plan. Thus did circumstances more powerful than his will condemn the 1 We reproduce here this scene after the etching by M. Waltner, published in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1873, vol. viii., p. 530). See ante , on page 44, the facsimile of the small drawing which forms part of M. Benjamin billon’s collection. 3 The Louvre contains a fine drawing by Van Dyck for the Continence of Scipio. We give a reproduction on page 163. ' See the drawing in the Louvre, reproduced on page 149, which gives the composition of this Charity. 160 Van Dyck in Flanders artist to religious pictures while he stayed in Flanders. But, however much he might yield to the taste of his purchaser, however intently he might devote himself to work, the overwhelming presence of Rubens relegated him to the second rank. An incident which occurred towards the end of 1631 shows us in a striking manner the respective positions of the two artists a few months before Van Dyck’s final departure for England. Queen Mary de Medicis, driven from France by Richelieu’s hatred, had come to seek an asylum in the Spanish Netherlands. Shortly after her arrival she wished to pay a visit to the great painter who had decorated the Gallery of the Luxembourg. She found Rubens installed in a sumptuous domicile having the appearance of a princely palace rather than a middle-class dwelling-house; a numerous court of friends, admirers, and pupils never left him. Persons of the highest rank held it an honour to be admitted to this distinguished circle. The august visitor next took a fancy to see at his work the younger master, whose reputation had reached her. What a contrast to the establishment of Rubens! Van Dyck was lodged as well as might be in a large, almost deserted building. Some authors state that he was occupying the outhouses of a monastery, where he had been admitted as a sort of favour. Others have it that, from his return from Italy till his departure for England, he resided in some rooms forming part of the large building constructed by the Hanseatic League at the end of the sixteenth century to serve as a ware¬ house. Instead of the costly furniture, rich hangings, objects of art, and precious pictures which filled the apartments of Rubens, the modest painting-room of his rival had for ornament nothing but sketches, unfinished pictures, and copies brought back from Italy. At the same time, in this simple interior one noted a few authentic works of the great Italian masters. On leaving the hospitable land where he had lived in intimate communion with Titian, Anthony could not resist the desire to take away with him some relic of the Venetian painter. He kept these precious souvenirs of his journey all his life. In his Antwerp studio they occupied the place of honour. Their state of preservation, it 1 A testimonial given to Giambattista Bruno by Rubens, Seghers, and Van Dyck, dated December 9th, 1630, is preserved in the minutes of secretary Ph. Van Valckenisse, in the archives of the city of Antwerp. restorer of his time; he received from Rubens, in this capacity, an authentic certificate, confirmed by Seghers and by Van Dyck himself . 1 appears, left something to be desired j for their possessor had to have recourse to the good offices of a skilful man named Giambattista Bruno, who repaired and cleaned for him “ several pictures by Titian and other renowned painters.” Bruno was considered the most expert picture- Satyr squeezing a Bunch of Grapes. From a Drawing in the Weimar Gallery. 62 Van Dyck in Flanders Decidedly an artist who possessed works by Titian had no reason to complain of the vicissitudes of fortune. His position was, if not showy, at all events above the reach of want; and visitors whose curiosity or taste for art led them, like Mary de Medicis, to his studio had no cause to regret it. Amongst the most interesting pieces in this little gallery was undoubtedly the copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper , which figured, twenty-five years later, in 1657, in the sale of an Antwerp collector, as a well-authenticated work from the brush of Van Dyck. The visit of the Queen Dowager to Antwerp fixes the date of the execution of her portrait. She stayed in that city from September 4th to October 16th, 1631. Van Dyck took advantage of her presence to reproduce her features. The Duke of Orleans, brother of Lewis XIII., had accompanied his mother into exile, and was following her in her wanderings. Our artist must have sketched his features in 1631, for we find that in the following year he delivered to the King of England a picture representing Gaston of Orleans. Later, in 1634, he met with him again and painted his portrait a second time. We have been so taken up with dates hitherto that we have been prevented from speaking of certain works whose origin still remains enveloped in a certain obscurity, but on the history of which we have gathered some fresh information. We will sum up briefly the result of our investigations. The gallery at Lille possesses several important pictures which formerly adorned the monastic churches of the town. At one time the King of France wished to acquire them for his private collection. But all the monks of the eighteenth century had not, as regarded the paintings placed in their monasteries, the same ideas as the Abbot of the Dunes, before-mentioned. Some of them set great store on the preservation of the pictures which adorned their chapels. Thus the monks of Lille were able to resist the most pressing solicitations, the most tempting offers. 1 his is what we learn from hitherto unknown documents, of which we will now give an analysis. In the commencement of Lewis XVI.’s reign, the Count d’Angiviller, in his anxiety to enrich the collection of the King, judiciously conveyed to the monasteries possessed of any precious work that the monarch 64 Van Dyck in Flander . would be very grateful for the surrender of their pictures. He kept up agents to carry out these delicate negotiations in every region of France. These emissaries, on one pretext or other, visited the religious houses, and afterwards drew up a detailed report of the condition and approximate price of the objects thus discovered. One of them mentioned the picture on the high altar of the Lille Franciscans, “ one of Van Dyck’s finest,” he said, “ both in colour and drawing,” but without disguising the fact that the monks showed a keen disinclination to part with it even to the King of France. Official overtures were nevertheless attempted. M. d’Angivilbr addressed himself direct to the Superior of the Franciscans; all he obtained was the following letter. It does too much honour to its writer not to be reproduced here in full:— “ My Lord,— “ Actuated more than any one by a desire to please his Majesty and to prove our zeal and submission in all that in us lies, it is with the keenest regret that we take the liberty of representing to you our inability to comply with the request which you make to us on his behalf for the picture by Van Dyck which is on the high altar in our church. “This picture, my Lord, was given to us by one of the most respected families of the province, on the condition that it should never leave our hands. Besides its being, my Lord, the ornament of our church, which is one of the handsomest and most frequented in Lille, it also forms the object of the piety of the public, the admiration of strangers, as well as a model for the pupils of the Academy of Painting in this town. So it is with every possible care that we preserve this precious trust. “ Under these circumstances, my Lord, we venture to hope from your goodness that you will not further insist on a sacrifice which would be extremely grievous to us, and which, moreover, it is not in our power to make. “ I have the honour to be, etc., “ Fr. Stanislas Destombes, “ Keeper of the Monastery of Franciscans at Lille. “Lille, nth October, 1784.” It is a pity that the family to which the Monastery of Lille owed this princely gift is not designated with greater precision. The Christ on the Cross, the subject of this correspondence, now adorns the gallery of the town, 1 together with two other canvases by Van Dyck, which 1 The town of Lille is one of the richest in France in works of Van Dyck. Besides the pictures preserved in the public gallery, there exists at the Hospice Central a fine Adoration of the Van Dyck in Flanders 166 also came from the Franciscans, and which, no doubt, the agent of the Director of Public Buildings had not thought worthy to figure in the Royal collection. He confined himself to drawing the attention of M. d’Angiviller to the Christ on the Cross , with, at His feet, the Magdalen, the Virgin, and St. John, and a crowd of soldiers and Jews filling up the background. Another application, made almost at the same time by the same personage, met with no better result. M. d’Angiviller cast his eyes on a picture adorning the high altar of the Capuchins at Cambrai, and expressed to the Superior of the monastery his desire to see it become part of the King’s collection. At Cambrai, as at Lille, a very respectful but very firm refusal was given to M. d’Angiviller’s proposal. We think it needless to quote here the documents of this correspondence ; the reasons pleaded resemble closely those which we have read in the letter from the Superior of the Franciscans. One would almost say that the superiors of these different houses had previously laid their heads together to encourage each other, and arrange the plan of refusal to be opposed to the wishes of the Director of the Royal Palaces. Thanks to this energetic resistance, the Lille Gallery is the richest in paintings by Van Dyck of all the French provincial galleries. The Christ on the Cross , which comes from the Franciscan Monastery, is justly considered one of the most perfect of the master’s works; it will bear comparison with the most famous pictures in Belgium. Not less remarkable is that head of a woman, whose name is up to now unknown, in which life and animation reach an extraordinary intensity of expression. Of the purely Flemish type, she wears a cap or coif of black velvet, a ruff round her neck, and for sole ornament a gold cross. From the Franciscan Monastery also come the Miracle of St. Anthony of Padua , of which several copies are known, one at Toulouse, another at Bruges, and the Coronation of the Virgin , the execution of Shepherds, to which a local connoisseur, M. A. Houze de 1 ’Aulnoit, devoted a notice of several pages, in 1864. It is the same subject which Van Dyck treated at Rome, and which is to be seen to-day at Monte-Cavallo. The Lille picture would be executed before the journey to Italy. Another version of the same idea was painted afterwards, as we have already seen, for the church at Termonde. Van Dyck^ in Flanders 167 The monks of Belgium, less scrupulous than the monasteries of French Flanders, did not hesitate to seek the good graces of their sovereign by giving up the precious trusts bequeathed to them by their predecessors. Certain pictures ranking amongst the finest in the Belvedere Gallery once belonged, as we have mentioned, to the churches and suppressed monasteries of the Flemish provinces. Some were simply arbitrarily seized, like the St. Rosalie and the Herman which has been attributed successively to three or four different painters. The Lille Gallery, which also possesses a portrait of Mary de Medicis formerly exhibited in the King’s apartments at Versailles, is rich enough in works of incontestable authenticity and incom¬ parable value to dispense with doubtful ascriptions. Christ bearing His Cross. From a Drawing in the Baron de Beurnonville's Collection. i68 Van Dyck in Flanders Joseph , painted for the chapel of the brotherhood of celibates in Antwerp. They were transferred to Vienna on the occasion of the suppression of the Order of the Jesuits, together with the three large canvases by Rubens from the Jesuit Church. But other precious pictures were also lost to Belgium by the culpable complaisance of their rightful guardians. Where the exquisite Christ on the Cross in the Vienna Gallery came from has hitherto remained unknown. A document discovered by Mons. A. Pinchart, to whom this book is indebted for much original information, definitely fixes the history of this canvas. It was presented in 1755* by the members of the Chamber of Accounts in Brussels, to the Empress Maria Theresa, as is to be gathered from the following letter addressed to the Princess in question 1 :— “ Madam,— “ Of the many eminent qualities united in the sacred person of your Majesty, the distinguished piety hereditary in your august race is, beyond doubt, the crowning point. It is. Madam, on the grounds of this signal virtue that we take the liberty of offering to your Majesty a picture, formerly purchased by the Chamber. The Christ represented being from the hand of the famous Van Dyck, we venture to hope that this work will be considered worthy of your Majesty’s attention, and that your Majesty will deign to accept it as a feeble testimony of the sentiment which binds us to your sacred person by heart even more than we are already bound by duty. “The Presidents and Members of the Chamber of Accounts. “Brussels, 16 May, 1755.” Before following Van Dyck into his new country, we will cast a look back over the works executed during the six years between his return from Italy and his final settlement in England. The leading works have already been noted and studied; but how many other works date from this prolific period ? To the large religious pictures, preserved in the churches and public galleries of Belgium or scattered throughout the . museums of Europe, must be added a considerable number of portraits. Every person of rank at 1 Royal archives at Brussels .—Collation ies Acta, Ultra et rapports dt U Chamlre da Comptes. CHRIST WITH THE REED (From the Original Etching by Van Dyck, first- state) ■POTT ! Van Dyck in Flander. s 16g the Brussels Court sat in turn to the young master; distinguished foreigners whom political considerations had brought to Flanders also begged him eagerly for reproductions of their features. Still he found time to paint, it would seem by preference, Flemish artists and other fellow-countrymen bound to him by ties of old friendship. If he sometimes lacked the leisure to undertake a canvas of any great size, a few hours sufficed him to depict these well-known physiognomies, with pen or brush, and then with needle and acid, in imperishable lines. The gallery of Flemish artists painted or etched by Van Dyck will always occupy an important place in his work. In these spontaneous works of talent the representation of individual nature is not hampered by the conventions of fashion or the caprice of the sitter. The artist’s insight has penetrated beneath the surface; his skilful hand has rendered, not only the outward and visible form of the model, but also the character, the temperament, and, so to speak, the soul. Does this imply that he took less care with his great official pictures than with portraits rapidly dashed off in the privacy of the studio? By no means. There is a highly accounted work, which was executed in the course of the year 1631 ; we refer to the equestrian portrait of Francis di Moncada, Marquis d’Aytona. According to received opinion, as recorded in the Catalogue of the Louvre, this painting has long been regarded as the artist’s finest equestrian portrait. Without discussing here the worth of this opinion, we regard it as indisputable that this canvas gives us an excellent idea of Van Dyck’s talent lor the official representation of eminent individuals. The Marquis d’Aytona, after having filled the most exalted positions in the Low Countries, having been successively ambassador, captain-general of the fleet, and generalissimo of the army, was appointed by the will of the Infanta Isabella (who died on December 1st, 1633) to the govern¬ ment of the Belgian Provinces (this being ratified on the 30th of the same month by the King of Spain), in the capacity of Lieutenant of the Cardinal Infant. So it is not surprising that Van Dyck should have reproduced his features several times. By the side of the equestrian portrait, the Louvre exhibits, in a more modest frame, the same individual in half-length. The Belvedere Gallery also possesses a half- 7 ° Van Dyck in Flanders length portrait of Francis di Moncada regarded as well-authenticated, and bearing the signature, A. Van Dyck. Without discussing further the portraits belonging to the Flemish period, we have said enough to show that by the time he settled in England Van Dyck had reached the full maturity of his talent. He continued his success for many years, but progressed little further. He astonished his admirers by the prodigious facility of his execution, by the marvellous rapidity of his brush; but the best of his work had been accomplished. To sum up in a word, had he died before leaving Flanders, the glory of his name would be no whit diminished. PART THE FOURTH VAN DYCK’S RESIDENCE IN ENGLAND—HIS DEATH No country possesses so great a number of Van Dyck’s works as is to be found in England. Smith’s catalogue and Waagen’s notes show a total of at least three hun¬ dred and fifty canvases. The majority of these have never quitted the private mansion or public gallery where they were lodged on leaving the studio. The proprietors of English collections rarely allow their treasures to be dispersed; on the contrary, they continually add to them from the spoils of all the celebrated virtuosi of the Continent. Thus is explained that prodigious agglomeration, unparalleled in history, of paintings by the same artist. Let us add, a point worth noting, that nearly all these portraits were painted in less than ten years, between the month ol April, 1632, and the end of 1641. Moreover, among these three hundred and fifty pictures there appear equestrian portraits, compositions of six or eight figures, to say nothing of drawings and plans and the journeys and distractions of every kind which absorbed part of the artists time. Head of a Man. in the Albertina Collection a 172 Van Dyck’s Residence in Ena land Among the English collections, richest in works by Van Dyck, the Windsor Gallery takes first rank. It contains twenty-two portraits, several of the first importance. In other rooms of the Castle, two very curious pictures may be seen : Id he Family of Balthazar Gerbier and Charles I. in Royal Robes. We also find six Van Dycks at Buckingham Palace. Next to the Queen’s collections, the richest gallery in England is that of the Earl of Clarendon. His mansion at Grove Park contains twenty-three of Sir Anthony’s pictures. The Duke of Bedford has seventeen; the Petworth collection, fifteen; the galleries of Wentworth House and Warwick Castle, nine each; Bothwell Castle, ten; eight are in Earl Spencer’s possession at Althorp, six each in that of the Duke of Portland, of Lord Hardwicke, at Woburn Abbey, at Wilton House, at Arundel Castle. The number of mansions possessing five, four, three, or fewer pictures is considerable. In short, we may reckon more than a hundred houses in England which preserve among the family heirlooms one or several portraits, by Van Dyck. We have seen, in the preceding parts, that the artist had felt himself drawn, from his youth, towards that Court which seemed to promise him glory and fortune. Nobles of the English aristocracy, in the first rank of whom was the famous Earl of Arundel, had helped to encourage his hopes. For many years this noble patron of the arts had been making pressing endeavours to draw Van Dyck to England. In 162T, foreseeing at the sight of the painter’s first works his dawning genius and his future reputation, Lord Arundel worked to this end on the occasion of that first journey which remains enveloped in a sort of mystery. During the following years, in Italy, Anthony en¬ countered the eager collector’s emissaries at every step; on every hand he heard his culture and generosity extolled. A little later he met the Countess of Arundel at Florence. The latter spared no endeavour to attach the young artist to her by close bonds. It was only labour lost. At that time Van Dyck was eager to see again his country and his family, and he returned a persistent refusal to all entreaties, flattering as they were. When Charles I. ascended the throne, the’ favour of Buckingham at first eclipsed the influence and authority of the Earl of Arundel; but after the sanguinary catastrophe which terminated the favourite’s life, Thomas Howard resumed an unrivalled Van Dyck^s Residence in England x 7 3 authority over the mind of the King. Nevertheless, the disappoint¬ ment experienced by our painter, on the occasion of his second journey to London, towards the end of the year 1627, must have inspired Head of a Man. From a Drawing in the Louvre. him with caution, and even with a certain distrust of the fine promises afterwards thrown out to him. Hence, no doubt, the obscure negotiations which we shall briefly relate. His friends, who had become more and more numerous, were 174 Van Dyck’s Residence in England everywhere extolling the talents of their protege. To the Mecasnas of his early days there were now added other passionate admirers; in the first place, Geldorp, keeper of the King’s pictures, who had lodged Van Dyck in his own house, on the occasion of his visit in 1627. Charles I., endowed with a keen taste for the arts, was anxious to see a specimen of the skill of which he heard such stately praises. One of his intimate confidants, Sir Endymion Porter, a Gentleman of the Bedchamber, undertook negotiations. The picture of The Loves oj Reynaldo and Artnida was completed towards the end ot the year 1629, as is proved by the following letter, found by Carpenter in the Royal archives. The docketing of the file of papers in which it was discovered, “ Papers of Sir Endymion Porter ,” settles the name of the addressee. It will be sufficient here to give the translation of this document. The original text, in Spanish, has been published by Carpenter. As Spanish was, in Flanders, the language of the rulers and of the Court, every young man of education was expected to speak it fluently, and Van Dyck could not be lacking in this first duty of a courtier and a man of breeding. “ Sir, “ The picture which you ordered of me for his Majesty I have completed, and by your desire, I have delivered it into the hands of Mr. Pery. I therefore beseech you that on the arrival of the said picture you will be pleased to take care of it, and to supply anything that may be wanting to it. “ The said Mr. Pery has paid me three hundred patacones which amount to fyz sterling. And with this I make an end, remaining obliged to serve you on all occasions which offer themselves for your service. “ Requesting you to inform me, by the first opportunity, of the receipt of this, as well as of the picture; I have nothing more to say except that I pray our Lord that He may preserve you long and many years, as I truly desire. “ So kissing your hands I remain “ Your humble and most affectionate servant, “Antonio Van Dvck. “ Antwerp, §th December, 1629 .” Carpenter relates that the English nobles, in order to insinuate themselves into the sovereign’s good graces, used to seek out the most exquisite works of art wherewith to pay tribute to him. This does not apply to the picture of Reynaldo and Armida. Van Dyck's Residence in England *75 Sir Endymion Porter appears in this case to have simply played the part of intermediary. The order of payment of the sum of <^78 to the Gentleman of the Bedchamber, on March 23rd, 1630, for the price of this picture, proved that it was simply a case of commission and not a present. We have said that the picture in question is probably the one which now forms part of the Louvre Gallery. Sold after the death of King Charles, it was purchased by Jabach, the well-known collector, and passed later, when that rich The Virgin, the Child Jesus, and a Saint. From a Drawing in the Marquis de ChenneviCres' Collection. banker’s gallery was sold to the King of France, into Louis XIV.’s collection. The subject chosen by the artist and the brilliant manner in which he has treated it were well suited to give English connoisseurs an advantageous idea of his talent. Few of his works show such skill of composition, joined to such warm and brilliant colouring. The graceful Cupids which encircle the impassioned group of the two lovers present details of exquisite charm. A portrait completed the conquest of the King and decided Van Dyck’s fortune. At the Court of Charles I. lived an artist of repute, a painter 176 Van Dych^s Residence m Ejigland and musician, named Nicolas Laniere. Van Dyck reproduced his features, and put all his energy into the work. According to a tradition related by Walpole in his A?tecdotes , the sitter posed for seven whole days, morning till night, only leaving the studio at meal¬ times. In spite of this stern restraint, the artist only permitted Laniere to look at his work when he was himself completely satisfied with it. Walpole adds: “ This was the portrait that determined the King to invite him (Van Dyck) to England a second time.” This story would indicate that if our artist towards the end of his career achieved a rapidity of execution verging on the miraculous, he only acquired that facility, little by little, by persevering work and profound study of nature. Had Laniere’s portrait the decisive influence on the King’s determination which Walpole attributes to it? Possibly. After the warm and pressing recommendations of his courtiers, Charles I. would be naturally well disposed towards the pupil of Rubens. It seems probable that from the end of the year 1631 active negotiations were commenced with Van Dyck to induce him to expatriate himself. Certain passages in a document mentioned by Carpenter suggest that Mary de Medicis, mother of the Queen of England, was herself employed in the success of the negotiations during her stay at Antwerp. Nevertheless, there hangs over all this affair a semi-obscurity which compels us to relate in a few words the incidents which preceded and at the last moment almost prevented Van Dyck’s departure. Carpenter, to whom is due the revelation of these facts, has tried in vain to throw complete light on the subject. In view of his investigations, we must give up hope of any fresh elucidation. Sir Balthazar Gerbier, 1 painter and architect, born at Antwerp in 1 59 2 5 had, by bis talent as a miniature-painter and by the resources of his wit, succeeded in gaining the confidence of the Duke of Buckingham, and thus insinuated himself into the good graces of King 1 M. Edouard Fetis read in 1855 to the Royal Academy of Belgium a very exhaustive essay on Balthazar Gerbier. The Revue universelle des Arts (vol. ii., p. 461) gives an analysis of this work. See also the note communicated to the Academy of Belgium by M. Gachard, which gives us a very sorry idea of this individual. PORTRAIT OF A MAN {Munich Pinakothek) career ach . a t) bv pt-r ^ negotiations wen i . r.iu resources ham a to •riA.MTao? (•XnWo&wVA MmM) Van Uycli s Reside?ice in England 177 Charles. He possessed every quality of a true courtier—shrewdness, good humour, and culture. Hence he was sometimes entrusted with very delicate missions; in one notable instance he had to negotiate a treaty of peace with Spain. In this case he had as adversary one of his most illustrious compatriots, Peter Paul Rubens. The artist had not the strength to fight with diplomatic finesse against an accomplished courtier, and at once gave up the unequal contest. Always in search of means to secure or advance his interest, Gerbier from time to time brought himself to the notice of Charles I. by the gift of some work of art. Towards the close of 1631 he sent to England a picture by Van Dyck representing the Virgin and St. Catheri?te. This picture was intended for the King, as we learn from the following letter written to the Lord Treasurer:— “ Believing that some rarity would be acceptable to your Excellency, to present either to the King or the Queen as a New Year’s gift, I have purchased a very beautiful Virgin and St. Catherine , by the hand of Van Dyck, which I send your Excellency by the bearer. It is, I believe, one of the best pictures which Van Dyck has executed, and I think it will afford great pleasure to the King. “ I entreat that your Excellency may be pleased to accept it from your very humble servant.—B. G.” A singular disappointment awaited the artful negotiator. The report suddenly spread that the canvas was not by Van Dyck. If Sir Balthazar Gerbier had been merely a diplomatist, he could have been mistaken as to the authenticity of a picture without much disgrace; but for a painter to be imposed on was a serious blow to his reputation as a connoisseur. Consequently he defended the worth of his gift with all his might, and—strange to say—it was on Van Dyck that his ill- humour fell. Read the letter addressed to the Lord Treasurer, in which he sets forth the arguments which plead in favour of his picture; in conclusion he expresses himself thus: “ All this misunderstanding emanates from the malice of Van Dyck, who, after having expressed to me his desire to go over into England, and induced me to speak for him to the Queen Mother and the Infanta, that they would be pleased to send over the said Van Dyck with their portraits, a sudden caprice has come into his head that he will not enter on the voyage, as is manifest by the annexed letter written by his own hand. The 2 3 178 Van Dyck^s Residence in England Infanta feels herself offended, and has reprimanded him for his fickleness. He has then been so malicious as to endeavour to make that appear spurious which is of his own creation, believing that I should be annoyed were my present rendered unacceptable. When Van Dyck is to England (as the Signor Rubens says) he must be put to the test to see if he can do better, etc.” This curious affair did not rest here. Gerbier maintained the authenticity of his picture in the face of everything, in spite of the declaration of Van Dyck himself. As his vanity as an artist was at stake, it was very important to him that no doubt should remain in the Lord Treasurer’s mind. To this end he obtained from the seller a formal notarial declaration, certifying that the painting was indeed by the hand of Van Dyck. What is to be said against such an argument ? The accusation thrown out by Van Dyck was unfounded, then. But to what end was this dispute ? What motive had driven the artist to such an act ? What cloud can have arisen between him and Balthazar Gerbier ? Had promises been made to him of which the realisation was delayed ? Certain letters, also discovered by Carpenter, inform us that the painter Geldorp at Charles I.’s Court made himself the complaisant echo of the reports spread by Van Dyck as to the worth of Balthazar Gerbier’s present. Things reached such a degree of bitterness that the artist addressed the following note to the King of England’s representative:— “To the Agent of England, “ Tour Excellency will do me the favour to hold in suspense the treaty with the Queen Mother of France, as well as with your Highness, respecting my voyage to England, until such time as I may speak with your Excellency in my own person, and not through another. I kiss your hand, and remain, “Antonio Van Dvck.” Below is written by Gerbier: “Since Van Dyck wrote me this letter, he has not suffered himself to be seen.” It was almost a complete rupture. Thus, after so much parleying, in spite of the intervention of Mary de Medicis, the King of England’s agent was failing when within sight of success. What means did his fertile imagination suggest to bring Van Dyck to a more conciliatory frame of mind? We do not know. Van Dyck’s Portrait of Lord Wharton. a Va7i Dyck's Residence in England !79 Perhaps the personal intervention of Charles I. was necessary to disperse the clouds which Court rumours had accumulated. This, at least, seems to be indicated by a letter, in which Gerbier seeks to excuse himself English Heralds-at-Arms. From a Drawing in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. before the King for the difficulties which had suddenly arisen. He writes from Brussels: “ Van Dyck is here, and says he is resolved to go to England; he pretends to be very ill-pleased with me because 180 Van \Dyck's Residence in England that babbler Gueldorp has written that I had orders to speak to the said Van Dyck on the part of your Majesty, and that I concealed it from him. Your Majesty so commanded me, consequently I was not called on to give an explanation to any one; neither do I intend. This letter is dated March 13th, 1632. Now, in the beginning of April following, Van Dyck was installed in London, as is proved by the order of the Privy Seal of May 21st, which gives instructions to pay to Master Edward Norgate the sum of 15 s. a day, dating from April 1st, 1632, for the board of Anthony Van Dyck. Scarcely had he time to settle when the King’s impatience compelled him to set to work at once. Although premonitory signs were beginning to appear of the revolution which was to sweep away Charles I.’s throne and bring his head to the block, the artist arrived in England at a moment of comparative calm. The King had decided to dissolve Parliament and openly to brave public opinion. During a period of ten years, from 1630 to 1640, signing peace with France and Spain, he was able to disregard the troublesome and daily more harassing control of the representatives of the nation. Significant symptoms were visible to far-seeing eyes that a temporary delay would only render the inevitable explosion of popular sentiment the more terrible; but the King, filled with illusions as to the future, profited by his last years of tranquillity, and gave himself up entirely to his taste lor luxury and the delicate pleasures of the mind. Counselled by men of intelligence and taste, the Earl of Arundel, Sir Endymion Porter, and Sir Kenelm Digby, he surrounded himself by artists, authors, and scholars, and sought forgetfulness of the cares of power in their society and conversation. Those we have just named had used all their influence to secure the success of the negotiations opened with Van Dyck. The artist accordingly reckoned on powerful support in fighting against envy and rivals. Distinguished among the latter was the Dutchman Daniel My tens. Honoured with the title of Painter to the King, he had lived for a long time without a rival at the English Court. In vain did Charles I. seek by kind words to console him for the chagrin which Van Dyck’s presence caused him; in vain did our artist display his best manners to the man whom he was depriving of part of his privileges, and even offer to draw his portrait for his gallery THE PAINTER GERARD SEGHERS {M. Armand’s Collection) called o: . '.y had 1 During a pen* >. more harassing ; < vmptorbs were • - r . _ : ..1 a tempe-rarv vould only render the explosion of popular 1 ore led with illu ion. it. ; • d by his last years of tranq. 1 'iity, an ; >. h ste of intelligence and taste, the i - . ; idyon ter, : >ns to > sweep away • artist arrived and Sir Kent !m Dighy, he surrounded fcm , . scholars, and sought forgetfulness of the cares c society ■■■ ] conversation. Those we have just n< 1 to secure the success a?l/ HtfO HJTMIAq ,IHT ‘ (woWwWo' 1 ) -,'\wv>u«k .\r. •. Van ‘Dyck's Resideitce in England 181 of celebrated artists. Mytens was not slow to perceive that popularity was leaving him, and he preferred to give place to the new favourite. He departed for the Hague, where he lived for long after. The most formidable competitor removed, our artist had nothing to fear from the other painters of the English Court. Cornelius Jansen Van Ceulen, whose talent placed him immediately after Mytens, at Sir Kenelm Digby. From a Portrait in the Albertina Collection at Vienna. first displayed deep vexation. He left London, and retired to a town in Kent; but later on sentiments more worthy of a true artist took the place of his ill-humour. He made friends with Van Dyck, and began to imitate his manner. The relations of the two rivals became even cordial, for Van Dyck has left Van Ceulen’s portrait. On his arrival, Anthony was temporarily lodged, as we have seen, with one of the Earl of Arundel’s proteges , Edward Norgate, charged I 8 2 Van T)yck^s Residence in England by the King to provide for all the needs of his guest. But such an arrangement could not be permanent. The monarch himself took pains to find a suitable domicile for the painter. Carpenter quotes a document in the State Paper Office, in the handwriting of Sir Francis Windebanke, headed, “Things to be done,” one of which is, “To speak with Inigo Jones concerning a house for Vandike. This house required a combination of conditions rather difficult to find. The artist had to be established comfortably; on the other hand, the King did not wish him to live too far from his palace. The architect succeeded in satisfying all requirements. A winter residence was found for Van Dyck in Blackfriars, on the south side of the Thames. From his palace at Whitehall, Charles, crossing the river by boat, easily reached the studio of his favourite painter. He took great pleasure in seeing him at work, and loved to while away long hours, charmed by the wit and the innate distinction of his friend. During the summer Van Dyck stayed at Eltham, in Kent. An annual pension of <£200 sterling was from the first assigned him to allow him to live in the style imposed upon him by his title of “ principals Paynter in Ordinary to their Majesties at St. James’s.” Portraits ordered by the King were paid for separately. The remuneration of his works at last permitted to the artist that brilliant and showy existence which he had so long desired, and which untiring work had failed to bring him in Flanders. He had no less than six servants in his employ, and several horses. He had always, as we know, shown great care and nicety in his dress. The company of an elegant and frivolous Court could only develop his natural inclination for every refinement of luxury. Three months after his arrival Van Dyck was included in a list of knighthoods conferred on July 5th, 1632. Charles I. enhanced this favour by the gilt of a gold chain, bearing a medallion set in brilliants. In several of his portraits the artist is shown with this token of the Royal munificence. It was now for him to justify the exalted situation to which he found himself raised so rapidly. A Warrant of Privy Seal, mentioned by Carpenter, shows that Van Dyck had lost no time in satisfying the impatience of his Royal protector. On August 8th, 1632, a sum of ^£280 was granted him from the Royal treasury for various paintings. Van 'Dyck^s Residence in England 183 The enumeration of these pictures furnishes some valuable details as to the price of the artists works. It seems that, at first, a sort of tariff had been adopted by mutual agreement, according to the dimen- Head of a Man. From a Drawing in the Louvre. sions of each portrait. The price of full-length figures was .£25; other canvases only came to £20 —these are probably half-length figures. Finally a large family picture, containing the King and Queen and Van Dyck’s Residence in England 184 their children, reaches the sum of ^3100. Later these figures were increased, and the price of a full-length portrait was raised to £yo. In four months the facile master had completed nine canvases: full-length figures of the King, Gaston d’Orl&ns, brother to the King of France, the Archduchess, half-length portraits of the Queen, the Prince of Orange, his wife the Princess, and their son. He had painted, for a series of Roman emperors, a picture representing Vitellius, which cost £20. He restored at the same time a head of Galba for the sum of £5. Finally he had just completed the picture in which are grouped the King, the Queen, their son and daughter, which we still admire at Windsor. This fine painting is thus the first in date of those admirable pictures in which Van Dyck has depicted the Royal Family of England. He was to repeat the features of the King and Queen many times during the nine years of life that remained to him; but he never surpassed this first effort oi his genius. Portraits of Charles I., those of Henrietta Maria and of her children, either single or grouped, become so numerous later, that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle the order of these several canvases. In the case of the children there is a pretty sure means of fixing the approximate date of each picture—their age. But the face of Charles and that of his wife did not change so much in a space of nine years that we can find any trace of wear or alteration in their features whereby to classify them. Moreover, if the King and Queen originally granted all the sittings demanded by the artist, the latter evidently contented himself afterwards with a first type, from which he could vary to any extent the costume, the attitude, and expression of his august models. One cannot suppose that the King consented to pose for repetitions of his likeness. Thus the great picture at Windsor would be the most studied portrait; the portrait-type, as it were, of Charles I. and his family. There are, however, other canvases in the same gallery to which Van Dyck must have exerted himself to give the most exact resem¬ blance. We refer to the two paintings representing the Queen in full- face and profile, and to the panel on which the King is shown in three different aspects : full-face, three-quarters, and profile. This tuU-kugdi.. jk i the -.- i ; Fra a*' ! i: civt ■ , length pur': jijr" ,jka ■ r.. of Roman emperors, a picture ;,c' sum of <£5. Finaily. he had just competed i'm | ’» ''" h ire grouped tin Queen, heir mu, .. . Portraits of Charles I., those of Henrietta Maria and of her children, either single or grouped, become numerous h.ier, that it is" very difficult, if not sibie, to ■ the order of. these several canvases, f , tiu- case of the children there is a pretty sure means of fixing the approximate date of each picture— their age. But the face of Charles and that of his w.l-' did not change -a much in a space of nine years that we £ . id any trace of wear or alteration in their features whereby to classify them. Moreover f tin King and Queen originally granted all the sittings dein ded by the .' .in, die latter evidently contented himsell afterwards with a fir t typ . mi which he could vary to any a it the costume, the attitude, and expression of his august models. Om cannot suppose chat the King . anted to pose for repetitions 1 his , s. Thus ' pi" trail n ia .. >: ( tiaric, l. and Id, i .n . 2J3VAS 3Q fUlOJ ,YO>[ HJ *71 llllq an sr-liw jut mrWjW) . Van Dyck^s Residence in England 185 latter picture was painted in order to furnish Bernini with the means of executing a bust of the King, whom he had never seen. Success crowned the attempt. A letter from the Queen, dated June 26th, 1639, testifies that Bernini’s bust received the general approbation of the Court. Accordingly Henrietta Maria thought of adopting the same expedient. The painter received orders to trace her features in full-face and profile. To this Royal whim we are indebted for two exquisite works, the two half-length portraits at Windsor. To judge, besides, by the innumerable repetitions of the portraits of Charles I. and Henrietta Maria, the artist must have been thoroughly acquainted with the expression of their countenances. So, with the aid of a study kept in the studio, he could reproduce their features indefinitely without altering the resemblance. The collections of England alone, in fact, possess no less than seven equestrian portraits of Charles I., and seventeen pictures in which the King is represented, either full-length or half-length, in the most varied costumes and attitudes. As for Queen Henrietta Maria, there are twenty-five known repetitions of her portrait in England alone. These numbers do not include the Charles I. of the Louvre, the half- length portraits at Dresden and Vienna, the picture at Florence of which we give a reproduction, nor the more or less authentic canvases scattered in public and private collections. At the sale of the Pereire collection some years ago there was to be seen one of the numerous repetitions of the Queen’s half-length portrait. One can easily conceive, from this list alone, that these numerous replicas are of very unequal value. Many are merely copies executed under Van Dyck’s direction, or are even the work of more modern artists. Hence canvases of unquestionable authenticity and certain date are of especial interest. Among these the portrait of Charles I., his wife, and her two children deserves more than any other that we should dwell upon it for a few moments. Never has artist known better how to unite in one scene the graces of woman, the aristocratic elegance of the gentleman, and the charm of childhood. The sober colouring, of warm and sustained tones, would bear comparison with the works of the greatest masters. In this family-picture figures the King’s eldest son, afterwards Charles II. Born on May 29th, 1630, he was then 24 186 Van Dyck^s Residence in England little more than two years old. The Queen is holding on her knee Princess Henrietta Maria, scarcely six or eight months of age, since she came into the world on November 4th, 1631. Let us bear these dates in mind. We have no other guide to determine the chronological order of the numerous portraits of Charles I.’s young family. The King never tired of seeing the features of his children painted. Van Dyck, on his part, put into this task all his art—one might say all his soul. He no doubt owed to Rubens, and to Van Balen also, this keen appreciation of the graces of childhood. Thus, in rendering these delicious figures of plump and rosy babes in the midst of glistening draperies, he discovers colouring of incomparable freshness. We have described the unrivalled masterpiece of the Turin Gallery. To the two children of the great Windsor painting there is added the Duke of York, born on October 16th, 1633. All three are still in frocks; but the youngest is already on his feet. He is therefore at least fifteen or eighteen months old. This fact alone dates the picture in the beginning of the year 1635—a conjecture which is confirmed by the signature and date of a replica of the picture, in the possession of the Earl of Pembroke, at Wilton House. The three young children reappear about eighteen months later in a picture at Windsor, of which the Dresden Gallery possesses an excellent replica, and the study for which belongs to the Louvre. This time the elder brother has aban¬ doned the long frocks of his early days for a doublet and small-clothes of gold-tinted silk. He leans against the base of a column, the body slightly bent, with legs crossed, while the two younger children, plump and chubby-cheeked, pose gravely before the spectator. On each side of the group is a little spaniel of the breed which in later years was named after King Charles II. Is the original picture at Dresden ? Does it pertain to Windsor ? It is a delicate question which we will not undertake to solve. It would be necessary to see the two pictures side by side, and compare them at leisure. After having admired the Dresden picture first, we found that that of Windsor was no whit inferior. Both undoubtedly come from the studio of the master, as well as the charming study in the Louvre. It is not the same in the case of the composition which groups the children of Charles I. for the last time. There are two examples in existence : one at Windsor, the other in the Berlin Gallery. The inferiority of the Berlin picture strikes one at first sight. This is not Waagens dictum; but he had his reasons for so expressing himself. To our mind the collection of the Queen this time certainly possesses The Three Children of Charles I. After the Study in the Louvre. the veritable original. The other canvas shows all the appearance of a contemporary copy, retouched perhaps by Van Dyck, but betraying visible traces of weakness in many places. To the three Royal children, so well grouped in the earlier compositions, are now joined two others : Princess Elizabeth, born December 28th, 1635, anc ^ Princess Henrietta Anne, who came into 18 8 Van Dyck^s Residence in England the world on March 17th, 1637, and who afterwards married the Duke of Orleans. The latter child is scarcely six or eight months old. The picture which groups Charles I.’s five children accordingly dates from the end of the year 1637. Waagen professes to have seen the signature and date. 1 We found it impossible to distinguish either. To the principal figures the artist has added a sixth, who occupies a great space by his bodily size. This is an enormous dog with a big head and simple air. Boldly encamped in the middle of the picture, he seems to have mounted guard over the children surrounding him; he feels himself at home, and does not concern himself with the familiarity of the Prince of Wales, who places his hand on his head. Very interesting by reason of its date and also by its composition, this picture does not present the same qualities as its predecessors. It lacks harmony and richness; the tones are dull; the artist is visibly approaching the stage of decadence. We will not undertake to examine the replicas of these various canvases preserved in English collections. More or less authentic, they all originate from the three types reproduced in this work. Evidently several copies were ordered of the artist by the King himself, or by nobles who wished to pay court to the sovereign. In order to satisfy these demands, Van Dyck adopted the expedient familiar to Rubens. Pupils prepared the copy, arranged the figures, and covered the canvas. A few hours’ work sufficed the master to complete it, put the finishing strokes to it, and give richness, harmony, and life to the whole. Besides the pictures in which Van Dyck has grouped the children of the King, he painted them separately on many occasions. The Berlin Gallery possesses one of these paintings. English collections preserve others. One in the Amsterdam Gallery, in which we see the young Princess Mary with her husband, the Prince of Orange, enjoys a deserved reputation. Finally, the Windsor Gallery contains a portrait 1 There is said to be a canvas, signed and dated 1637, representing the five children of Charles I., with a Latin inscription indicating the name and birthday of each child. This picture was purchased by George IV. from the Earl of Portmore. It must hardly differ in any particulars from the pictures at Berlin and Windsor. Very probably the inscriptions and the signature were added afterwards. Perhaps this is merely the great composition now exhibited in the Windsor Gallery. Van Dyck's Residence in E?tgland 189 of the Prince of Wales wearing a cuirass, and apparently at least ten or eleven years of age. This was undoubtedly painted in Van Dyck’s last days. Charles I.’s eldest son could not have worn this heavy armour before his tenth year, and we have just said that he was born in 1630. The time of the painter was at first entirely devoted to the different members of the Royal Family. It was natural enough. Charles I. never tired of seeing his clever protegt at work, and used to go and spend his leisure moments in his studio, the regular rendezvous of young noblemen and fashionable beauties. The artist’s establishment enabled him suitably to entertain such guests. Musicians were engaged to divert his aristocratic sitters during the hours of work. He thus succeeded in drawing to himself and retaining the best society in London. Daily at his table sat numerous guests, chosen from the elite of art and literature, mingled with persons of the highest rank. Carried away in the vortex of this frivolous, amusement-seeking society, Van Dyck eagerly indulged in and exhausted every pleasure, without consulting his strength, without considering his health. Such excesses were bound to have a rapid effect on a constitution naturally frail and delicate. One can trace, in the different pictures in which Van Dyck has reproduced his own likeness, the regularly increasing alteration in his features. On the Louvre canvas his face looks visibly worn. Observe particularly the head-and-shoulders portrait hung in the Windsor Gallery. It bears the marks of profound weariness, of complete exhaustion. How much more youth, freshness, and life there is in the portrait in the Munich Pinakothek! The Madrid Gallery possesses an oval frame, in which the artist is represented in half-length with one of his great friends, Sir Endymion Porter. In this painting, certainly executed in England, the artist, by means of contrast of dress, and of his thin and delicate countenance, with the broad jovial face of his companion, has succeeded in producing the happiest effect. Hence we have chosen this little-known portrait to reproduce for the frontispiece of our biography. It is in error that the Catalogue of the Madrid Gallery gives to the burly figure accom¬ panying Anthony in this picture the name of George Digby, Earl of Bristol. Smith is not mistaken, and the comparison of a portrait of igo Van Dyck’s Residence in Rngland Sir Endymion Porter, painted by Dobson and engraved by W. Faithorne, with the Madrid canvas removes all doubt. Besides, the Earl ol Bristol is not an imaginary being. He survives on other canvases by Van Dyck. A large picture in Earl Spencer’s collection at Althorp unites the full-length figures of the Earl of Bristol and of William, Duke of Bedford. All connoisseurs who have admired this canvas, either at Althorp or at the Manchester Exhibition of 1857, agree in ranking it among the painter’s masterpieces. Before passing in review the members of the English nobility who ordered their likeness from the fashionable painter, it will be well to speak first of the pictures in which King Charles I. and Queen Henrietta Maria are represented. Carpenter has carefully extracted from the records of the Privy Seal all the entries of payments concerning Van Dyck from 1632 to the end of his life. Some are of slight interest, either dealing with the reimbursement to an agent of an advance made to the artist—such as the payment of a sum of £200 to Phillip Burlamachi, dated February 4th, 1633—or containing no detail about the paintings to which they relate. We will quote, amongst others, the extract of February 23rd, 1637, mentioning the remittance of a sum of £200 to Anthony Van Dyck “ for Certaine Pictures by him deliued to our vse,” and the payment of <^300, ordered on February 25th, 1639, without explanation. Other entries happily are less reticent. We have already given the details of the works for which a sum of £24.8 was due to the artist on August 8th, 1632. The £200 paid in February, 1633, through the medium of Phillip Burlamachi, very probably represented the amount of Van Dyck’s pension. On May 7th following he received £4.4.4, “ in full satisfaccon for Nine pictures of o r Royall self and most dearest Consort the Queene lately by him made.” The total gives about £50 as the average price of each portrait; this is nearly double the valuation of the previous year. There was probably in the number some large canvas grouping all the Royal Family, or perhaps an equestrian portrait of Charles I. An entry of October 21st, 1633, ordering payment of a sum of £40 “ for the Picture of o r dearest Consort the Queene by him made & by o r Commaundem 1 deliued vnto o r right Van Dyck^s Residence in England 191 trustie & right welbeloued Cosin & Councello r the Lord Viscount Wentworth o r Deputy of o r Realme of Ireland,” shows that the price of a full-length portrait remained fixed at £4.0. The canvas presented to Strafford still exists at Wentworth House, in the collection of Earl FitzWilliam. The Queen is standing, full-length, dressed in one of those light blue satin gowns, the pale and shifting hues of which our artist particularly loved. She wears a broad-brimmed black hat, covered with feathers, and caresses with her right hand a monkey held by the dwarf Jeffrey Hudson. Apart from the paintings in which the Queen is presented with her children and her husband, the picture at Wentworth House is considered one of the most remarkable of the portraits of Henrietta Maria. After the settlement for the picture intended for the Earl of Strafford, several years pass without Van Dyck’s name appearing again in the records of the Exchequer. The financial embarrassments of the King were reacting on his patronage of the fine arts. In the com¬ mencement of 1637, as we have mentioned, a sum of ^£200 was remitted to the artist; but this was only a small instalment of what was due to him. He had not received his pension since 1633, when payment was made through the agency of Burlamachi; five years’ arrears were thus outstanding. He claimed at the same time for a long list of pictures delivered to the King or to the Queen some time before, without however being able to obtain a settlement. Times were hard; economy imposed itself as a necessity. Hence the King found himself reduced to disputing the amounts claimed, and diminishing the price of his works. Carpenter reveals a valuable memorandum, probably written by the artist himself and revised by the King. This important document we shall give here :•—- MeMOIRE POUR SA M AG lie LE ROI Pour mollures du veu’conte. . . . . 27 ]. Une teste d’un veliant poete . . . 20 ]. + Le prince Henri . . . . . . . . . 50 1 . Le Roi a la ciasse ........ 200 1 . Le Roy vestu de noir, au prince Pallatin avecq sa mollure . 34 ]. Le prince Carles avecq le ducq de Jarc, princesse Maria, P se Elizabet, P e Anna ....... 200 1 . 12 100 3° 100 Van Dyck^s Residence in England Le Roy vestu de noir, au Mons' Morre avec sa mollure + Une Reyne en petite forme ..•••• + Une Reyne vestu’ en blu’ .••••• + Une Reyne mere + Une Reyne vestu en blanc ..•••• La Reyne, pour Mons r Barnino ■ La Reyne, pour Mons r Barnino • La Reyne, pour la Reyne de Boheme • + La Reyne en petite forme. La Reyne envoye a Mons. Fielding • + Le prince Carlos en armes, pour Somerset . Le Roy, alia Reyne de Boheme. Le Roy en armes, donne au baron Warto . La Reyne, au d° Baron .■•••• Le Roy, la Reyne, le prince Carlos, ou l’ambas r Hopton + Une Reyne vestu en blu, donne au Conte d Ollande . + Deux demis portraits della Reyne, du veu comte Une piece pour la maison a Green Witz . Le dessein du Roy et tous les chevaliers 34 1- z6 20 1 . 3 ° 1 5 ° !• 5 ° ] - 20 1. 15 20 1. 15 20 1. 15 20 1 . 30 1 . 20 40 1. 20 1. 15 50 1. 40 50 1 . 4 ° 90 1. 75 60 1. 60 1. IOO 1. To the account of the artist is added the following note : The totall of all such Pictures as his Ma“ e is to paye for in his accoumpt rated by the King and what his Ma tu doth allowe of, amownts unto five hundred twentie eight pownde . . . . . . . • • 5 2 ^ The other pictures w :h the King hath marked w‘ h a cross before them the Queene is to paye for them and her Ma tie is to rate them ..... The Arrere of the Pent ion beeing five yeeares amownts unto one thousand pownds att two hundred pownds p afium ........ 1,000 More for the pictures w ch Sir Arthur Hopton had into Spaine . . . 75 The totall of all amownts unto . 1,603 /. The pictures for the ^ueene . . 200 /. Five Tears Pension . . . .1,000 /. ( Endorsed ) Sir Anthony Vandike. After this settlement comes an order dated December 14th, 1638, instructing the Treasurer of the Exchequer to pay Van Dyck the sum of s £ i ,6 o 3, being .£1,000 for the arrears of his pension, and £603 “ for divers Pictures by him made and sould to vs.” As for the £200 owed by the Queen, the King does not trouble himself further. We do not know whether the artist eventually obtained satisfaction. Wuig Lc dcs&i • To the aco . ddcd ; follow >ng' rah-- by (he A. ; • doth alk e a/jtownts u--: hundred tiventie eight / ■ . . , . • The other pictur A. ing hath marked vS* a cross before them the * The sir • ye rs amvunts unto one thousand . 1,603 £ The • 'nil -/ all amounts unto ii rsed ) Sir Anthony Vamj;kj After til' 1 order dated ! X* * 4-th, i ; ; vcltequi r to pay 1 yck the •tsi'.t . .■ r-. for the ;/ 880H0 71HT TO '/lOITOJMM MHT C ,mVnK ° \n t»0 \o W\3) Van Dyck's Reside?ice in England r 93 Several known pictures are enumerated in this curious memorandum. The prince Henri probably indicates a portrait of the King’s brother, in armour, still to be seen at Hampton Court. Carpenter supposes that the “ teste d’un veliant poete ” refers either to Sir John Suckling or to Sir John Mennis, who were both soldiers; but is it not attaching a too narrow sense to the word valiant to take it as a synonym for bellicose ? Would not the epithet apply to a poet of bourgeois habits, but of conspicuous merit, such as Thomas Killigrew, of whom there is a portrait now possessed by the Duke of Newcastle, signed and dated exactly in 1638? As for the two canvases representing “ la Reyne pour Mons. Barnino,” we have already spoken of them; they are to be found together, in the Windsor Gallery, with the five children of Charles I., bearing the date 1637, which has also been referred to. Let us pass over the other items in order to come to two subjects which deserve special attention. We refer to the “ Roi a la ciasse ” valued at £200 by Van Dyck and reduced to «£ioo, and to the drawing representing the u Roy et tous les chevaliers,” of which the price is not mentioned. This drawing still exists in the Duke of Rutland’s collection. The engraver Richard Cooper reproduced it in facsimile towards the end of the eighteenth century; it then belonged to Lord Northington. It possesses an inestimable price to us; it is the only remaining souvenir of Van Dyck’s great project for the decoration of the banqueting- room at Whitehall, the ceiling of which had been painted by Rubens. We shall have occasion to return to this project when we come to the artist’s closing years, when we will show the causes which prevented him from reaching the goal he had pursued all his life. The fine portrait of the King followed by a squire leading his horse is universally known. The famous engraving by Strange has helped to popularise it. 1 Carpenter supposes that this is the picture indicated under the title of “ le Roi a la ciasse.” The artist only 1 The print was completed in 1782. The year before, Strange exhibited in Paris at the Salon de F Academic de -peinture , under No. 293, a miniature after the picture by Van Dyck. In the catalogue we find this note: “ The artist, in accordance with his custom, painted this work in miniature, before executing the print. He is at present occupied in engraving it.” 25 Wan Dyck's Residence in England 194 received ^"ioo for this masterpiece. Times were hard, finances drained. In spite of his aversion to such shabby dealings, the King was obliged to reduce the price demanded. A description of this admirable work would be superfluous, especially in presence of M. Boulard s etching, which will confirm the recollections of the reader; but the discovery of certain documents hitherto unknown enables us to rectify a leading point in its history. The importance of the work justifies this digression. The Louvre Catalogue says that it comes from the collection of Louis XV., and that it had belonged to Baron de Thiers, who, as is known, sold his fine collection bodily to the Empress of Russia. There is a twofold error here. It is, to say the least, very doubtful if the Charles /. ever formed part of Baron de Thiers’ collection, and it never belonged to Louis XV. It is also related that this picture figured at the beginning of the eighteenth century in the collection of the Countess de Verrue, who gave it to the Marquis de Lassay. Nevertheless, it is not mentioned in the catalogue of the Countess’s pictures, published for the first time by M. Charles Blanc, in the Tresor de la Curio site. The collection of the Marquis de Lassay fell partly, as is known, to Count de la Guiche; in the latter’s lot was the Charles I. Count de la Guiche’s collection was sold by auction in 1770. The famous portrait found no purchaser, and the heirs withdrew it at 17,000 livres. It was no doubt in consequence of this fruitless effort to sell the picture that the Countess du Barry, in search of distinguished ancestors fit to raise the humbleness of her extraction, made direct offers to its possessors. A bargain was struck, and the favourite became the owner of the picture. She bought it for herself, and not for the King, as has often been repeated, and placed it in her house at Luciennes. Only at the commencement of the following reign did she consent to give it up, and sell it to King Louis XVI., as is to be gathered from the correspondence which we will now put forward. After the death of Louis XV., the Countess du Barry, pressed by her numerous creditors, was reduced to parting with a portion of the riches of every kind which Royal liberality had showered on her. The Charles I. included in this enforced liquidation was offered to M. d’Angiviller, then Director of the Royal Buildings. The Van Dyck’s Residence in England T 95 architect Le Doux, who had done much work for Madame du Barry, undertook the negotiation; we have not found his letter, but the Head of a Man. From a Drawing in the Dresden Gallery. three following notes render that document useless and all comment superfluous. 1 1 These documents are taken from the Administrative Correspondence of the Direction of Buildings, preserved, with the papers of the King’s Household, in the National Archives, Paris. Van Dyck^s Residence in England Letter from M. d’Angiviller to M. Le Doux. “8 th May, 1775. “ I have received. Sir, the letter by which you inform me of Madame du Barry’s fixed intention to sell the portrait of Charles I., and of the offer which has been made to her. I will not let the opportunity of acquiring this valuable work escape. I therefore secure it on behalf of the King for the price of 24,000 livres (or 1,000 louis), which has been offered for it, and this sum will be paid down on the delivery of the picture. “ I am, Sir, etc.” Thus the picture belonged to Madame du Barry. It remained at Luciennes till the month of May, 1775. The Comte d’Angiviller then purchased it on behalf of Louis XVI. for the sum of 24,000 livres; that was the price paid by the Countess. The following documents inform us of the prompt and complete discharge of the affair :— Letter from M. d’Angiviller to M. Jeaurat, Keeper of the King’s Pictures. “ 19 th May, 177$. “ His Majesty, Sir, has just purchased from Madame du Barry the portrait of Charles I. by Van Dyck, with which you are doubtless acquainted. It is at the Chateau de Luciennes, and the concierge is authorised to deliver it when it is sent for by my order; therefore it will be well for you to send the necessary persons to Luciennes to remove it on my behalf. And you will be careful afterwards to place it in such part of the gallery as shall seem to you most suitable for its preservation. You will be good enough to inform me of its arrival, in order that I may come and see it.” Letter from M d’Angiviller to M. Le Doux. “ 22 nd May, 1775. “I have. Sir, just instructed M. Jeaurat to have the picture by Van Dyck representing Charles I. removed from Luciennes. I enclose herewith the duplicate of the order by means of which Madame du Barry can obtain payment of the sum agreed upon from M. Dutartre, general treasurer to the Buildings of his Majesty. As it is through your mediation that Madame du Barry has treated with the Buildings of his Majesty, I think I cannot do better than address this duplicate to you so that you may be good enough to forward it to her, or to the person entrusted with her affairs. I am. Sir, etc.” Van Dyck's Residence in England *97 On the Louvre canvas the artist has represented Charles I. in the elegant simplicity of everyday dress. He shows us the gentleman rather than the King. Portraits in which the monarch bears the insignia of his rank are not rare in English collections. To begin with, there are two at Windsor. The one which is in the Grand Hall of the Knights of the Garter shows the King in full-length, clothed in State robes. Beside it hangs that portrait of which, according to tradition, the head and no more was painted by Van Dyck. Robert Strange has left an admirable plate of this picture, engraved from a study which he dis¬ covered in Rome, in 1770, and which he brought back to England. The Charles /. in Royal Robes ; in our opinion, does not equal either the Louvre portrait, or the other canvas, also at Windsor, in which the King is shown on a grey horse, with a squire by his side carrying his helmet. This composition faces the family-picture in which are assembled the King, the Queen, and their two children. Executed, we are assured, soon after the artist’s arrival, it shows the monarch in a majestic, and, so to speak, heroic aspect. The grey horse advances slowly, almost facing us; the King, bareheaded, his breast covered by a cuirass, his legs encased in buff leather boots, passes underneath an archway which forms a sort of triumphal arch, through which we see a background of empurpled sky. On his left, M. de Saint-Antoine> Duke of lipernon, Master of the Horse, dressed completely in red velvet of magnificent hue, with long hair waving on his shoulders, holds his master’s gilded helmet. The noble majesty of this page of history has been admirably rendered in the fine engraving by Baron, published in 1741. Nearly all the equestrian portraits of Charles I.—and there are seven or eight at least—are studies, repetitions, or copies of two well- known original types : the picture at Windsor, and the great equestrian portrait, formerly at Blenheim, now in the London National Gallery. Here the King wears full armour; in the background a furious cavalry combat is shown. Sir Thomas Morton marches by the side of his master holding his helmet. The horse, cream-coloured, is presented almost in profile; whilst at Windsor the grey horse ridden by the King is seen facing the spectator. The beautiful “ Blenheim ” painting was brought from Munich by 198 Van Dyck’s Residence in England the famous Duke of Marlborough, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Buckingham Palace contains a good study for this com¬ position. Two other studies of the same subject are known: one in the possession of the Earl of Clarendon, at Grove Park; the second formerly belonged to Mr. Hart Davis. As for the Charles I. on horseback, at Windsor, there exists an old copy in Hampton Court From a Drawing in the British Museum. Palace, and another at Apsley House, in the collection of the Duke of Wellington. The famous canvas from Blenheim was admirably engraved by Lombart; this print led to a fraud already mentioned, which we only refer to again in order to put forth a very curious document for our acquaintance with which we are indebted to the Marquis de Chennevieres. A publisher, the owner of Lombards engraving, had the head of I an Dyck’s Residence in England 99 Charles obliterated in order to substitute that of Cromwell—an anachronism outraging possibility, since Van Dyck died in 1641, considerably before the Protector emerged from obscurity. This objec¬ tion nevertheless was embarrassing to certain individuals who professed to have found the original and well-authenticated portrait of Cromwell. The following, evidently addressed to the Duke of Antin, then a Director of the Royal Buildings of France, entrusted with the Arts Department, shows us how these credulous connoisseurs hoped to justify their pretensions. We give it without comment. Need we add that we hardly believe in the authenticity of this portrait of Cromwell by Van Dyck ? “ Monseigneur, “ I trust your Excellency will pardon the liberty I take of writing to inform you that in the personal estate of my late father-in-law, with whom the Protestant authors in England and Holland had much correspondence, there is an original portrait of the famous Cromwell, painted by Van Dyck, at the time when that usurper was still only a colonel, about 37 or 38 years of age. He is represented in a cuirass, with a com¬ mander’s baton in his hand, and the picture is of the height and dimensions of our ordinary portraits. Several of the English noblemen who often pass through our town, having heard of it, came to see it, and after having examined it, acknowledged that England only possessed copies of it, and that this long-sought original was lacking to the Westminster Gallery. These gentlemen at the same time offered to buy it from me; but in order to put them off till I knew precisely your views, Monseigneur, I answered them that I was in treaty with a personage of great note, and I must first of all know his decision. I thought I ought to do so, Monseigneur, to enable you to acquire a new ornament to your valuable collection. It will be sent with my letter, and I should be satisfied with the mere pleasure of doing anything acceptable to you, if my wife were sole legatee. I await the honour of your reply, and am very respectfully, “ Your most humble and obedient servant, “M. de Bresme, “Civil Lieutenant of Calais. “Calais, 8th July, 1728.” “ In case the proposal is not acceptable to you, and you are pleased to transfer my offer to any one, I shall always make it my duty to give preference to whom you think best.” We have not yet finished with the equestrian portraits of Charles I. The Madrid Gallery possesses one which differs perceptibly from the 200 Van Dyck's Residence in England canvases of Windsor and Blenheim. Here, the King, alone, without attendant, is riding a grey horse, and is advancing nearly facing us; he wears a broad lace collar over his cuirass; in his left hand he holds the commander’s baton, which rests on his thigh. The branches of a bushy tree shade the rider, and take the place of the archway which encloses the Windsor portrait. From the early period of Van Dyck’s stay in England there dates also that picture in Buckingham Palace in which the Queen, in profile, half-length, offers a crown of laurels to her husband opposite to her. The engraving of Robert Van Voerst, executed in London, bears the date of 1634. The picture, then, is of the same year, at the latest. The enumeration of all the portraits of Charles I. from the brush of Van Dyck would take us too far. Space fails us to expatiate further. It will suffice to have mentioned the most important and the most famous. Moreover, there is, so to speak, no large collection in England which cannot show at least one. Sometimes, as in the galleries of Lord Ashburton, the Earl of Harrington, Sir Thomas Sebright, or Viscount Galway, the King is presented in full-length, wearing his hat and private dress, generally of black velvet, which sets off the exquisite lace of a wide collar and broad ruffles. More often the painter shows him to us in half-length, in a cuirass, with his helmet placed on a table by his side, or else in an elegant silk costume, usually of a dark colour. It is in this aspect that he appears in the Dresden Gallery, in the fine canvas which forms a pendant to the portrait of his Queen. And how many doubtful or absolutely apocryphal works should we have to mention if we undertook a complete enumeration of the twenty-five or thirty portraits of Charles I. scattered everywhere, in England, in France, in Germany, at Madrid, at Florence! Many are evidently only copies or replicas, the work of a pupil, and scarcely retouched by the master, mediocre productions intended to be distributed among the Prince’s favourites, or to be sent as Royal presents to foreign Courts. The portrait of the Queen, as we have already said, was repeated at least as often as that of Charles I. And these portraits show very little difference. We have mentioned the two frames in the Windsor Robert ■ brush . at- least one. Sometimes, as in the of • i the h. irl of i iurrington. Sir Thon.a:. the King is presented in full-length, : ncrally oi black velvet, which sets thi ; : hi! in a cuirass, with his i in an elegant silk ; t that he appears a complete enumeration of the > rributed I II , tp hi I'Iitf : routs :,iiow very • • inies . •. indsor Van Dyck’s Residence in England 201 Gallery which show her Majesty in full face and profile, and the large picture which groups her with her husband and children. The artist has put all his care and all his talent into these paintings. The profile portrait especially is of inconceivable fineness of execution ; and the delicacy of the modelling and the freshness of the colouring render Studies of Female Figures. (On the back of the drawing we read, “ Various studies for Thisbe.") From a Drawing in the Louvre (Mariette Collection). it a work beyond comparison. The Queen is attired in one of those low-necked gowns of white satin for which the painter always showed a great predilection. Sometimes he replaces the white material by pale blue satin ; more rarely he substitutes a yellow silk shot with gold. The bodice is adorned with a double row of precious stones in an enamelled setting; the close-fitting necklace of large pearls, of 26 202 Van Dyck^s Residence in England which Van Dyck makes such frequent use, encircles the neck and sets off the exquisite whiteness of the skin. Except in the canvases which represent the Queen surrounded by her children or accompanied by her husband, the artist generally goes to little pains of imagination to vary her attitude and costume. In full or three-quarter length, she most often stands upright, by the side of a table on which is placed the Royal crown with a vase containing a few roses. Now she takes up one of these flowers, now she lets one hand fall languidly by her side and holds the other arm folded over the waist. Sometimes a large dark curtain, figured with gold, hung in the background, serves to set off the fresh carnations of the model and the brilliant reflections of the satin. The artist seems usually to trouble himself very little about beautifying the features of the Queen or rendering them pleasing. Several of these canvases are marvels of colouring; but the face seldom or never presents an attractive or regular whole. The most insignificant beauty of Charles I.’s Court would easily eclipse her Queen. Must we then subscribe to the opinion of Walpole, apparently so paradoxical, when he declares that Van Dyck succeeded much better with heads of men than with portraits of women, that the latter in general give only a feeble idea of the celebrated beauty of the great ladies of the English Court, that in short the execution of the hands most often surpasses that of the face ? Excessive and over-dogmatic as it is, this criticism does show a semblance of justice, as a careful examination of Queen Henrietta Maria’s portraits will prove. Many of the English collections which boast of including the likeness of Queen Henrietta Maria painted by Van Dyck possess only middling copies of well-known pictures, or works of inferior quality which do not even recall the features of the wife of Charles I. If we consider that, in the space of nine years, at least twenty or thirty portraits of the King left the painter’s studio, an equal number of portraits of the Queen, and eight or nine portraits of their children, if we bear in mind that a certain number of these pictures are compositions of three, four, or even five figures, we see that the Royal commands must have absorbed the best part of the artist’s time. Now that we have finished with the family of Charles I., we shall Van Dyck’s Reside?ice in England 2Q3 pass successively in review the different persons whose features Van Dyck reproduced and whose memory deserves to be recalled amongst the immense number of models who posed before him in turn. Some families who were in more direct intercourse with the artist owe a sort of privilege to this circumstance, and possess as many as eight or ten portraits of their ancestors, all from the hand of the master. Thus he repeated ten times the features of the unfortunate Earl of Strafford. On seven different occasions he painted his faithful protector, the Earl of Arundel, either alone, or together with the Countess, Lady Alithea Talbot. In the galleries of England there are seven portraits of the Earl or the Countess of Pembroke; in this number is included the celebrated large picture which assembles all the members of the family on one canvas, and which Baron engraved in 1740 with his usual skill. Four portraits are known of the Duke and Duchess of Richmond. It is needless to give further examples. Few of these pictures are dated; so it is impossible to establish any sequence whatever of their execution. In a few cases only, special circumstances enable us to fix the date, at least approximately. We shall treat first of these, reserving till later the compositions which, by superior merit, deserve to arrest our attention for a moment. We have laid stress on the part played by Sir Kenelm Digby in the proceedings which decided Van Dyck to settle in England. The artist, it is asserted, was not insensible to the charms of the beautiful Lady Venetia, Sir Kenelm’s wife. Malicious reports were spread. To answer these rumours, Van Dyck depicted his friend’s wife in one of those allegorical compositions for which he now and then showed an unfortunate propensity. The picture is at Windsor. In vain does the painter heap emblem upon emblem, and represent his heroine under the guise of Prudence seated above a double-faced figure of Calumny; near her a dove, symbol of Innocence, two Cupids at her feet, and three other Cupids supporting a crown over her head: this strange medley of incongruous elements leaves an unpleasing impression. We prefer a simple portrait of a woman in her everyday attire. As Lady Venetia died during the year 1634, the Windsor allegory dates at the latest from that year, or even 1633. Alter her death Van Dyck depicted her for the last time on her death-bed; from her hand drops 204 Van Dyck's Residence in V?i gland a withered rose, a less pretentious symbol than those of the large composition at Windsor. This picture adorns the gallery at Dulwich. On various occasions the artist tried incursions into the domain of allegory. These attempts were not generally attended with success. There is a lady represented as Minerva, another as Venus, the Countess of Southampton as Fortune seated in the midst of the clouds, with a death’s-head under her feet. By the side of the allegorical figure of Lady Venetia, the Windsor Gallery exhibits a picture in which the Duchess of Richmond, daughter of the Duke of Buckingham, appears as St. Agnes, in a costume which does not perceptibly differ from the dress of the period. She stretches out her right hand to a lamb. Reduced to these limits, the allegory has nothing outrageous about it. Nevertheless, the portrait of the Duchess of Richmond cannot be included among the good pictures of the Queen’s collection. As for the Countess of Dorset, whom Van Dyck has also painted as St. Agnes, it is generally regarded as a copy, the original belonging to a private collection. How superior to the foregoing is the portrait of Sir Kenelm Digby, probably painted at the same time as that of his wife! Seated in an arm-chair, clad in a rich doublet, the figure presents his round, semi-bald head almost in profile. His elbow rests upon a table, on which is an armillary sphere. The picture is excellent in every point. Later on, when he had the portrait of Digby engraved by Robert Van Voerst, Van Dyck wished to express his admiration for the character and loyalty of his faithful protector in a motto. He addressed himself to the learned Francis Junius. The letter which he wrote him to prefer his request has come down to us. It belongs to the rich collections of the British Museum. Carpenter has published it in facsimile. It will be sufficient here to give the translation. Writing to a fellow-countryman, Van Dyck made use of his mother-tongue; the letter is worded in Flemish. We may observe in passing that our artist had a very wide education for his time. He knew at least four or five languages, if not more : Flemish and Spanish, learnt in his childhood; Italian, English, French (which he appears rarely to have made use of in his correspondence), and perhaps also Latin, which every man of finished education could read fluently. I an Dyck’s Residence in England 205 The following is the letter written to Francis Junius in the course of the year 1636: “ Sir, “ The Baron Canuwe has returned me, by sea, the copy of your book De Pictura Veterum, which he values very highly, and considers it a most learned composition; I am confident it will be as acceptable to the public as any hitherto published, and that the Arts will be much elucidated by so remarkable a work, which must materially promote their regeneration, and ensure a great reputation and satisfaction to its author. Lately I com¬ municated the same to a very learned gentleman who came to visit me, and I can hardly describe in what favourable terms he spoke of your book, which he considered to be as curious and learned as any he had ever met with. “ The before-named Baron Canuwe wishes to receive a copy of it as soon as the printing shall be finished, persuaded that everybody will take a particular interest in the same, and be anxious to see it. “ As I have caused the portrait of the Chevalier Digby to be engraved, with a view to publication, I humbly request you to favour me with a little motto by way of inscription at the bottom of the plate, by which you will render me a service, and do me great honour. The present tending chiefly to offer you my humble service. “ Believe me always to remain. Sir, your unworthy servant, “Ant. Van Dyck. “ This 14 th August, 1636.” It is then to Francis Junius that we must attribute the somewhat pretentious motto, Impavidum ferient ruince , inscribed beneath the portrait of Sir Kenelm Digby. Robert Van Voerst’s engraving formed part of the series of Centum leones. The plate is preserved in the Engravings Department of the Louvre. The letter addressed to Francis Junius would prove, if proof were necessary, that Van Dyck still interested himself in the engraving as well as the publication of his portraits. Perhaps the undertaking was carried on for his own profit and at his own expense. The Iconography having been well received from the outset, its originator was induced continually to add to the number of portraits. Accordingly he intro¬ duced into this collection every one whose name would possibly attract the attention of the public. Sir Kenelm Digby was not contented with having his wife’s features as well as his own painted several times. He ordered historical pictures and genre paintings from our artist; Bellori enumerates these works. 206 Van Dyck's Residence in England There was a Descent from the Cross , with Joseph and Nicodemus, the Magdalen, and the Virgin swooning; a John the Baptist in the desert; a Magdalen inspired by the songs of the angels ; Judith with the Head of Holofernes ; and Christ giving up the Ghost. Several of these pictures have remained in England. The last-named was presented by its owner to the Princess de Guemen6e when Digby, driven from England by the Rebellion, sought an asylum in France. An ardent admirer of Van Dyck’s talent, Sir Kenelm used to take pleasure in having his original compositions copied by the most skilful miniature-painters. In the eighteenth century, Horace Walpole united two collections of miniatures signed by Peter and Isaac Olivier, mostly executed after portraits of individuals belonging to the Digby family. This interesting series was finally dispersed in 1842, when the Strawberry Hill collection was sold. Their former owner has given a catalogue of them in his Anecdotes. Although nearly all his time was absorbed by portrait-painting, Van Dyck could not resist the wishes of his protectors and friends when they asked of him a religious or historical composition. We have just mentioned those which he painted for Sir Kenelm Digby; the King showed no less eagerness to employ the talent of his favourite painter. He ordered chiefly mythological subjects from him. There was the Dance of the Muses and Apollo on Parnassus , a Dance of Cupids before Venus aiid Adonis , Apollo flaying Marsyas , and finally a Bacchanalia. The Queen had not the same reasons as her husband for avoiding religious subjects. She desired a replica of the Rest in Egypt with the dance of angels. Such are, according to Bellori, the principal historical or religious pictures painted by our artist during his residence in England. To turn him aside from his more lucrative occupations it needed a powerful motive, such as a command of the King or the request of an intimate friend like Sir Kenelm Digby. Amongst the rare dated portraits of Van Dyck may be mentioned that of Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, painted in 1632—that is to say, in the first few months following the painter’s arrival in England. This picture, in which the nobleman is shown in full-length, in armour, has always continued in the possession of the Earls of Warwick. In 1633, we have only to mention the canvas representing Queen Henrietta Maria accompanied by Jeffrey Hudson. We have already spoken of this remarkable work, presented by the King to his faithful and unfortunate minister the Earl of Strafford, now preserved Mythological Subject. From a Drawing in the Louvre (Mariette Collection). in the collection of Earl FitzWilliam. In the course of the same year were completed the different portraits of Lady Venetia Digby. There are no less than four, including the composition showing her on her death-bed, letting a faded rose fall from her feeble hand. During the first eight months of the year 1634 Van Dyck 208 Van Dyck's Residence in England continued the important works with which he was entrusted. We have already spoken of the painting in Buckingham Palace combining King Charles and Queen Henrietta Maria presenting her husband with a crown of laurels, the engraving of which bears the date 1634 - In the course of the same year, the artist, urged probably by family interests, took leave of the Court of England, and returned to the Netherlands. He had left a natural daughter there, named Maria Theresa, whose education was entrusted to his sister Susanna. The desire to see his daughter and his sisters again, and perhaps other business, determined him on this journey, which lasted several months. Although the historians do not keep us at all well informed of the various incidents in his life, it appears probable that he made more than one appearance in his own country during the period of his voluntary exile, and no doubt the journey of 1634 was repeated several times. But we know for certain only of the journey of which we are speaking, and one other which immediately preceded Anthony’s death. Before quitting England, he completed a portrait of Balthazar Gerbier. If the relations of the two Flemings were somewhat strained after the correspondence previously referred to, the ill-humour of a courtier so wily as Gerbier could not last long in presence of the marks of favour which Van Dyck received from the most exalted personages of England. The clever diplomatist desired to have his features too depicted by the fashionable portrait-painter. The picture bears an inscription, precious, as it gives a date. We read at the foot of the canvas: jTtatis su^ 42, Anno 1634. In this case he is represented alone; later on Van Dyck executed, at his request, a copy of the large composition in which Rubens had painted him together with his wife and children. Van Dyck’s copy is preserved at Windsor, in a room in which are assembled several canvases by Rubens belonging to the Queen, together with the famous St. Martin which inspired the Saventhem picture. These portraits of the members of Gerbier’s family have given birth to a singular legend. The picture, it is said, was not originally of its present size. The family having increased, the canvas was enlarged, first once, and then a second time, to make room for the children who did not appear in the original 1HE KIAE CHI TDK EE. Oh CH’/KTES Van Dyci > Rexidem in Engl. 1 continued the important tvorks with w htch was entrusted. 1 c have already spoken of the painting in Buckie ■•• Palace combining King Charles and Queen Hcnriett Maria ] iring her h :nd with a crov of laurels, the engraving of which bears tin cite , In the course of the same year, tlie artist, urged probai by fan] 1 . interests, took "leave I art of England, and iv ‘ Maria Theresa, whose education was entrusted to his ister Si The desire to sec his daughter .and his sister: again, and j other business, detcrmiueJ him on did journey, which lasted se . months. Although the historians do not keep" us a* ail ” inform of the ■.•arums incidents in his life, it appears pro! able i ta r nfore than one appearance in his own country during the period of ! voluntary exile, and no doubt the journey of 1634 was repeated severa time But we kmnv for certain only of he lourney 'of which We a .ileal- lug. and. one other which immediately .preceded Anthony vdi-arii. Before quitting England, t completed a portrait of Baltha/ tjerbier. If the relations of ■ two Flemings were somewhat strain. . after h , rrespoudene. previously referred to, the ill-humour of courtier so wily as Gerbier could not last long -in presence of marks of far which Van Dyck received from the most c.x: bears an rnsci ipti- 1 ,. precious, as it give, a date. We > ad « tf is represented alone; later on Van Dyck executed, at his r- Ri tei f him together with his *,r i . and children. Vati" Dyck’s i-.-.py preser. Rubens belpngii;. to the Queen, together with the famous St. ',! which inspired t!i Saventhem picture. These portraits of the merriber increased, the- can.as was enlarged, first once, and then a second dm " 1 an Dyck’s Residence in Rjsgland 209 composition. And, as a matter of fact, the leading group is massed completely towards the left side. Balthazar Gerbier, attired in the Flemish style, in black clothes and a large felt hat, bends over the chair on which the mother, seated, is giving the breast to her latest- born, while some young children are playing at her feet. There is nothing to connect them with the children scattered over the right of the picture. Hence that particular part seems blank—a defect which the successive addition of several figures would explain. At the same time, the essential figures remind one much more of the familiar arrangements peculiar to Rubens than of those affected by Van Dyck. While the former strives to connect the different actors in an intimate scene, one with another in common action, Van Dyck as a rule contents himself with placing them side by side. With Rubens they are part of one whole. With Van Dyck the figures on the same canvas remain independent of each other; they might without detriment be isolated from one another. These reflections apply to the most celebrated pictures, to the Family of Charles I., at Windsor, as well as to the large composition in which are represented the Earl of Pembroke, his wife, and children. This famous canvas, one of Anthony Van Dyck’s most highly praised family-pictures, is still to be seen at Wilton House, the home of the descendants of Lord Chamberlain Philip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. i his composition includes not less than ten full-length figures, without counting the angels hovering in the sky, which recall the three children whom the Earl had lost. Unfortunately, towards the middle of the eighteenth century, a shameless dauber, whose name deserves to be held up to public indignation—he was called Brompton— undertook the restoration of this painting, and completely ruined it. According to the evidence of Horace Walpole, the warm and harmonious colouring of Van Dyck gave place to tones false and discordant. The miserable wretch had had the impudence to repaint several of the heads. When it left his hands, the picture presented the most lamentable aspect. James Dallaway, in his notes on Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, quotes the opinion of two of his contemporaries on this important work. Whilst the one has nothing but admiration tor the picture at Wilton House, the other is not V 2 10 Van Dyck’s Residence in England sparing of criticism. We have thought it worth while to collate the principal passages of these two so diverse opinions, both emanating from competent connoisseurs who had made a profound study of the picture. “To this painter (Van Dyck),” says the enthusiastic critic (Charles Rogers), “England is indebted for probably the first and most magnifi¬ cent historic-portraiture in the world, that of the Pembroke family at Wilton. If the delicacy of the pencilling be attended to, it will, I doubt not, bear the strictest comparison with the Coronation of Mary de Medicis in the Luxembourg Gallery, by Rubens. This picture consists of ten whole lengths, of the size of life (besides three young ladies who died in their infancy, and are represented as angels in the clouds), which he has made historical, by expressing it in a circumstance at that time very interesting to all concerned. “Earl Philip having caused his family to be assembled together, informs them with great emotion in his countenance of the absolute necessity for his eldest son, Charles, Lord Herbert, to go into the army of the Grand Duke (of Tuscany), there to acquire military honour and experience, notwithstanding his having just married Mary, daughter of George, Duke of Buckingham. Lord Herbert receives the injunction with the gallant ardour of a youthful hero; but the young bride hears it with more passionate emotion, to conceal which she turns her face from the company; and by this expedient affords the spectator an opportunity of admiring her most beautiful countenance, now heightened by her affectionate endeavour to conceal her tears.” 1 Let us listen now to the severe critic (Gilpin), one of the first authorities of the eighteenth century on artistic matters, according to Dallaway: “ I have examined this picture with great attention, and reluctantly own that I cannot bring myself to admire it, either in the whole, or in its parts. Van Dyck’s portrait of Charles I. over a chimney at Hampton Court, which consists of only a single figure, I should prefer to this, though it consists of thirteen. Van Dyck 1 Dallaway adds the Earl of Pembroke’s son was married at Christmas in 1634, and died at Florence in January, 1636, of the smallpox; therefore the picture must have been painted in the course of the year 1635. According to the same author he was paid 500 jacobus, or £500 sterling. Van Dyck's Residence in England 211 seldom appears to advantage when he has several figures to manage. . . . Here ... he has a number of figures, at full-length, to manage in one piece, which extends twenty feet by twelve. The composition of such a work required more skill than he possessed. tc In the first place there is no attempt at design. Some little family-scene should have been introduced, which might have drawn the figures into one action. . . . “ Composition, too, is wanting as well as design. The figures are ill-grouped, and produce no whole. The colouring too is glaring. If from the general view of the picture we proceed to particulars, I fear our criticisms must be equally severe. . . . Some of the attitudes are forced; you look in vain for Van Dyck’s wonted simplicity. But what most disgusts us is a want of harmony; but here this rule is so far from being observed, that even allowing the variation of different complexions, the faces of all, though of one country, belong to different climates. . . .” However, the author acknowledges further on that this defect ought rather to be attributed to Brompton, the infamous restorer of the picture, than to Van Dyck. Might we not think we were reading the description of two different canvases ? Severe as are the strictures passed on the picture, they nevertheless contain some just observations. The artist is ill at ease when he has to group several figures, especially if these figures are portraits. So what does he do ? He seats the heads of the family on a platform, raised a few steps from the ground, and surmounted by a dais; around the parents he arranges one or two children, standing on the steps of this platform; then he scatters the others, according to chance fancy, over the rest of the canvas. One could, without trouble, detach one or more of the figures, for they are not bound together by any common action. If we compare with the family of the Earl of Pembroke the picture which represents John, Count of Nassau-Siegen, with his wife 1 and her children, the fault we speak of, namely, the absence of composition, becomes still more 1 The wife of the Count of Nassau was Ernestine de Ligne, Countess d’Arenberg, to whom is dedicated the portrait of the Count engraved by Vorsterman. She had four children : a son, born in 1621 or 1622, and three daughters. All four appear in the picture. 2 12 Van Dyck’s Residejice in E?igland obvious. This latter canvas, of almost the same dimensions as the former, is now to be found in the collection of Earl Cowper. It too has been admirably engraved by Baron. The Count of Nassau, a burly individual with a bald head, attired in a rich costume, is seated on a raised bench, with his wife by his side. The latter rests her hand on the shoulder of her son, while the eldest daughter is mounting the steps, with her two younger sisters behind her standing out against a landscape background. Among the family-portraits which formerly enjoyed a great reputa¬ tion must be mentioned that in which Van Dyck had assembled the Earl and Countess of Arundel and their children. One of the latter was holding the shield formerly presented to the Earl of Surrey by the Grand Duke of Tuscany after a tournament. Two other sons of the Earl bore the helmet of James IV. and his sword which had fallen into the possession of the Duke of Norfolk, father of the Earl of Surrey, at the battle of Flodden. Unfortunately this picture never got beyond the “ study ” stage. Van Dyck contented himself with drawing the figures in crayon. From this drawing Philip Fruytiers painted a miniature, of which G. Virtue has left an engraving. If Van Dyck’s talent was ill adapted to large groupings of many figures, he succeeded well in pictures allowing of only two figures, either full- or half-length. We have already had occasion to mention a certain number of these double portraits painted on one canvas. In England he remains faithful to his taste for this particular arrangement. Taking first rank among the pictures which come under this category is that which represents George Villiers, second Duke of Buckingham, and his brother, Lord Francis. In this picture, preserved at Windsor, the full-length figures of the two young boys are painted with singular delicacy. Nothing could be more charming than this elegant, noble, and distinguished couple. It holds a position among the painter s masterpieces, and does not suffer by its proximity to the Children of Charles I. The artist has perhaps a tendency to make the faces of children of three to six years appear too old; but when he has before him a young boy of ten or twelve, clothed in a costume of light silk, he discovers exquisite delicacies of tone in rendering the suppleness and grace of youth. 214 Van Dyck's Residence in England These observations apply equally to the double portrait, in full- length, on one canvas, of John and Richard Stuart, sons of the Duke of Richmond, as well as to a picture in the Louvre uniting the two Palatine princes, nephews of Charles I. The elder was Prince Rupert, no less celebrated as an artist and art-patron than as a soldier. After commanding the armies of Charles I. against Cromwell, he attached his name to the discovery of mezzotint engraving. Van Dyck had first painted Prince Rupert when he was only thirteen or fourteen years old. It is one of his best works in the Belvedere Gallery. In this volume there is an etching of this fine portrait, by Herr W. Hecht, of Munich. Walpole exhausts the formulas of enthusiastic admiration upon the canvas in which the Earl of Strafford is seated near his secretary, who is writing at his dictation. A true historical picture, this portrait is now in the possession of Earl FitzWilliam; several English collections contain replicas or copies. We shall return later to the dated picture, preserved at Windsor, of the poets Carew and Killigrew. But before closing our brief enumeration of the dual portraits, let us say a few words of the canvas on which the artist has united his earliest Mecasnas, the Earl of Arundel, with his wife, Lady Alithea Talbot. The somewhat vulgar features of Lady Alithea seem to breathe good nature. She and her husband are examining a chart. Walpole affirms that the artist was making allusion to the intention which Thomas Howard once had of founding a settlement in the island of Madagascar. Besides the portraits mentioned, Van Dyck painted several historical subjects for the Earl of Arundel, which were afterwards removed to the Continent, where they were sold and dispersed in 1643. Pictures presenting two female figures together are rather rare. However, the artist has arranged on one canvas the celebrated Countess of Carlisle and her sister, the Countess of Leicester. On another he has united Philadelphia and Elizabeth Wharton. This latter com¬ position, when in the possession of Lord Wharton, was engraved by P. Van Gunst. For the rest, in Dallaway’s edition of Walpole’s A?iecdotes of Painting , that commentator gives a methodical list of the principal Van Dyck's Residence in E?igland 21 5 paintings preserved in the collections of England. He arranges together the equestrian portraits, family portraits, portraits of two full-length figures, and of two half-length figures. No doubt even this list is not final; but, with the works of Waagen and Smith, we are enabled to obtain an almost complete account of all the works of Van Dyck preserved in the inaccessible collections of the English nobility. We find also in the notes on Walpole’s book a very judicious observation which is worth quoting, as it explains in the most natural way the number of frequent repetitions of the same original. “ It would seem, says Dallaway, “ as if it had been usual with these admirers of Van Dyck to engage him in repetitions of individual portraits, which they presented to each other, and frequently by intermarriages, or by testamentary bequest.” Admitting this hypothesis, which seems very plausible, it is more than likely that the master did not take the trouble to copy his pictures himself, but left that ungrateful task to his numerous pupils. Hence the extreme inferiority of a great number of canvases which are and always have been regarded as originals ; hence also the numerous old repetitions of the same portrait. Let us come now to the stay which Van Dyck made in his native land during the course of the year 1634. It has hitherto been supposed that he only quitted England in the month of September; but certain documents discovered quite recently throw back his departure to a date considerably earlier, unless we suppose that he went twice to the Netherlands at an interval of a few months, an hypothesis which hardly seems admissible. On the 28th of March, 1634, Anthony became the purchaser of a property worth a rental of 125 Rhenish florins, situated in the Manor of Steen, which the following year was to become the property of Rubens. Was he in Antwerp or Brussels at this time ? It is per¬ missible to suppose so, when we find him on the 14th of April following, drawing up before a notary at Brussels a power of attorney entrusting to his sister Susanna the control of the property which he possessed in Antwerp. We find him a little later in his native land. On the 18th of October, he was elected by acclamation Dean of the Antwerp Guild of 2 I 6 Van Dyck^s Residence in England St. Luke. This was the most signal mark of distinction that the principal painter to the King of England could receive from his fellow-countrymen. As for expecting of him that he should strictly fulfil the duties attached to this post, that was not to be thought of. It was known that Royal engagements would too soon call him back to England, and the precaution was taken of giving him a colleague who could devote himself to the business of the society. All his life Van Dyck remained deeply attached to the Guild of St. Luke, in which he counted numerous relatives. Hindered by his occupations and by distance from maintaining regular intercourse with it, he endeavoured at least to endow the land of his adoption with an institution similar to the old Flemish corporations. On his initiative a Society of St. Luke was formed in London on the model of the Antwerp guilds. All the Flemings settled in England, all the pupils who assisted the leading Court painter in his works, all artists, in short, were eager to be admitted. The meetings were held at the Rose Tavern in Fleet Street; and we are told that the records of the society still exist. Our artist, in the course of his 1634 journey, seems to have stayed longer in Brussels than in Antwerp. In the month of October he was engaged, in the capital of the Spanish Netherlands, in painting the portrait of Gaston, Due d’Orleans, brother to Louis XIII. This versatile, frivolous prince had just made his peace with the terrible Cardinal Richelieu, and was on the point of quitting Flanders. In the middle of October he arrived in Paris. His portrait must date then from the beginning of the month. Van Dyck at the same time painted Margaret and Henrietta of Lorraine. The former, wife of the Due d’Orleans, had been married two years before, against the will of the King of Fiance. At the time of her marriage she was scarcely nineteen. As for Henrietta, eight years older than her sister, she had, in 1631, lost her husband, Louis, Bastard of Guise, Prince of Phalsbourg and Lixen. These two princesses long resided in the town of Brussels, and were afterwards received into the sisterhood of Our Lady of Seven Dolours. These portraits were scarcely completed when the artist undertook that of Prince Thomas de Carignan, brother of the Duke of Savoy. The Prince had governed the Netherlands since the death of the '*-■ al -engage i . precaution < M lied deeply at ; numerous r . - we are iold th. he course of I ■ he capir.; ! lei . . : :age : lif . *- I of Guise, resided .1 ?AAS\lMO O’/D! (wvsoi) I > he' was * : rig the ■ = rsatile, aid die lost xen. . were lours, undertook Van Dyck's Residence in England 217 Due d Aytona, pending the arrival of the Cardinal Infant. Several replicas of this portrait exist. That in the Berlin Gallery appears inferior to the Windsor example, which is distinguished by fresher and more brilliant execution. The finest of all the portraits of the Prince de Carignan is undoubtedly that in the Turin Gallery, which presents him on horseback. While working for his noble patrons, our artist did not forget an enterprise which he had greatly at heart: we refer to his Iconography. The Munich Gallery possesses a sketch in black and white after the Prince of Savoy , evidently intended for the use of the engraver who was entrusted with the reproduction of that personage’s likeness for this collection. Van Dyck was installed in Brussels in a house called Le Paradis , situated behind the Town Hall, when the Cardinal Infant Don Ferdinand, younger brother of Philip IV., after filling a glorious part in the battle of Nordlingen, arrived in the provinces of which he had assumed the government. His solemn entry into Brussels took place on November 4th, 1634. Immediately afterwards Van Dyck was charged to paint a, to some extent, official portrait of the new governor. The picture is now in the Madrid Gallery. The collections of England possess several canvases reproducing the features of the young Spanish Prince. In a letter dated December 16th, addressed to the deputies of the town of Brussels at the time of the preparations made for the reception of the new governor, Philip de Valkenisse, clerk to the town of Antwerp, asked the Brussels magistrates {£ to send quickly a copy of the Cardinal’s portrait recently done by Van Dyck, to be made use of for the triumphal arches and spectacles which are to celebrate the entry.” Van Dyck hastened to comply with the request of his fellow-townsmen. They then desired to have a copy by his hand of the portrait of the Infanta Isabella. Annoyed by these indiscreet requests, the artist this time claimed a sum so large that the magistrate wrote, on January 13th, 1635, “that his demand was excessive,” and that they would content themselves with the copy of another portrait of the Infanta. According to Weyerman, it was during his stay in Brussels, that is to say in 1634, that Anthony painted that assembly of magistrates, 28 Van Dyck's Residence in England 218 a large composition of twenty-three figures, which was burnt in 1695, and of which we have already spoken. 1 The hypothesis of the Dutch historian is not at all impossible. On the other hand, the anonymous author of the Louvre manuscript states that it was in this same year that the portrait of Cassar Alexander Scaglia was finished. The historian adds that the Abbe Scaglia requested of the artist a picture intended for the Franciscan Church. Van Dyck, in response, painted the Christ ?nourned by w»\•'...: pomait oi ti* K.« ... dressed i:; t prt pearl of Win.:- : i of th. of i. • 1:11 . er were th, y 1 1 r i . anvisee . > r- ■ that date. . Her beaut', whose portrait c South ,rapton, - collection; Francis •v i .• --nt Duke; Philip 'i.Hes I. preserved Earl i.e D Henrietta Maria, a white satin gown, no., ■ Windsor Castle; apd f: family-picture, representing Duchess of Buckir Uii’ ‘ e a medallion of her husband, and seated grounded \ . : children, two boys and a girl. This painting, which fi ■ out: Galway’s collection, has a great reputa- ion. in !. tv year are also ascribed two of the finest . ,nv ■ he ' assel Galiery -the portrait of the Jurisconsult Juste Van ,\; - ten, syndic of the town of Brussels, engraved bj J. h Leo > nd that of r wife label la Van Assche. !ut these evidently dan l:om Van Dyck's residence in the Nether!, and thus go bad if a. Of the won: I of ills- vein it-;: wi ... information. At most we is o mention ihe Windsor the five children of Cb-rles 1., of which, the : aVreplica; a hah I, :-h r . : .a i !... .. Warwick; a portrait of Alps Perot id h ■ HTtfOY A IM *T C ITJJSI : imim (i-.tVctWnCi wArn Wi\) 0 £" 226 Van Dyck^s Residence in R?igla?id a reputation for beauty which assigned her a place in that Series of Countesses in which Lombart has assembled the most gracious and elegant ladies of the Court of England. It is with reference to this last portrait that Walpole utters the following singular reflection : “ His (Van Dyck’s) ladies are so little flattered, that one is surprised he had so much custom. He has left us to wonder that the famous Countess of Carlisle could be thought so charming.” Judging by the portrait at Windsor, Walpole’s criticism does not seem to be quite without foundation. We now come to 1638. The Wharton collection formerly possessed another full-length portrait of Charles I., another companion portrait of Queen Henrietta Maria, both dated, and both engraved by Van Gunst. To the same date are assigned a replica of the three children of Charles I., at Windsor; a portrait of the ill-fated Archbishop Laud—the Duke of Portland and the Hermitage each possess a portrait of him; that of Sir Thomas Killigrew, signed A. Vcm Dyck pinxit , 1638, owned by the Duke of Newcastle; and the excellent picture at Windsor, grouping Killigrew and Thomas Carew. This canvas bears the signature A. Van Dyck , 1638. The two figures, clad in black, each hold a paper on which are written some verses. The artist, no longer hampered by the restraints of aristocratic etiquette, has once more returned to the best inspirations of the period when he delighted in depicting the features of his constant companions. To the following year (1639) belong, according to Smith, the portrait of B. Granville, Esq., and a picture grouping the three children of Thomas Wentworth. The Duke of Devonshire’s collection includes two canvases of this date: the full-length portrait, booted and short-cloaked, of Arthur Goodwin, and that of Jane, daughter of Arthur Goodwin, who married Philip, Lord Wharton. The fact, however, that so many portraits in the same collection are dated is somewhat surprising, seeing that the artists of the school of Rubens rarely signed their paintings, and raises serious doubts as to the authenticity of those signatures which are followed by dates. Many of the great and exquisite works which we have just briefly Van. Dyck’s Residence in England 227 enumerated were once assembled together on an important occasion of which it is fitting that we should here say a few words. There has never been seen, and we may never see again, a spectacle to equal the Art Treasures Exhibition held in Manchester in 1857. Happy are those who were then old enough and in a position to enjoy this good fortune! Undoubtedly it will be long before a similar opportunity is again presented of examining at leisure, comparing, and studying all the wonders which are the pride of die old families of England. Happily this unique exhibition was inspected with care by enlightened connoisseurs. From their descriptions we can gather something of the impression produced by this accumulation of almost unknown masterpieces. Theophile Thore has devoted one of his best books to the ephemeral Manchester collection. Anthony Van Dyck is naturally a very prominent figure. No artist appeared with such an imposing assemblage of valuable pictures. It seemed as though the exhibition had been instituted for his glorification. Mr. Peter Cunningham might well say, without exaggeration, in his notes in the official catalogue: c£ At no time have so many Vandycks been under one roof. Edge Hill and Naseby did not see so many Cavaliers and Roundheads of note in real buff and armour as are here assembled upon canvas.” Thore’s notes, taken on the spot, very fair in judgment and lively in style, give a true idea of this marvellous collection. We will content ourselves with quoting the enumeration of the chief paintings exhibited in the portrait gallery. These animated pages offer us not only a valuable list, but the appreciations of a keen connoisseur:— “ The best in my opinion,” says Thore,—“ all are admirable,—are Lords John and Bernard Stuart, full-length, in one frame, who were both killed fighting for Charles I., one at Cheriton, the other at Rowton Heath. Handsome and brave inseparables! These belong to Earl de Grey; Lord Darnley possesses a replica.—Another pair of gentlemen, the Duke of Bedford, in red, and the Earl of Bristol, in black (Earl Spencer’s).—The Earl of Carlisle, husband of Lucy Percy, with a background of extraordinary sky (Lord Lyttelton’s).— William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, in black, with incomparable hands (Duke of Portland’s).—Prince Maurice, nephew of Charles I. 228 Van Dyck’s Reside?tce in England (Earl Craven’s).—Queen Henrietta Maria, all in blue, accompanied by Sir Jeffrey Hudson, carrying a monkey on his shoulder (Earl Fitz William’s).—Sir Thomas Killigrew, half-length, in black, signed, A. Van Dyck pinxit , 1638 (Duke of Newcastle’s).—King Charles I., Queen Henrietta Maria, and their children (Duke of Richmond’s; a replica of the picture in Windsor Castle). This canvas comes from the Orleans Gallery, where it cost 1,000 guineas, and was resold to the Duke of Richmond for 1,500 guineas. It would now fetch over 100,000 francs.—Mistress Anna Kirk, one of the ladies-in-waiting on Queen Henrietta Maria, in yellow (Earl de Grey’s). “ Such, almost in this order, are the Van Dycks of the highest quality. Some come from Lely’s collection, who had gathered many of his beloved master’s paintings. Several have been engraved, notably in the work by Houbraken. The rest, which all possess true merit, are called Prince Rupert, nephew of Charles I. (Earl Craven’s);—Earl of Danby (Earl of Stamford and Warrington’s);—the famous Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, in armour (Duke of Portland’s);—Lord Charles Cavendish, brother of William, Duke of Newcastle (same owner);—Earl of Northumberland, Lord High Admiral (Earl of Essex’s);—the first Earl of Craven, in armour (belonging to the present Earl);—George Gordon, second Marquis of Huntley; the Duke of Hamilton, overthrown at the battle of Preston in 1648, and beheaded ; Lord Holland, second son of the Earl of Warwick, beheaded in 1649; and James Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox, who accompanied Charles I. to the scaffold and followed him to the grave (all four the Duke of Buccleuch’s);—William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, beheaded (Duke of Portland’s) ;—Philip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (belonging to present Earl);—the Earl of Northumberland, his wife, and daughter (Duke of Manchester’s);—Sir Charles Goring and another nobleman, with a page (belonging to same owner);—Sir John Byron (Lord de Tabley’s);—James Stanley, Earl of Derby, taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester, and beheaded in 16513 Charlotte de la Tr£mouille, his wife (belonging to present Earl of Derby);—the Countess of Oxford and Elgin, holding a rose (Earl of Stamford and Warrington’s); —Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton (Earl de Grey’s);— Lady Betty Sidney, in blue, half-length, and Lucy Sidney, Countess of 229 l an Dyck s Reside?tce in England Arundel (Duke of Richmond’s)an oval head-and-shoulders of Charles I. (Duke of Yarborough’s) ;—and finally, Inigo Jones, the great architect, a copy after Van Dyck by Hogarth.” To this already long list must be added the three Windsor pictures lent by the Queen Charles I. on horseback, his five children on one canvas, and the poets Killigrew and Carew; Francis Snyders, the painter, and his wife; Philip Le Roy and his wife j Rubens, and other portraits besides, without counting religious pieces and genre paintings; Sir Inigo Jones. From the Engraving by Robert Van Voerst, after Van Dyck. fifty or sixty canvases, one whole gallery devoted exclusively to the glory of Van Dyck ! Let us now resume the biography of our artist. We have reached the moment when he thought to realise the ambition of his life. The decoration of the Grand Banqueting-house at Whitehall seemed to offer him the opportunity of displaying his talent in a fresh light. The ceiling had been painted by Rubens, Van Dyck proposed to cover the walls, which remained bare, with large frescoes recounting the inauguration and history of the Order of the Garter. The project Van Dyck's Reside?ice in Rnglaiid pleased the King, and was immediately resolved upon. Digby under¬ took to see it accomplished. According to Bellori, Van Dyck did not purpose to paint his compositions themselves on the walls, but to prepare cartoons to be reproduced by the tapestry manufactory which had been established at Mortlake, under the management of Sir Francis Crane. This tradition seems plausible enough in view of the friendly relations kept up by the artist with Sir Francis Crane, a proof of which we have in the portrait of the Director of the tapestry manufactory, which was etched in 1821, after the original drawing by Van Dyck, then the property of Mr. John Simeo. Might not the relations between Van Dyck and Crane allow us to ascribe to the Flemish painter an admirable work whose author all researches have hitherto failed to discover ? We refer to the borders of the Mortlake tapestries which surround the New Testament scenes after the famous Raphael cartoons. These settings, in which children of exquisite grace disport themselves, are drawn with consummate skill, and are obviously the work of a master of the first rank. In his biography of Francis Cleyn, Walpole relates that that artist designed some tapestry cartoons for the Mortlake manufactory. Now, if Cleyn had been capable of inventing and executing the delightful fantasies which encircle the scenes from Raphael, he would deserve to be placed beside the leading draughtsmen of his time. As the intimacy between Van Dyck and Crane must be taken for certain, why should not the latter have asked his friend for a frame worthy of the subject, for tapestries executed under his direction ? The task would be of a kind to appeal to Van Dyck. It was, too, a means of measuring his strength with Rubens, who had not thought it beneath him to do work for the artisans of the Netherlands. Anthony had always evinced a special aptitude for rendering the charms of infancy, and the selection of the children disporting themselves on those borders, in the most varied and most fascinating attitudes, confirms our opinion. Proof positive, evidence in black and white, is lacking, we admit. But what artist in England, except Van Dyck, could have been capable of executing these exquisite arabesques ? The friendly relations between the Director of the Mortlake manufactory and the painter furnish a conclusive argument. Van Dyck's Resicle?ice in England 231 Our theory would explain at the same time how Van Dyck came to think of the tapestries for the Banqueting-house at Whitehall. Perhaps we may also find in this fact the reason of the enormous sum demanded by the artist. Walpole speaks of ^80,000. It has been said that the figures should be reduced by a cipher; Rubens had only asked ^3,000 for the ceiling. But, since we are considering not mural paintings, but tapestries woven in rich materials, the figures given by Walpole, and twice repeated by him, are no longer sur¬ prising. It is true that Walpole does not deal with the business of the tapestries; only Bellori alludes to it. The memory of the ephemeral manufactory at Mortlake was so completely forgotten in the eighteenth century that we need not be too much astonished at the omission of this important fact. To come to the point, Van Dyck proposed four subjects which would have supplied matter for four arrases of tapestry :— 1 st. The Coronation of the King; 2nd. The Inauguration of the Order of the Garter by Edward III.; 3rd. The Procession of the King and the Knights of the Order, as celebrated on St. George’s Day; 4th. The Royal Banquet after the Procession. Accessory subjects were to fill up the spaces between, and complete the decoration. In accordance with tradition we place this project under the date 1639. At th e same time, the plan of the Procession of the Knights, apparently the only one executed, appears in the autograph account sent in by Van Dyck, to which we have previously referred. Evidently, by that time, the design had been submitted to the King. Now Van Dyck’s note is prior to December 14th, 1638, the date on which the reckoning was discharged. Hence in 1638 the decoration of Whitehall was being attended to, and consequently the design to which Cooper’s engraving assigns the year 1639 must refer at least to the previous year. It is, as we have said, the only one of the four subjects which led to a definite plan. We have no other evidence of the manner in which Van Dyck conceived that momentous combination. After having formed part of Charles I.’s collection, this drawing passed into the hands of Sir Peter Lely ; later, 232 V i an Dyck's Reside?ice in England it became the property of Lord Northington. It was then that it was engraved in facsimile by Richard Cooper ; we reproduce the plate here, reduced in size. The print bears the date of 1782. At Lord Northington’s sale in 1787, Sir Joshua Reynolds purchased the precious design, and paid no less than 67 guineas for it. It now belongs to the Duke of Rutland. The legend inscribed beneath the engraving informs us that the plate is of the same size as the original, that the design of the colonnade in the background was supplied by Inigo Jones, whose features have been given to one of the figures in the picture, and that the statues in the niches of the portico are to represent the Kings of England. The monarch who walks beneath a canopy, escorted by officers bearing the insignia of his rank, naturally has the features of Charles I., whilst Queen Henrietta Maria takes part in the gathering, together with the ladies of her Court, from the height of the upper gallery. It would be very difficult to judge, from this mere drawing, careful and finished as it is, and undoubtedly the most important left by Van Dyck, what would be the effect produced by a similar frieze either in painting or in tapestry. The artist has not striven after movement; he has acted wisely, we think, in not laying too complicated a task on his talent. Certainly this long procession of individuals unconnected with each other presents a certain coldness and monotony, but the painter probably calculated on execution atoning for that fault. Moreover, if it is difficult to estimate the merits of a grand decorative painting from a mere design, it is no less perplexing to judge of a whole when we only possess one of its constituent parts. When the project for the decoration of Whitehall was finally abandoned, its originator sank into the depths of despair. Possibly, too, this disappointment aggravated the bodily ailment which was undermining his delicate constitution. The course of political events weighed upon him sadly. The King was already in danger. All the noblemen who had welcomed Van Dyck with so much courtesy found themselves sucked down in the shipwreck of Royalty. The unhappy artist was to live long enough to see one of his most powerful protectors, the Earl of Strafford, perish on the scaffold. I an Dyck’s Residence in Engla?id 233 He sought diversion from the sad forebodings which troubled his mind; perhaps he hoped that his native air might alleviate his ills. On September 13th, 1640, he obtained a safe conduct to cross the sea and return to Flanders with his young wife. He had just completed several portraits, amongst which is to be mentioned the one grouping Philadelphia and Elizabeth Wharton. This canvas, engraved by Peter Van Gunst, was formerly in the Strawberry Hill collection. Anthony was not satisfied with paying a visit to his family and his friends in Antwerp. He was anxious to show his young wife the most remarkable towns not only of Flanders, but of Holland. It was during this excursion that he painted the interesting picture which is preserved in the Gallery of the Hague, in which are assembled the heads of Constantine Huyghens and his five children, 1 surrounded by decorations in monochrome, in imitation of bas-relief. We give here an etching of this charming arrangement, whose qualities would prove, if the inscription and date, Ecce hereditas domini , anno 1640, are not subsequent additions, that Van Dyck, even to the end of his career, lost nothing of his brilliant qualities when he felt inspired by his model, or when the progress of his malady allowed him a short respite. Without deserving to rank among the painter’s masterpieces, the Huyghens Family would without disadvantage bear comparison with the majority of the paintings of his best period. Does not this example prove conclusively that the mediocre portraits of the latter period, in which the drawing is careless, or the colour lacking in truth and harmony, were productions upon which Van Dyck scarcely laid a finger ? After a stay of a few months in the Low Countries, our traveller directed his steps towards France. Mariette saw a letter dated in the month of January, 1641, in which the painter Claude Vignon asked his friend Francois Langlois to present him to the Flemish artist, then residing in Paris. And Mariette remarks that a better agent could not have been chosen, as Langlois and Van Dyck had been 1 Huyghens’ wife does not appear on this canvas. However, the artist did draw the heads of husband and wife together, in bistre. This work, after belonging to the Lempereur collection, passed into that of Sir Thomas Lawrence (No. 22 in catalogue). 30 Van Dyck's Residence in E?igland 234 - long attached. We have already related the origin of this intimacy and referred to the proofs of it which have come down to us. Van Dyck, then, arrived in Paris in the month of January, 1641 ; but we find him still there in November, having either dwelt there all the year, or returned after a short trip to England, where he had left his wife, then enceinte. A lately published letter proves that he quitted France at the end of November, barely a week before his death. The hope of finding at the Court of Louis XIII. an opportunity of distinguishing himself by some important undertaking no doubt determined Van Dyck on this visit to Paris. But the arrival of Poussin, who, after long hesitation, at length resolved to quit Rome and yield to the King’s pressing solicitations, had deprived Van Dyck of his last hopes. Besides which, his malady was rapidly increasing, and the unfortunate artist already felt the approach of death. It was with the weight of these troubles on his mind that he wrote the following letter to M. de Chavigny 1 : “ Sir, “ I see by your very welcome letter, as I also hear from the mouth of Monsieur Montagu, the favour and honour extended to me by His Eminence the Cardinal. I infinitely regret the misfortune of my ill-health, since it renders me incapable, and unworthy of so much favour. I shall never have an honour more desired than that of serving His Eminence, and if I can recover my health, as I trust, I shall make a special journey in order to receive his commands. “ Meanwhile, I am extremely indebted and obliged, and as I find myself growing worse from day to day, I desire to proceed with all diligence to my home in England, to which end accordingly I entreat you to forward me a passport for myself and five servants, my coach and four horses, and oblige me ever, to remain, as I am. Sir, “ Tour very humble and obliged servant, S' 1 This document, published for the first time in the Revue des documents historiques, edited by M. Etienne Charavay, formed part of the superb autograph collection of M. Benjamin Fillon, and is now in England. It fetched 420 francs at M. Fillon’s sale, although only the signature is in autograph. This price gives an idea of the value of the very rare autographs of our artist. Van Dyck^s Reside?ice in England 235 It is doubtful if the letter is in the artist’s own hand. He probably dictated it to one of his servants who acted as secretary, and whose writing indicates a Flemish origin. Only the signature appears to be in autograph. A note placed at the top of the document by M. de Chavigny sums up the contents : u Mr. Van Dyck, painter, presents his respects to H. E. the Cardinal, and requests a passport in order to go to England.” The artist, as we see, had curtailed nothing of his luxurious style of living; he travelled in a coach and four, and had five servants in his train. A few days after the date of this letter, he had reached England. Since he was in a fit state to bear such a journey within a month of his death, the disease from which he suffered must have been one of those affections which to the last moment leave the sufferer all his illusions and a good part of his energies; so we may conclude that Van Dyck died of an affection of the chest, the origin of which doubtless dated back several years; and the fatigues of this last voyage probably contributed to accelerate the progress of the evil, and perhaps added to it some acute attack of pneumonia or pleurisy, which hastened the end. Among the causes of Van Dyck’s premature death, there is one on which the majority of historians have insisted, and which therefore we cannot pass over without a few words. They relate that, not being able to meet the expenses of his princely household, he sought to procure resources by the practice of alchemy. His last days were consumed in searching for the philosopher’s stone; his friend Sir Kenelm Digby urged him to this fatal quest and took part in his dark experiments. All the biographers eagerly repeat this foolish story, without troubling to consider its improbabilities. In the first place, we know that Van Dyck was travelling during nearly the whole of the last two years of his life. Continual journeyings hardly lend themselves to experiments requiring a laboratory, instru¬ ments,. and complete paraphernalia. Besides, these absences separated him from Sir Kenelm Digby, who accordingly could only have exercised by correspondence the fatal influence which is without any proof attributed to him. Our artist’s will, moreover, proves in the most formal manner that he died leaving a veritable fortune, so that he 236 Va?i Dyck’s Residence in England must have seriously taken thought for the morrow, and in spite of his dissipations cannot have been reduced to the state of distress which historians’ assertions would have us to suppose. Besides, when he set out for France with his young wife, in 1641, he was still full of illusions as to his condition, for he went about everywhere in search of some long and exhausting commission. That is not the conduct of a man who thinks his last days are approaching. Excess of work, and perhaps also of pleasure, had worn out a constitution naturally delicate and requiring very careful treatment. That was the true cause of Van Dyck’s premature end; there is no need to seek any other. How did the legend to which we have alluded originate ? We will endeavour to explain. There is a famous anecdote which describes Rubens receiving a call from one of those charlatans who professed to hold the secret of making gold, and wittily dismissing his importunate visitor with the remark that he had long ago found a much surer method of arriving at the same result. Why should less honour be paid to Van Dyck than to Rubens ? Only, in place of ridding himself of the charlatan by an ironical jest, Van Dyck succumbs to the temptation; and at the same time, from causes the more easily believed in the more mysterious they seem, is explained that fatal malady which cut him off in the prime of life. Perhaps, too, certain perfectly natural facts of which we have yet to speak were the starting-point of the fable which the credulity of biographers has eagerly accepted and diffused. Like many artists, including Rubens himself, Van Dyck attached great importance to the permanence of his pictures; and he interested himself in the preparation of colours, and in the quality of every ingredient entering into their composition. A physician of the Court of Charles I., a skilled chemist (and from chemistry to alchemy was only one step in the seventeenth century) named Theodore Turquet de Mayerne, 1 collected and carefully noted on his tablets the observations which struck him in his conversations with artists on the subject of the 1 It is not without interest to note in passing that Van Dyck painted a portrait of this learned person, which appeared in Sir Thomas Lawrence’s collection (No. 19 in the catalogue). The head was painted in oil, the rest in chiaroscuro. The catalogue highly praises this work. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND [Louvre) /hich his*-' he set • cl is who vt o » and v. smissinj . >u>rk that he had igo fom • at the same r ' ! - should than to H ned that h■ ■< • •••v 'v h»ch cut 'd natural ■ i -ts •! the fable v • : • Ac eagerly . - diffused, iding R 1 . of coi. great ii CMOMHDlfl HO H >1UCI -1HT <«»«^) I an Dyck's Residence in Rngland materials employed by them. Van Dyck’s name appears several times in these notes taken from day to day. On December 30th, 1632, Turquet de Mayerne writes: “ London,—Sir Anthony Van Dyck, Knight: Oil is the principal thing painters must investigate. . . . He spoke to me of an exquisite white, compared to which the finest white lead appears grey, said to be known to Master Rubens; ” Portrait of a Man. After the Picture in M. Edouard Andrd’s Collection. and a little later he makes this other observation: “ The priming is of great consequence. On 20th May, 1633, in London, Sir Anthony Van Dyck tried priming with isinglass, but he told me that the work peels’oft', and that in a very few days the isinglass kills the colours.” Thus Van Dyck did not concern himself merely with seeking for ingredients to render his colours fixed and painting durable; he attached no less importance to the preparation of the canvas. From Van Dyck's Residence in England 238 the quotations and remarks of the Genevese chemist may we not conclude that the artist was always occupied in perfecting to his use the technical operations of painting? What more was needed to cause him to be regarded as a man devoted to the occult sciences, wasting his time and exhausting his fortune and his health in search of the philosopher’s stone ? Some “ curious impertinent ” may have surprised the artist in one of those preparations the secret of which he carefully guarded, even from the eyes of his pupils, and the report would be spread that the painter was engaged on some work of darkness. Alchemy was in high favour at the beginning of the eighteenth century; the learned men who sought to penetrate the secrets of nature gave birth to a school of charlatans who pretended to reproduce everything, to know everything. The disclosures of Turquet de Mayerne, it appears to us, explain in the most natural manner the origin of the legend which has ranged Van Dyck among the seekers for the philosopher’s stone. When Van Dyck landed in England his days were numbered. His friends no longer retained any illusion about his approaching end. The King, keenly touched by his favourite painter’s condition, made a despairing appeal to science and the physicians. He promised a large recompense—^300—to whoever succeeded in prolonging his days. Everything was tried, but in vain. Quacks arrived, as usual, with their infallible prescriptions. It is even stated, though we can hardly credit the fact, that the dying man was laid in the reeking entrails of a freshly disembowelled cow in the hope of reanimating his ice-cold limbs. This at least shows that every advice was listened to and every expedient tried; but nothing could arrest the fatal issue of the malady. The following is known positively of Van Dyck’s last days. At the commencement of December, the gravity of his condition left no room for hope. One last consolation, however, was granted the dying man. On December 1st his wife gave birth to a daughter, who was given the name of Justiniana. He accordingly summoned up what little strength was left him to make his final arrangements and dictate to a notary the expression of his last wishes. The document bears the date of December 4th, and was discovered by Carpenter. Van Dyck's Death 239 A few days after having fulfilled this duty, Van Dyck peacefully expired at his residence in Blackfriars. He was only forty-two years of age. Four days afterwards the will was opened. The following is a literal copy : Will of Sir Anthony Van Dyck. Extracted from the Registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. In the Name of God Amen. I S r Anthony Van Dyke K11 1 borne in Ant- werpe in Brabandt weake of body yet enjoyinge my sences memorie and vnderstandinge laude & praise be given to Allmightie God consideringe that there is nothinge more certaine then death and nothinge more vncertaine than the houre thereof have made & ordayned and by theis pnts doe make dispose of and ordayne this my last Will and Testament in manner and forme followinge First I comend my soule into the hands of Allmightie God my heavenly Father And my body to the earth to be Christianlike & decently buryed in the Cathedrall Church of St. Paul in London And soe cominge to the orderinge and disposinge of my temporall goods & estate which it hath pleased the Allmightie God to lend vnto mee here vpon earth I doe order and dispose of the same as followeth Imprimis In respect of my moneys meanes and goods the which I haue now lyeinge and remayninge in Antwerpe aforesaid (exceptinge twoe obligations or bonds amountinge both to the some of fower thousand pounds sterlinge) and left in the hands of my Sister Susanna Van Dyke in Antwerpe, the same I doe leaving wholly to the disposeing of my said Sister condiconally that out of and with the rents or vse money thereof my said Sister shalbe bound to mayntayne and keepe my young Daughter by name Maria Teresa Van Dyke And if soe be my said Sister should chance to dye or depart this life Then and in such case my said goods and moneys there shalbe receaved & employed to the benefitt and proffitt of my said Daughter surviveing by the foure Madams of the Nunnery where my said Sister Susanna now liveth at pnte And alsoe it is my will & pleasure that out of the said moneys & goods my other Sister Isabella van Dyke shall have and enjoy for her proper vse twoe hundred and fiftie gilders yeerely to be payd her out of the said moneys and estate left behinde mee in Antwerpe as aforesaid And after the decease of my Sister Susanna and of my Daughter Maria Teresa Van Dyke the aforesaid moneys and estate afore menconed shall fall and come to my lawfull Daughter borne here in London on the first day of December Anno Dili One thousand sixe hundred fortie & one stilo Angliae whereof I make and ordeyne her full & lawfull heire Secondly Concerninge all the rest of my estate moneys debts pictures & goods bonds bills & writings whatsoever left behind mee in the Kingdotne of England with all such debts as are owinge & due vnto mee by the Kings Ma ,ie of England or any of the Nobility or by any other person 240 Van Dyck^s Death or persons whatsoever the same shall all with that which shalbe recouered thereof be equally devided betweene my Wife Lady Maria Van Dyke and my Daughter new borne in London aforesaid in just & equall porcons Provided allwayes that such moneys as are out at interest shall soe still contynue and remayne at interest And my said Wife shall expend of the vse money onely with care, and discrecon And in case my said Daughter borne here in London shall happen to dye before the Mother my Wife In such case shall the said Mother inherite & enjoy halfe of the said Childs part or porcon And my other Daughter beyond sea shall enjoy the other halfe of the said Childs parte And if soe bee my said Daughter in Antwerpe and my sister Susanna Van Dyke both come to dye before my Daughter borne in England then shall the said. rents goods & meanes which are in Antwerpe & left behinde mee as aforesaid fall & come to my said Daughter in England survivinge And if both my said Daughters dye or happen to dye without issue before my Wife survivinge Then and in such case shall my said Wife enjoy and possesse the said rents or vse of the said moneys in Antwerpe And after the death of my said Wife the Children then of my Sister Catharina married with S r Adrian Dircke shall inherit and enjoy the said rents & meanes left in Antwerpe aforesaid And likewise I doe give & bequeath vnto the Poore of S' Pauls Church where I doe purpose & desire to be interred three pounds sterlinge to be distributed amongst them And likewise I doe give vnto the Poore of the Parish of Blackfriers where I live the like some of three pounds sterling amongst them. And alsoe I doe give & bequeath vnto every one of my “servants both menservants and maydservants at pnte lyvinge with mee in my howse twentie shillings sterlinge apeece for a remembrance the which said legacyes are to be first payd out of my estate afore menconed by the Executors of this my last Will & Testament And I doe appoint make & ordeyne my said Wife Maria Van Dyke M ns Catharina Cowley & M r Aurelius de Meghem all herew th pnte . All and every of them joyntly & severallie full & whole Executrices & Executor of this my last Will & Testament willing and requestinge them to see this, my last Will perform’d in all points to their power And I doe give vnto the said Aurelius de Meghem for his paynes & care herein the sonie of fifteene pounds sterlinge And I doe give and allowe vnto the said Catharina Cowley the some of tenn pounds sterlinge for her paynes & care herein And my will and pleasure is that the said Catharina Cowley shall over and aboue haue and receave out of my said estate the some of tenn pounds sterling for fower yeeres to witt duringe the tyme of fower yeeres together yeerely tenn pounds sterling beginninge from the day of my decease And after the said fower yeeres are expired then shall the said Catharina Cowley have & enjoy eighteene pounds sterlinge ¥ ann. that is to say eighteene pounds for the being Guardian vnto my Daughter till she bee eighteene years of age And this doe I acknowledge for my last Will & Testament revokeing & disannullinge all former Testaments guifts & Codicells Causa mortis or otherwise by mee heretofore made & graunted by vertue of this pnte In wittnes whereof I the said S r Anthony Van Dyke have herevnto putt my hand Van Dyck’s Death 241 & seale for my last Will & Testam' on the fourth day of December Anno Dni 1641 and in the seaventeenth yeare of the Raigne of o r Soveraigne Lord King Charles. Ant° Van Dyck. Here follows the attestation of Abr. Derkindee, notary, and Dirrick Van Hoost, witness. Van Dyck’s body was borne with great ceremony to St. Paul s Cathedral in compliance with his last wish. A monument was erected to him in the choir, near the tomb of John of Gaunt, representing the Genius of Painting with the left arm resting on a death s-head, contemplating her features in a mirror held in the left hand. Underneath was carved the following inscription:— Qui DUM VIVERET MULTIS IMMORTALITATEM DONAVERAT VITA FUNCTUS EST. Carolus I Mag. Brit. Fr. et Hib. Rex Antonio Van Dyck equiti aurato P. C. The monument and inscription perished in the Great Fire of London, which completely destroyed the old cathedral. The artist died leaving two daughters, Justiniana and Maria Theresa. He had taken care to secure a portion of his estate to his natural child. While showing much solicitude for this daughter born out of wedlock, Van Dyck never revealed the secret of her birth. Who was the mother of Maria Theresa ? Researches hitherto have only led to contradictory theories. It is very doubtful if the mystery will be solved now. However, it is certain that the birth of Maria Theresa occurred previous to her father’s settlement in England, 242 Va?i Dyck's Death since in 1641 she was old enough to be married, and to be herself the mother of children, as we shall see presently. Our artist’s fortune at the time of his death was considerable, as his will proves. However, this rich heritage was considerably reduced by political circumstances. The estate consisted chiefly of debts due by the King and the English nobility. We have already seen with what difficulty and after what delay Van Dyck obtained payment of sums owing. Things were much worse after his death; his heirs made repeated applications, presented petition after petition, but never succeeded in obtaining any definite satisfaction. In addition to ready money and bills and credit upon English nobles, the artist left a treasure of inestimable value; we refer to the paintings, sketches, and drawings adorning his studio. There was a fortune there. What became of it ? Some documents recently dis¬ covered by M. A.—W. Thibaudeau throw a faint light on this interesting question. Unhappily we do not possess, as in the case of Rubens, a carefully edited inventory; still, we must consider ourselves fortunate in that M. Thibaudeau’s discovery has furnished us with some intelligence of the paintings. A petition from Patrick Ruthven, addressed to Parliament on March 25th, 1645, recapitulates the principal incidents which had occurred in the artist’s family since his decease up to that date. To begin with, we learn that Van Dyck’s widow, Maria Ruthven, who had afterwards married Sir Richard Pryse, died before the petition was presented. The author of the request was accordingly left alone to protect the interests of his granddaughter Justiniana. 1 Now his son-in-law had amassed at Blackfriars “ a collection of pictures and other objects of value,” which were to fall to Justiniana. All these objects had disappeared. A certain Richard Andrew, taking advantage of the disturbed times, had, without right or authority, seized this 1 On April 28th, 1645, Susanna, beguine at Antwerp, entrusted John Hoff, an old companion of her brother Anthony, with power to superintend and administer the property of her niece Justiniana, jointly with the grandfather, Patrick Ruthven. The said Susanna, by her will, dated November 24th, 1649, kft the greater part of her fortune to her brother’s natural daughter, Maria Theresa, providing, however, for the interests of the lawful daughter, in the event of the latter’s retiring to Belgium for the sake of her religion. Van Dyck’s Death 2+3 portion of the inheritance, and despatched it to the Continent, seeking by fraudulent manoeuvres to retain it for a sum far inferior to its value. In view of these facts the petition begs that Andrew may be inter¬ dicted from carrying off the pictures still remaining in England and from parting with those which had reached the Continent. Patrick Ruthven gained his cause before Parliament, without, however, obtaining for his granddaughter any restitution of this audacious spoliation. Indeed, a second petition, dated February 26th, 1647, stated that, in contempt of the decrees of Parliament, Richard Andrew had continued to appropriate the pictures in the inheritance. The guardian besought afresh the intervention of the Lords in order to compel Andrew to deposit a security sufficiently heavy to answer for the works of art for which he was unwilling to account. What result was obtained by Patrick Ruthven’s persevering claims the documents we have just summed up do not show. Probably Andrew had taken precautions and placed his booty in a place of safety, and this portion of the inheritance was lost to Justiniana. Maria Ruthven did not bestow long regret on the memory of her first husband. We have just seen that in the month of March, 1645, she was dead; before that date she had been married a second time, to Sir Richard Pryse, of Gogerddan, a Montgomeryshire gentleman, himself a widower. A passage in the petition of Patrick Ruthven would indicate that she had found means of squandering, not only what fell to her of her first husband’s estate, but part of what belonged to her daughter. The paragraph in the will, in which the dying man counsels his widow to make use of her fortune with care and discretion, confirms the suspicions inspired by Ruthven’s petition. There still remained, it is true, the sums owed by the King and the nobility. Many years slipped away before the claims of the creditors met with success. It was only after the restoration of Charles II. that Justiniana obtained, by a warrant of June 10th, 1662, a pension of £200. But the irregularity of the payments several times compelled Van Dyck’s daughter to set before the King a lamentable picture of her distresses. However, the accounts quoted by Carpenter seem to show that from 1670 onwards the pension was paid more regularly. 2 44 Van Dyck’s Death Justiniana Van Dyck married very early, for she was barely twelve years old at the time of her union in 1653 with Sir John Stepney, of Prendergast, Pembrokeshire, who served in the Royal Horse Guards under Charles II. During the summer of 1660 the couple went to Antwerp to see their aunt Susanna, who succeeded by her pious exhortations in making them abjure the Anglican Church, and in con¬ verting them, as well as their servant, to Catholicism. All three were baptised in the Church of St. James; then Sir John and his wife were married afresh by the priest of the parish. As a sequel to this event, Van Dyck’s daughter left with her aunt, as a token of affection, a canvas on which she had painted Christ on the Cross, with four angels receiving the blood which trickles from His wounds. 1 This fact enabled Cornelius de Bie to rank the daughter of Van Dyck among the female artists who have been a credit to their sex. Again we find Justiniana and her husband in Antwerp in January, 1666. They were there to claim a portion of the considerable property left by their aunt Susanna, an inheritance which they shared with Maria Theresa, Anthony’s natural daughter. Immediately after returning to London, Sir Stepney died. His widow survived him for many years. Historians, however, are not agreed as to the date of her decease; while some make her depart life before 1690, others declare that she was married again, to Martin de Carbonell, and lived till 1703. She left at least four children: a son, Sir Thomas Stepney, who embraced the military career, and three daughters, Anna Justina, Priscilla, and Maria; the two latter entered early, as novices, the Convent of Hoogstraten, and became abbesses in a religious house in Brussels. They were still alive in 1772. The descendants of Sir John Stepney, of Prendergast, only became extinct in 1825, on the death of Sir Thomas Stepney, the last representative of the name which had been borne by the lawful daughter of Van Dyck. As for this natural daughter named Maria Theresa, whose existence is still enveloped in so much mystery, she, according to the latest discoveries of Antwerp inquirers, was married in 1641, to Gabriel 1 Susanna Van Dyck left this picture by will to the beguine Maria de Hondt, whom she had appointed her executrix. Van Dyck's Death 245 Essers, baillie of Bouchout. Perhaps her father may have been present at the nuptial ceremony. On February 16th, 1642, her first child was baptised in the Church of St. Gommaire, at Lierre, where she had settled. Six other children, of whom at least four were sons, appeared in rapid succession. In the beginning of 1679 the whole family settled in Antwerp; but the head of the house soon after succumbed to the effects of an attack of apoplexy, whilst Maria Theresa survived him until 1697. There still exist in Antwerp several families who Studies of Female Figures. From a Drawing in the British Museum. claim to be genealogically connected with the descendants of the painter of Charles I. An author who is generally cautious says : “ Van Dyck’s private collections were, at his death, chiefly retained by his best scholar, Sir Peter Lely.” The petition of Patrick Ruthven proves that Dallaway’s statement is not altogether accurate. Nevertheless, Lely’s rich collection, the sale of which produced the sum, enormous at that time, of £26,000 sterling, included such a large number ot pictures and drawings by Van Dyck, that the owner of them must have profited by some 246 Van Dyck’s Death exceptional opportunity to acquire them. Perhaps the worthy Andrew sold him en bloc all the objects carried off from the master’s studio and claimed in vain by Justiniana’s grandfather. This would be the most natural explanation of Dallaway’s remark. It is known that in Sir Peter Lely’s collection there figured prominently the thirty-seven portraits in grisaille of artists and celebrities which now belong to the Duke of Buccleuch. Here our narrative ends. It will be well now to cast a glance back so as to form a judgment of Van Dyck’s work as a whole, to define his talent, and to observe his influence upon the school who recognised him as their master. PART THE FIFTH VAN DYCK’S WORK—HIS PUPILS EVERY artist of eminence is possessed of an ideal the ex¬ pression of which he seeks un¬ ceasingly. This quest stamps his works with the characteristic mark of genius: originality. Thus we recognise at the first sight the giants sprung from the brain of Michael Angelo, the enigmatical sirens of Da Vinci, or the super¬ human figures with which Raphael peoples his immortal compositions. Titian lives in a world of kings and princely splendours. Correggio has grace of drawing and charm of colour—a gift not to be despised. The exuberance of Rubens’ nature shows itself in his slightest works. The figures in his numberless paintings have between them an affinity of race and family which makes them recognisable anywhere. Anthony Van Dyck, too, comes under this common law. Each of his works is marked with that original stamp, which consists, in his case, in the constant quest of elegance and distinction. Distinction, that is this artist’s pre-eminent gift, his master-quality, which forms his individuality, and is indelibly stamped on all those glorious works whose history we have written, from the first tentative efforts of 247 Van Dyck's kVork 248 Rubens’ pupil to the immortal portrayals of Charles I. and his family and court. Whether belonging to the highest circles of society, or coming from the ranks of the simple middle-class folk of Antwerp, the sitter is endowed by Van Dyck’s brush with the aristocratic mien. It might be thought that the painter had spent all his life in the society of nobles and patricians. Never does he portray even men whom he knew best, his most intimate friends, in the familiar unconstraint of daily occupa¬ tions. Very rarely does the humour seize him to group them in an intimate domestic scene. All have prepared themselves for posing before posterity; all are anxious to give their descendants a lofty idea of their condition and manners. Not one is common; not one ventures to appear in working-dress in the simplicity of daily life. Nothing affects the immovable serenity of their persons; nothing troubles the unalterable placidity of their countenances. Let others depict the people of the taverns, the world of fairs and peasants. Van Dyck wished to be, and remains, the painter of the aristocracy. Nearly every person of rank who lived in the first part of the seventeenth century lives again in indelible traits in that gallery of portraits to which talent has given the precision and importance of an historical monument. The name of Van Dyck nevertheless hardly figures amongst those of the masters who shine in the first rank in the Pantheon of art. He lacks the creative genius, the richness of invention, the dramatic instinct, that, in short, which constitutes a powerful originality. Is this judgment too severe? The history of his life strikingly confirms it. We see him in Rubens’ studio. As long as he remains there he seems to aim at no other goal, to nurse no higher ambition, than faithfully to follow the master’s examples; but the very exaggeration with which he imitates betrays his incapacity. Violence is substituted for dramatic passion; harmonious brilliancy of colour gives place to tones which are crude, almost discordant. The most famous of the paintings of this period are, in short, only timid copies of canvases by Rubens. Scarcely has our artist set foot on the shores of Italy when Titian takes possession of him and exercises an irresistible attraction and Van Dyck's JVork 249 influence over his mind. This is the Italian period, characterised by vigorous contrasts, and warm colours glowing in the Southern sun. This influence of the great Venetian colourists remains for some time after the traveller has returned to his own country; but little by little the recollections of Italy fade, or rather blend with the first instruction received in the school of Rubens. Soon there commences a new evolution of the artist s talent. His individual originality reveals itself. To what he has borrowed from his masters he adds a charm, a delicacy, drawn from his own resources. He thus stamps the works of this third period with a supreme distinction. Hence the great success of his religious compositions, though they generally lack dramatic sentiment and emotion. What else characterises them ? They possess in the highest degree the average qualities: proportion, dignity, the charm of clear and harmonious colour. Already in Flanders, Van Dyck enters into the full possession of his talent. The third and fourth periods are separated by almost imperceptible shades. Nevertheless, in the works painted in England, especially in those which date from the first years of his residence here, he reaches a sureness, a power of execution, quite new in him. Certain portraits of Charles I. or of his children may be classed among the most finished works ever produced by art. But, after a few years, overwork and excess of pleasure bring about the premature decay of that exalted talent without permitting the painter to show, in an important undertaking sought after in vain, the full extent of his powers. Perhaps it was better for his memory that this opportunity, so eagerly desired, always eluded him. His religious and historical compositions add but little to his reputation. Like many Flemish masters, his predecessors or rivals, he displays all his powers only when he finds himself directly face to face with nature. It is the painting of portraits which secures to him a conspicuous place among the masters of all ages and all countries. In this consists his glory and his incontestable superiority. Talent is revealed not only in finished compositions in which the artist concentrates all his efforts, in which he seeks to express the full measure of his powers. The slightest strokes, the improvisations born 250 Van Dyck's Work of the inspiration of a moment, the experiments of a hand at practice, the indistinct outlines of a form scarcely distinguished from the floating mists of a dream, present singular attractions when they are the work of a master. Van Dyck has left behind him a considerable number of roughly outlined sketches. A few dashes suffice to construct the form of a head and to arrange the perspective of the face. In three or four strokes he indicates the effects of light in the whole of a vast composition. An accomplished connoisseur has summed up in a few lines the qualities of Anthony Van Dyck’s drawings. We cannot do better than quote the appreciation of such a judge as Mariette 1 : a If we except Van Dyck s portraits, and his special studies of heads or other parts of the body, in which this painter is very correct and very exact, nearly all his other studies for compositions consist of slight sketches which the artist seems to have meant to be understood by himself alone. He is seeking to develop his idea, taking little trouble about correct appearance. Nevertheless, through these mists, so to speak, the man of genius reveals himself5 and if we choose to give attention, we can distinguish in them new and positively sublime ideas. Such is in general the characteristic of Van Dyck ; nevertheless, he has sometimes also done some very finished work of this kind, and we can see even by his landscapes that when he chose he was capable of drawing with care j but these finished drawings are very scarce.” That suffices to give a fair idea of those charming improvisations, in which every process, pen, brush, pencil, Italian earth, red chalk, bistre, and Chinese ink, is in turn made use of according to the caprice of the moment or the necessities of the subject. Nothing is more fitted to reveal the secrets of genius than to make known these efforts, hot, as it were, from the fire of inspiration. Hence we have in this book multiplied the facsimiles of original works, preferring them to reproductions, necessarily weakened by reduction, of these admirable plates in which Bolswert, Vorsterman, Pontius, and de Jode have interpreted with their masterly burin the most famous works of In the catalogue of the Crozat collection of drawings. Van Dyck's JVork 251 the master. These fine engravings lose too much by change in size. They must be seen and admired in original proofs and first impressions. Rarely was a painter better served than Van Dyck. Thanks to the diligent care of Rubens, he found ready to hand a school of incom¬ parable engravers, trained in the resources of the trade, able to handle in turn the graving-tool and the etching-needle to express all the delicacies of colour and the most subtle plays of light. He himself took a considerable part in the direction of this school. Not only did he carefully superintend the reproduction of his principal works, and, following his master’s example, draw with his own hand the model which the point had simply to follow step by step, but he learnt by his own experience the processes and difficulties, and at the first attempt he showed himself a master in an art which had the day before been unknown to him. History offers few examples of such a phenomenon. Van Dyck’s etchings, in the first state of the plate, before they have been deadened by the work of the engraver, will always be regarded as masterpieces. Alone they would suffice to prove the marvellous aptitude of their author, his consummate knowledge of the human figure, his prodigious skill in the use of the first imple¬ ment that came to his hand. The artist’s paintings sometimes show weakness—one may possibly even find inaccuracies in them; but if we carefully examine his drawings, and, above all, his marvellous etchings, we must acknowledge that Van Dyck received from nature the inward fire whose imprint is stamped indelibly on the smallest works of great artists. The history of Van Dyck would seem incomplete if we did not group around him the principal collaborators who shared in his work and assisted him in his undertakings, and who owed the best part of their attainments and their fame to the good fortune of having met him. His actual pupils are numerous, as we shall show; but his influence extends far beyond that first generation who knew him personally, and whose highest ambition seems to have been to approach his style. Hence, among the pupils of Van Dyck, we have carefully distinguish those who lived by his side, took part m his works, to 252 Van Dyck's Pupils and continued his traditions, from those who came later, and, without having received his direct lessons and precepts, none the less owe their success to the examples which he left behind. It is thus that the English school, almost entirely, is intimately allied with our artist, and proceeds directly from him. Van Dyck did not have long to wait for success and fame. His personal attraction and talents, in his early years, brought him many patrons. During his journey in Italy he had to seek the assistance of a skilful painter who could adapt himself to his style, in order to meet the commissions with which he was besieged on every hand. John Roose , a Fleming, known to Italians as %osa , born in Antwerp in 1591, a pupil first of John de Wael, and afterwards of Snyders, whom he almost equalled in the painting of hunting-subjects, had settled in Genoa, and acquired a reputation there. When Anthony came to visit Italy, and made a stay in the town in which Roose was living, the latter begged to have the honour of receiving lessons from him. Soprani states that in consequence this little-known artist painted some religious subjects and portraits worthy of com¬ parison with those of his master. As Roose passed his whole life in Italy, and ended his career at Genoa in 1638, Flemish biographers know little of him and scarcely mention him. He must, nevertheless, be numbered among the distinguished pupils of Van Dyck. Alone our artist could not have succeeded in completing the great works which he executed in Flanders before setting out for England. If he did not hold a school, in the regular sense of the word, he often had recourse to the brush of some of his old comrades. Amongst those who most frequently lent him their assistance we may mention two painters of moderate renown and real merit, Remi Van Lee?nput and John Vati Bockhorst , better known by the nickname of Laitge Jan or Long John. The former, a native of Antwerp, born in 1607, having first studied under some unknown master, entered Van Dyck’s studio in 1628, where he remained for a year, after which he was admitted into the Society of St. Luke. He made portrait-painting his chief study. After the year 1632, he rejoined Anthony in England, and acquired a singular facility in reproducing the works of the great Van Dyck's Pupils 253 masters. It is related that Charles I. once paid him ^150 for a copy of a picture by Holbein representing Henry VII., Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII., and Jane Seymour. An assistant like this was valuable to an artist compelled to repeat his work frequently, and certain replicas of Van Dyck’s portraits are undoubtedly from the brush of Remi Van Leemput; besides which, he studied the style of his exemplar so well that he succeeded in, so to speak, assimilating himself with him to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish even original portraits by himself from portraits by Van Dyck. His success lasted to the end of his life. He died a very rich man in 1675. John Van Bockhorst or Lange Jan , born in Munster about 1610, studied successively under the three greatest Flemish masters. From the painting-room of Jordaens he proceeded to that of Rubens, and subsequently to that of Van Dyck. He resembles the last-named more than the other two, and was closely connected with him. After Anthony’s departure, he took lessons for some time from Gaspard de Crayer, and finally returned to settle in Antwerp, where he died in 1668. It is in “Lange Jan’s” portraits rather than in his historical compositions that the influence of Van Dyck’s lessons is to be observed. We have also to mention, among the pupils who came to seek counsel of him at Antwerp, Bertram Fouchier , who was born at Bergen-op-Zoom in 1609, and died in 1674. Notwithstanding the precepts of his master and a journey to Italy, Fouchier never became anything but a mediocre painter. In England our artist’s reputation brought more pupils to his studio, and the majority became distinguished painters. John Van Belcamp , a native of Antwerp, born in 1610, had preceded Van Dyck to England. At first a pupil of Van Balen, he afterwards took lessons of Cornelius Janson Van Ceulen, and then came under the discipline of Van Dyck, where he continued till 1634. An excellent copyist, he was employed by Charles I. to reproduce the portraits of the most famous personages of the time of Henry VIII. and the reigns following. Several of these copies are still to be seen in the Royal collection. Charles I. had his own portrait painted by 254 Van Dyck's Pupils Van Belcamp; a portrait of Henrietta Maria, of which the background was painted by Henry Steenwyck, did him great credit. After the death of the King, he was chosen by the Parliament as curator of Charles I.’s effects. He died in 1653. Contrary to the opinion of those writers who state that Adrian Hanneman never quitted the town of the Hague, where he was born about 1610, Walpole declares that, after studying under John Van Ravenstein, he went to Daniel Mytens, and then passed on to the studio of Van Dyck in 1635. Charles I. valued his talents, and commissioned him to paint his children. After a sixteen years’ residence in England, Hanneman returned to his own country in 1646. He died at the Hague about 1680. John de Reyn , of Dunkirk, had no one but Van Dyck for his master; he followed him to England, and never left him till the day of his death. He devoted himself to imitating his master’s style, and made some line copies of his principal portraits for the houses of Dorset, Carlisle, and Lindsay. He ended his days in his native town in 1678, at the age of about sixty-eight. William Dobson , born in 1610, died at thirty-six years of age, after having acquired a genuine fame, thanks to the counsels and examples of Van Dyck, who, not content with developing his talent, recommended him warmly to the King. Dobson thus owed his good fortune doubly to him. The. collections of England possess a certain number of portraits of this distinguished artist. Among the most successful works of Cornelius de Neve, who was born about 1612, and became one of Van Dyck’s best pupils, we may mention the portraits of Edward Sackville and Lord Buckhurst on the same canvas, those of the Earl of Arundel, of the Earl of Strafford, and of Thomas Fairfax. This artist did not fear com¬ parison with his master, lor he painted the same sitters. Having been seized with paralysis, he retired to his native town of Antwerp, and ended his days there in 1678. The title of “The Scottish Van Dyck,” which was given to George Jameson , would be enough to inform us ot the merits which his contemporaries recognised in this painter. At first a pupil of Rubens, he afterwards joined himself to Van Dyck, and set out with Van Dyck's Pupils 2 55 him for England in 1635. From this date onwards he devoted himself almost exclusively to portrait-painting. Like John Van Belcamp, Theodore Russel , born in 1614, the son of a Bruges jeweller at the Court of England, for some time took lessons from Cornelius Janson Van Ceulen before entering the school of Van Dyck. The majority of the copies from the master, executed by him, and still to be seen in Warwick and Windsor Castles, are reduced in size. Russel has left behind him some original portraits in the possession of various English families; but his taste for idleness and dissipation prevented him from reaching to the reputation which his rare abilities gave reason to hope for. Of Edward Pierce , who was born in England in 1615, and died about 1666, little or nothing is known except that he was a pupil of the Flemish master, and that he devoted himself to historical, architec¬ tural, and landscape painting rather than portraiture. We have had occasion to speak previously of Anne Carlisle , who repaid Van Dyck, in tenderness and affection, for the attentive care which had made her an artist of merit. Born in London in 1616, she died about the year 1680. She often worked beside her master, for Charles I., who was accustomed to meet her during the long hours which he spent in the studio of his favourite, made her a sharer in a gift of a certain quantity of ultra-marine which bore the value of ^500 sterling. Some historians suppose that Anne Carlisle was the mother of the natural daughter named in Anthony s will. But chronology gives a categorical denial to this theory. As a matter of fact, Maria Theresa was living in 1632, when Anne Carlisle, aged scarcely sixteen years, was not yet acquainted with our artist. The name of “ Little Van Dyck ” was given to Gerard Pieterss Van Zyl , not because he had received lessons from the master, but, so Houbraken states, by reason of his talent for painting portraits on a small scale. Born at Leyden in 1619, Van Zyl only came to England in 1639, after having taken lessons from various Dutch masters. After Anthony’s death, he spent a year at Oxford and returned to London, where he began to acquire great fortune, when the troublous times decided him to return to his own country. The skill with which he painted hands has been especially praised. 256 Van Dyck's Pupils He has left some genre paintings. He died at the age of about forty-nine. Peter Thys or lyssens , born in Antwerp in 1616, arrived in England the same year as the last-named. Although Van Dyck had almost reached the end of his career, Thys knew how to profit by his counsels, and may be regarded as one of his best pupils. In 1642 he returned to his native town, became Dean of the Guild of St. Luke in 1660, and died in 1680. He surpassed all his rivals in imitation of the master’s manner. There was to be seen in Antwerp last century a very remarkable copy of the Windsor picture repre¬ senting Charles I. and his family. Peter Thys was not distinguished merely by his talent as a copyist. The original portraits by his hand, exhibited in the Antwerp Gallery, quite recall the methods of Van Dyck, and assign their author an honourable place among the painters of the second rank. Matthew Merian the Younger, born at Basle in 1621, after having worked in the studio of Joachim Sandrart, came to England during the last years of Van Dyck’s life, took lessons from him, and strove to imitate his manner; he achieved fame and fortune, and died in the early years of the eighteenth century. A native of Delft, who was born in 1621 and died at the Hague at the age of thirty-five, David Beck or Beek , ranks among the cleverest pupils of Anthony Van Dyck. Nevertheless, Beck only made his acquaintance in 1640—a very short time before he set out for Flanders. He improved himself chiefly by the study of the pictures which he saw in England. He had commenced his studies in the studio of Michael Van Mirevelt. Endowed with rare abilities, David Beck became a very skilful portrait-painter, and gained the esteem and favour of Charles I. He gave drawing lessons to the Prince of Wales, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, and Prince Rupert. Afterwards he attached himself to the service of Queen Christina of Sweden, who made him gentleman-in-waiting and commissioned him to visit all the Courts of Europe in order to paint the portraits of the sovereigns, princes, and famous men of the various states. These travels con¬ tributed greatly to extend his reputation. It is right that we should also include among Anthony’s pupils CONSTANTINE HUYGHENS AND HIS FIVE CHILDREN (Hague Gallery) • ■ printings. . v t , horn in. Antwerp in 1616, arrived in* «. of his career, Thys k/v;v how to profit by be regarded as one of his best pupils. «, In native town, became Dean oi the Guild 'of * and: died in r68o. He surpassed : c master’' maim* ’ V - - w seen \n Antwerp \ -rked in v native of Dt. i c age « *t i the Dukes of in attached h: 'i • - ' . de him : ntlcman- «; in 1621, , came to England - tis from him, and •nd fortune, and died in rb< commenced his stud: lowed with rare abb rer, and gained: the lessons to the Pri wain 1 Courts oi Europe in order to KHiiaJIHD HViq 8IH CMA SMHHOYtJH a T /IITMAT8XOD ■ " ' ■ u,i ' fetaisffi) ■ -ereigns, Van Dyck^s Pupils 2 57 the Antwerper Peter Born //., who, according to his own statement, worked for some years in Van Dyck’s studio; and J. B. "Jaspers , who returned to Antwerp immediately after his master’s death, and was enrolled in the Guild of St. Luke as a free painter. Henry Stone , of English birth, deserves an honourable place amongst the painters of portraits. He knew how to give life to his models. Trained in the studio of Van Dyck, he continued his traditions after his death. We must not omit to mention here one of the most illustrious pupils of the master, although he followed a different path from any of the foregoing. All historians agree in recognising that Joh?i Petitot owes to the lessons, the counsels, and examples of the painter of Charles I., the clearness, the freshness, the vividness of tone, the great qualities, in short, which place him at the head of the most celebrated enamel-painters. Petitot spent several years in England. Charles I. showed him particular kindness, and was pleased to have his own portrait and that of the Queen copied by him. It was under these circumstances that he made the acquaintance of Anthony Van Dyck. We may mention two portraits by Petitot reproducing famous works by the Flemish master: that of Rachel de Ruvigny, the beautiful Countess of Southampton, a huge enamel, the largest known, being no less than nine inches and three-quarters in height by five inches and three-quarters in breadth; according to Walpole, “ the execution is the boldest and the colouring the most rich and beautiful that can be imagined.” This important work, preserved in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, is dated 1642. The same nobleman possesses a head of the Duke of Buckingham bearing the date 1640. Besides the pupils of Van Dyck whose names have been preserved by historians, how many others worked with him, of whom all memory is lost! Is it not also permissible to suppose that many of those noble lords who were animated by so keen a passion for painting, and were regular visitors to Van Dyck’s studio, may have been sometimes tempted themselves to set their hands to the work and profit by the advice and counsels of the great artist ? Amongst those refined amateurs of the Court of Charles I. there was one especially who, in 33 258 Van Dyck’s Pupils our opinion, owes to the Court painter, in a great measure, the very- real talent of which he afterwards gave evidence. We refer to Prince Rupert, the nephew of Charles L, whose name is bound up in history with the discovery and the popularisation of mezzotint engraving. According to the old authors, the son of the Elector Palatine Frederick V., born in 1619, only came to England in 1642 to place his valour and devotion at the service of the Royal cause. Now at that date Van Dyck was no more. Whether he arrived in England before 1642 or met our artist elsewhere, the Palatine Prince certainly came into contact with him. Is any other proof needed than the admirable full-length portrait in the Vienna Gallery, representing Prince Rupert at the age of barely thirteen or fourteen ? We find him again, six or seven years older, in the Louvre picture which shows him in half-length, together with his brother. He already wears in this the heavy war-trappings which he was scarcely ever to abandon throughout the course of his stormy career. Unless the picture in the Louvre and that at Vienna are falsely attributed to Van Dyck, a hypothesis which is inadmissible, especially as regards the latter, Anthony and the nephew of Charles I. met at least twice. And the young Prince, with his innate taste for the things of art and science, would neglect no opportunity of making friends with the renowned painter, of questioning him, and listening to him eagerly. And have not all those Flemings who had preceded Van Dyck by a few years at the Court of England or followed him there some claim too to be numbered among his immediate pupils, although they were his contemporaries or his seniors ? Among his regular colla¬ borators are usually mentioned Henry Steejiwyck the Younger and Van Balen \ they worked on the architecture of his pictures. George Geldorp , his hospitable fellow-countryman, who received him on the occasion of- his fruitless visit in 1629, and never ceased to plead his cause with Charles I., is not he also entitled to a place in his school ? A singular painter, this same Geldorp ! Walpole relates, with the utmost gravity, that, not being able to draw, this semi-artist contented himself with covering in colours the outlines draughted by others. The income which he derived from this remarkable trade he augmented, it seems, by means less reputable. His house served as a place of Van Dyck's Pupils 259 assignation for the secret intrigues of courtiers. Such a trade leads surely to fortune j but it is singular that it brought no disgrace on Geldorp. After having been entrusted with the care of the pictures of the unfortunate Charles I., who had loaded him with favours, Geldorp was interred, with the most illustrious and the most worthy, in Westminster Abbey. The majority of the pupils who received lessons from the master in Great Britain and were associated with his work prolonged their career years after his death. The eldest of them were in their thirtieth year in 1642 ; the events which led to their dispersion served to spread the invaluable teachings received in this noble school. If some went to seek on their native soil the peace which they no longer found in England, many did not allow themselves to be inordinately alarmed by political commotions, and waited in their adopted country for serener days. Many of these latter were still living, and had lost none of their talent at the time of the Restoration. They thus transmitted directly the teachings, the traditions, and the methods of the master to one who was to approach nearest of all to his manner, to the painter of the elegant and voluptuous Court of Charles II., the German Peter Van der Faes, who became famous under the name of Sir Peter Lely. The imitation, or, if we prefer it, the obsession of the methods of Van Dyck, is obvious in every one of Lely’s works. Like all artists who do not cultivate their own originality, but subsist on an extraneous supply, the favourite painter of Charles II., notwithstanding his incontestable talent, is only a pale reflection of his exemplar. Having grown very rich, he purchased a large number of original works of Van Dyck. From their constant contemplation he drew his best inspirations. At his death there were no less than twenty-six of the master’s pictures in his collection. Nearly all were portraits. He possessed, besides, those thirty-seven paintings en grisaille which now form part of the Duke of Buccleuch’s collection. A certain number of these canvases came from the sale of Charles I.’s pictures. We know that the capital design for the Procession of the Knights of the Garter passed through Lely’s collection. The influence of the works of Van Dyck is no less marked in 260 Van Dyck's ‘Pupils the portraits of Sir Godfrey K?ieller , that over-praised painter of William III. and Queen Anne, than in those of Sir Peter Lely; but the farther we get away from the starting-point, the more the imitators forget or enfeeble the grand characteristics of their exemplar. Lely had at least been able to make the acquaintance of the leader of the English school, since he arrived in London during the year 1641, while Kneller was only born in 1648. The latter’s rapidity of execu¬ tion, of which Walpole gives some striking instances, had probably much to do with his success. Every sovereign who succeeded to the throne of England, from Charles II. to Queen Anne, showed favour to this painter, who was at least smart and expeditious, but, after all, lacking in those superior qualities which go to make a master of his art. To find the regular heirs of Van Dyck—those who were nourished on his traditions and, so to speak, on his substance—we must come down as far as the second half of the eighteenth century. Let us read the writings of Sir Joshua Reynolds: whether he is travelling in Flanders or expounding his ideas on art to the students of the Royal Academy, Van Dyck’s name is for ever on his tongue and at the point of his pen. The artist in this way betrays his fixed idea, his ruling prepossession. He is constantly studying this chosen model; he analyses his methods of composition, his effects of colouring, his manner of arranging drapery; nothing escapes him ; everything forms matter for observations at once profound and ingenious. What he sees and observes in the Netherlands is, before everything else, the canvases of his favourite painter. This keen admiration, which is shown again in the quest and purchase of a large number of Van Dyck’s works, 1 brought fortune to Sir Joshua; and if he occupies one of the foremost places—the fore¬ most, perhaps—in the English school, he owes it largely to this ardent fondness for the painter of Charles I. It is Reynolds, too, who informs us that his rival, the great Gainsborough, also lived in regular communion with the most famous painters of the Flemish school. He practised, Reynolds says in his fourteenth Discourse , making copies 1 Sir Joshua’s collection included sixty-six specimens of Van Dyck. No other master was so largely represented. Van Dyck^s ‘Pupils 261 from Rubens, Teniers, and Van Dyck, “ which it would be no dis¬ grace to the most accurate connoisseur to mistake, at the first sight, for the works of those masters.” We need not multiply examples. The foregoing will suffice to show the immense influence of Anthony Van Dyck over the English school, of which he is the undisputed head, and, in a manner, the creator. Here, in conclusion, is a significant fact. It shows the profound After the Engraving by the Comte de Caylus. impression which Van Dyck’s work made upon artists who by nature seemed the least liable to yield to his charm. The inventory of goods and chattels found in the house of Puget after his death shows no fewer than eight copies executed at Genoa, by the famous author of the Milo , after portraits painted by Van Dyck. In this curious gallery appear the beautiful Marchesa di Brignole, her husband on horseback, the Marchese Spinola, then a Christ on the Cross , an 262 Van Dyck’s Pupils Ecce Homo, etc. The place of honour in the salon in the country house of the great Marseilles sculptor is reserved for the portrait of Van Dyck himself, painted by his pupil John Roose; around him are grouped the figures of friends and protectors of Anthony. Does not this enthusiastic homage from one of the most inde¬ pendent men who ever lived bear testimony to the irresistible influence of our hero’s works over artists of every age and every clime ? Puget had certainly no affinity of character, temperament, or talent with the amiable favourite of Charles I.; nevertheless he was enraptured by these living visions, he desired to have constantly before his eyes a faithful memory of them, and he spent long hours before these admirable works, seeking to discover and to express the secrets of that elegance, the mysteries of that colouring—he who, in sculpture, only sought the violent expression of force, passion, or grief. What panegyrics could equal this significant and wholly spontaneous acknow¬ ledgment of the glorious and universal fascination exercised by the genius of Anthony Van Dyck! CATALOGUE OF THE WORKS OF SIR ANTHONY VAN DYCK NOTE This Catalogue of Van Dyck includes all his paintings and all etchings and engravings after his works. We have been obliged to omit mention of the drawings, the assignment of which is often a matter of great difficulty. For the paintings the catalogue 1 of the well-known picture-dealer John Smith has served as the basis of the present work ; the number after each item has reference to the list drawn up by Smith, where the reader will find a detailed description of the majority of the pictures which are catalogued. To the references derived from the work of Smith are added the pictures mentioned by Waagen, in his work on the Treasures of Art in England, and those indicated in the catalogues of public galleries and Italian guide-books. It was impossible here to enter into an examination of certain ascriptions which are at least suspicious, and so to make a choice among the elements supplied from these different sources. We have thought it better to run the risk of mentioning doubtful or apocrypha! pictures than to suppress useful information. The works of Van Dyck are divided into two great classes : first, religious and historical paintings ; second, portraits. In the former, the items are arranged according to their nature, in the order at once simplest and most logical : Old and New Testament; Saints ; Mythology ; Ancient and Modem History; Allegorical Compositions ; and finally, subjects which do not come under any of these heads. In the case of the historical subjects, chronological arrange¬ ment was obviously the best ; for the rest, such as mythological or allegorical pieces, alphabetical order seemed the most rational and most convenient for reference. We have, as far as possible, brought together the prints of the pictures of which they present the reproduction. But very often the original of an engraving has escaped all research ; hence, 1 A Catalogue RaisonnC of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish, and French Painters, etc., by John Smith. Part the Third, containing the Lives and Works of Anthony Van Dyck and David Teniers (8vo, London, 1831). In this catalogue the works of Van Dyck number 844. 263 264 Note occasionally, the impossibility of comparing the engraved plate with the original painting must have caused the same subject to be mentioned under two different items. Every process of engraving, for two hundred years, has been employed in turn to reproduce the important work of Van Dyck. Hence it is by thousands that the prints inspired by the master are to be reckoned. In such a case it is impossible to arrive at a perfectly satisfactory result. Nevertheless, after an inspection of the work of Van Dyck preserved in Paris and London, and of certain special works, such as the Alibert Catalogue , 1 the Marmol Catalogue, and the Art Catalogue of Weigel, we may fairly hope that there remain few omissions in the list of the engraved works of Van Dyck. The original etchings of the master have, for the last fifty years, been the object or a series of profound studies. The works of Carpenter, H. Weber, I. Von Szwykowski, G. Duplessis, and Wibiral, to mention only the most famous, have exhausted the subject. It has seemed to us superfluous to dwell upon facts already known. Considering the fact that this Catalogue contains a record of more than fifteen hundred pictures and three thousand prints, the reader will have some indulgence for unavoidable omissions and inaccuracies. 1 The catalogue of a numerous collection of prints and drawings sold after the decease of Madame Alibert (Paris, 8vo, year XI.—1803) contained a set of Van Dyck, including no less than nine hundred and eight portraits. It was Mariette's collection, remarkably increased by his successor. The collection was sold en bloc for 2,803 francs. It would be worth twenty or thirty times as much now. An etching by Van Dyck, the portrait of Van den Wouwer, first state, the only proof, fetched ^450 sterling at the sale of the Bale collection in London in June, 1881. 266 Catalogue of the JVorks of 11 . The Child Jesus, standing near a globe crushing the serpent under foot. A. Dresden Gall., No. 984 (Sm. 417). B. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Sm. 416; Waag. IV. 334). Eng. by P. Pontius; by P. de Jode 1661; by Mensaert. Mezzo, by P. v. B. (Van Bleek) 1754. 12 . The Virgin and Child Jesus, standing, crushing the serpent encircling the globe. Eng. by A. Bloteling, pub. P. Van Schuppen. 13 . Jesus caressing a Lamb. Buckingham Palace (Waag. II. 3). 14 . Jesus lying on a Drapery in a Landscape. Eng. by Robt. Strange (Sm. 418). 15 . Jesus stretched on a Drapery in a Manger. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 419). Eng. by J. Dean. 16 . Jesus, half-length, holding the Globe in His Left Hand (Salvator Mundi). Eng. by Bolswert. 17 . The Virgin ; life-size. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 245). 18 . The Virgin, half-length (Maria Mater Dei) ; com¬ panion picture to the Child Jesus (Salvator Mundi). Eng. by Bolswert (Sm. 421). See No. 16. 19 . Head of the Virgin. Pitti Palace, No. 160 (Sm. 160). Eng. by G. Fusinati, from drg. by M. Orsi (Pitti Gall.). 20 . Head of the Virgin. Eng. by Bolswert. THE HOLY FAMILY 21 . The Child Jesus asleep on the Virgin's breast; on the left St. Joseph ; three-quarter length. Piuakothek, Munich, No. 827 (Sm. 48, 297, 346). Eng. by Bolswert; by Ragot, in reverse; by C. Waumans ; anon. pub. Michel Van Lochem ; anon. pub. Boudan ; by Edelink. Etch, by Spruyt. Mezzo, by Corbut 1766. Lith. by F. Piloty 1837. 22 . The Virgin, and Child who caresses St. Joseph ; three-quarter length. Belvedere Gall. (Sm. 87). Eng. by De Premier (Vienna Gall.). Mezzo, by Jac. Maennl. 23 . The Virgin and Child encircled by a garland of flowers painted by Seghers; painted in grey mono¬ chrome. Belvedere Gall., White Room, No. 11. 24 . The Virgin with Child Jesus standing on His mother’s knees, and blessing. Dresden Gall., No. 983. 25 . The Virgin with Child Jesus, nude, resting on His mother’s breast; three-quarter length. Turin Gall., No. 400 (Sm. 427, 431). Eng. by Bartolozzi (Sm. 427); by Massard (Winckl. 1494); by Lasinio, jun,, from drg. by Lor. Metalli (Turin Gall., I., pi. 26). Etch.anon., attributed to Van Dyck (Winckl. 1483; Weig. 22263). 26 . The Virgin and Child Jesus standing on an archi¬ tectural fragment. Brunswick Gall., No. 473. 27 *. The Virgin and Child Jesus. Gall, of Hospital of St.John, Bruges, No. 29. 28 . The Virgin with Child Jesus sleeping on her breast. Parma Gall. 29 *. The Virgin and Child Jesus with Saint Joseph. Christianborg Gall., Copenhagen, No. 166. 30 *. The Holy Family. Bordeaux Gall., No. 455. 31 *. The Holy Family. Rennes Gall., No. 69. 32 . The Virgin and Child Jesus. 1 2 Buckingham Palace (Waag. II. 3). 33 . The Virgin holding the Child Jesus upright and encircling Him with her hands. Formerly in Coll, of Duke of Marlborough -; was bought by Messrs. Agnew in 1886 (Sm. 263). Eng. by P. Pontius; by Em. Salv. Cormona; by Clowet. Mezzo, by J. Gole (Marmol Cata. 1359). 34 . The Virgin holding the Child Jesus in her arms. Coll, of General Craig, in 1812 (Sm. 34s). Mezzo, by Corbut; by MacArdell. 35 . The Virgin giving the breast to the Child Jesus. Coll, of General Craig, in 1812 (Sm. 346). Eng. by Meyssens ; by W. Van Senus. 36 . The Virgin seated, holding the Child Jesus on her knees. A. Coll, of Earl of Harrington (Sm. 427). B. Coll, of T. Hope, Esq. (Sm. 426). Eng. by H. Snyers. 1 A replica of this picture is to be seen at Hampton Court. 2 Replicas of this subject are in the possession of Lord F. Leveson-Govver, at Bridgewater, and at Dulwich. Sir ^Anthony Van Dyck 267 37. The Virgin holding by the arm the Child Jesus leaning on her breast. Coll, of Earl of Harrington (Sm. 429). Eng. by Lorenzi. 38. The Virgin and Child Jesus. Coll, of Rothschild family (Waag. II. 281). 39. The Virgin with Child Jesus asleep on His mother’s knee. Formerly in Coll, of Sir P. Miles ; purchased by Banting in 1884 (Sm 332; Waag. III. 186). Etch. anon. 40. The Virgin and Child Jesus. Coll, of Sir Richard Wallace. 41. The Virgin with Child Jesus resting in her arms. Coll, of Sir Luke Schaub, 1758 (Sm. 297). 42. The Virgin with pomegranate, with Child Jesus standing on her knees. Balbi Piovera Palace, Genoa. 43. The Virgin with Child Jesus standing on her knees. Ferdinand Spinola Palace, Genoa. 44. The Virgin seated holding the Child Jesus sleeping on her knees. Corsini Palace, Rome (Sm. 430). Eng. by Pazzi, from drg. by Dom. Campiglia, 1765- Etch. anon. THE HOLY FAMILY WITH SAINTS OR ANGELS 45. Repose of the Holy Family, with a circle of angels ; other angels hover in the sky. Pitti Palace, Florence / No. 437. Eng. by Bolswert; by J. Coelemans, Aix, 1698 (Gal. d'Eguilles, No. 46); by J. Troyen; by Susanna Ver¬ bruggen ; by L. Martelli, from drg. by F. Rossi (Pitti Gall.) ; by Pilizotti, after drg. belonging to Archduke Chailes. Fragment of this subject eng. by A. Vouet. 46. Same subject; partridges have taken the place of angels in the sky. A. Hermitage Gall., No. 603 (Sm. 268). B. Coll, of Lord Ashburton (Sm. 269; Waag. II. 102). C. Formerly in Anger stein Coll. Eng. in stipple by S. G. and J. G. Facius. Lith.by Huot (Hermitage Gall.). 47. Bistre study of above composition. Berlin Museum, Suermondt Gall., No 790 a. 1 This picture was purchased from the Marchese Gerini by the Grand Duke Ferdinand III., on June 25th, 1818. Note by Luigi Bardi in the Galerie Pitti. 48*. Dance of eight angels. Fragment of the above picture. 1 Berlin Museum, No. 7S9. 2 49. The Virgin holding the Child Jesus who is adored by angels. 3 Academy of St. Luke, Rome. 50. The Virgin and Child Jesus in the clouds, adored by angels. Academy of Vienna (?) (Sm. 92). 51. The Virgin and Child Jesus with the Eternal Father and several angels. Uffisi Gall., Florence, No. 783. 52. The Virgin holding the Child Jesus standing on the globe, with two angels playing music. Purchased by Constantin at Robil Sale (Sm. 335). Eng. by P. de Baillu; by T. Van Kcssel; by J. Pitau; by Beckett (Sm.). Mezzo, by J. Smith. 53. The Virgin and Child Jesus with four angels in the clouds. Eng. by P. Clovvet. Etch. anon. 54. The Virgin, the Child Jesus, and a female saint. Pitti Palace, Florence, No. 282. 55*. The Virgin and Saints; study for an altar-piece. Colonne Coll., 1775 (Sm. 311). 56. The Virgin, the Child Jesus, and St. Catherine with angels playing various instruments. Buckingham Palace (Sm. 234; Waag. II. 3). Eng. by S. J. Beylbrouck; anon. ; by A. Lommclin ; in reverse, anon., Mariette exc.; by W. Ridgway. Mezzo. by W. Ward. 57. The Virgin and Child Jesus adored by St. Catherine holding a palm, or Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine. A. Coll, of W. Agar Ellis, Esq. (Sm. 3). B. Coll, of M. de Cornelisscn, Brussels, brought from Genoa (Sm. 165). Eng. by Bolswert; by Bloteling 4 ; by Guzzi, from drg. by Bartelli; by Ragot. 58. The Virgin in a glory of angels, with St. Dominick, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Rosalie, and three other female saints. Painted in 1624 for the Confraternity of the Rosary at Palermo. 1 Perhaps the picture which formed part of the Weyer Museum at Cologne. * We give in this work a reproduction of this composition in heliogravure, alter the line drawing which belongs to the Due d'Aumale. 3 The study for the picture is to be seen in the same collection. 4 Bloteling's engraving has been reduced and framed in an oval outline by P. Van Schupper. 268 Catalogue of the IVorks of 59. The Virgin holding the Child Jesus with St. Elisabeth beside a cradle. Coll. ofj. Humble, Esq. (Sin. 348.) 60. The Virgin with roses, and the Child Jesus and St. John holding roses. Madrid Gall., No. 1218 (1845). 61. The Child Jesus embracing St. John who kneels before Him. A. Coll, of Edio. Gray , Esq. (Sm. 247). B. Coll, of Mr. Morrison (Sm. 247 ; Waag. IV. 109). Eng. by A. dc Jode 1666. Mezzo, by T. Burke; by P. Schenk. 62. The Holy Family. The Child stretching out His hands to St. John. Balbi Palace, Genoa. 63. The Virgin with Child Jesus standing upright, with St. John presenting to Him a scroll inscribed Ecce, etc. A. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 826 (Sm. 68). B. Stafford Coll. (1815). C. Coll, of Prince Henry of Prussia (1773). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dflsseldorf Gall. 61); by Burdct; by W. Finden 1815; by G. F. Schmidt. Etch, by J. B. Michiels. Mezzo, by Val. Green (Sm. 263). Lith. by F. Piloty (Munich Gall.). 64. The Virgin, Child Jesus, St. Joseph, St. John, and St. Anne. Turin Gall., No. 384. Eng. by G. Batti, from drg. by L.-Betti (Winckl.); by J. Cornacchia and P. Toschi, from drg. by Lor. Cereza (Turin Gall. 1. 37). 65. The Virgin, Child Jesus, and St. John. A. Coll. off. Park,-Esq., 1812 (Sm. 349). B. Coll, of Mr. Barry (Waag. IV. 408), 66. The Virgin, Child Jesus, St. John, and St. Joseph. Eng. by P. J. Tassaert (Sm. 428). 67. Christ embracing the little St. John. Eng. in colour by Jac. Chr. Le Blon (Weig. 8322 ; No. 12 in Dresden Print Coll.). 68. The Virgin and Child Jesus adored by Mary Magdalen. Coll, of Earl of Yarborough (Waag. IV. 505). 69. The Virgin, the Child Jesus, Mary Magdalen, King David, and John the Baptist. A. Louvre, No. 1961. B. Berlin Gall., No. 787. C. Coll, of Baring Family. Eng. hy Krahlow; by Mague, from drg. by CcEiire (Filhol, XL, pi. 62). Etch, by Masson (in this work). Lith. by A. Arnold. 70. The Virgin and Child Jesus, with two angels in the sky, and a man and woman on their knees, known as the Virgin and Donors. Louvre, No. 1962 (Sm. 149). Eng. by G. Bertinot 1S66 (Eng. Depart., Louvre). 71. The Virgin and Child Jesus, blessing a monk (Abbe Scaglia ?), posed for by the Duchesse d’Aremberg and her son. Eng. by Waumans ; sold in London in 1819 and 1821 (Sm. 362). 72. The Virgin holding the Child Jesus seated on a pedestal. 1 Etch, attributed to Van Dyck (Sm. 432). 73. The Virgin seated at the foot of a pillar, with the Child Jesus standing on her knees. Eng. by P. Pontius; by A. Gauban (Winckl. 1503). 74. The Virgin seated, landscape background, the Child Jesus standing on her knees. Eng. anon, in a round framing, F. Poilly exc. (Winckl. 1 S°4)- 75. The Virgin with the Child Jesus lying in His mother’s lap. Eng. by C. Waumans; anon. ; by Nicolas Pitau. Mezzo, by W. Vaillant. Etch. anon. 76. The Virgin bending in contemplation of her Son sleeping on her knees. Etch. anon. 77. The Virgin with Child Jesus caressing His mother’s neck. Eng. anon. 78. The Virgin and Child Jesus. Eng. by Dansaert (Marmol Cata., No. 1357). 79. The Virgin and Child Jesus worshipped by an angel bearing a palm. Eng. in line, anon. (Grosvenor House Coll.). 80. The Virgin, Child Jesus, St. Joseph, and an angel plaiting a crown of flowers; full-length figures. Eng. by Bolswert. 81. The Virgin and Child Jesus. Oval mezzo, by B. Lens. THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST 82. Baptism of Christ; four figures and a boat. Eng. by J. Lubin, Audran exc. 83. Caesar’s tribute; half-length figures. A. Brignole Sala Palace, Genoa (Sm. 172). B. Coll, of Duke of Grafton (Sm. 407). 1 This item and those which follow are known only in en¬ graving, and cannot be identified with any of the paintings mentioned above. Sir Anthony Vian Dyck 269 84. The miraculous draught of fishes; study on paper. National Gall., No. 680 (after Rubens). Eng. by Bolswert. 85*. Jesus and the man sick of the palsy; figures three-quarter length. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 867 (Sm. 64). Eng. by P. de Jode; by C. de Mfichel (Diisseldorf Gall.). Lith. by F. Piloty, 1839. 86. Jesus healing the sick. Buckingham Palace (Sm. 235). 87. Jesus feeding the multitude in the desert. CEsterreich, Description of the Palaces of Sans-Souci, No. 127, p. 47. 88. Jesus giving the keys to St. Peter. Coll, of Earl Derby, 1728. Eng. by H. Winstanley. 89. Jesus washing His disciples’ feet. Giustiniani Palace, Rome. Eng. in facsim. of wash drg. by Saint-Non 1771. 90. The Last Supper; small sketch. Hermitage Gall., No. 604. 91. The Magdalen at the feet of Jesus. Turin Gall., No. 409. THE PASSION 92. The seizing of Christ in the Garden of Olives. A. Madrid Gall, No. 1607 (Sm. 10, 203). B. Coll, of Lord Methuen (Sm. 16; Waag. IV. 395). C. Coll of M. Erard, in 1830 (Sm. 17). Eng. by A. Lommelin; by G. Donck. Lith. by Mile. Asselineau 1S56; by Cayetano Palmarchi; by Gel. Nanteuil 1861. 93. Same subject, different composition (Sm. 18). Etch, by P. Soutman, after a drg. > ' j 'v«« 94. Christ crowned with Thorns. A. Berlin Gall., No. 770 (Sm. 123). B. Madrid Gall., No. 496. Drg. in the Fodor Gall, Amsterdam. Eng. by Bolswert; by J. Falck ; by Campion; anon., pub. by Michel Van Lochem, 1657; anon., pub. by C.allays, Paris. Eng. on small scale by C. Drevet. Lith. by Regnier, 1840. 95. Ecce Homo. A. Coll, of the Earl of Hopetoun (Sm. 331; Waag. III. 310). B. Potsdam Gall. (Sm. 128). Original etch, by Van Dyck (Sm. 13). Same subject eng. by Lucas Vorsterman the Younger (Winekl. 1518); by Bloteling; by P. Daret, Mariette exc.; anon. Romboud Van de Velde exc. (Winekl. 1517); by Jules Francois, 1841. Mezzo, by Girard. Wood eng. by H. Linton, from drg. by T. Beeck, 1848. 96. Ecce Homo; three executioners in violent attitudes, lighted by a lantern. Eng. anon., signed Van Dyck inv. pinx. 97*. Jesus before Pilate. Corsini Palace, Rome. 98. Christ Bound, and an executioner. 1 Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. 31 (Sm. 91). 99. Christ Scourged. Eng. anon., A. D. Caspar Huberti exc. Antuerpia: (Winekl. 1516). 100. Christ with the Reed. 2 Eng. after Bolswert by F. Langot, a print of the extra¬ ordinary dimensions of 7 ft. 1 in. by 5 ft, which is con¬ sidered to be unique (Sm. 123). 101. Jesus bearing the Cross. A. Church of St. Paul, Antwerp (Sm. 408). B. Brigno/e Sala Palace, Genoa (Sm. 174). Eng. by Corn. Galle; by F. Langot; by Alex. Vouet. on large scale ; anon.; anon, (half-length); by C. Normand (Landon, XII. 75). Etch, by C. (Caylus). 102. Raising of the Cross. Church of Notre-Dame, Courtrai (Sm. 33). Study: in Coll of M. de Reuck, Wareghem, near Courtrai. Etch, by A. Boulard, jun., in the present volume. Lith. in Splendeun de l'Art en Belgir/ue. Sketch of this picture eng. by Bolswert; by J. Audran. 103. Christ on the Cross between the two thieves. Church of St. Rombaud, Mechlin (Sm. 1). Eng. by Bolswert; by Van den Wyngaerde ; by J. J. Van der Berghe ; by C. Normand (Landon, XII. 127). 104. Christ on the Cross between the two thieves, with the Virgin and St. John. Church of St. Michael, Ghent (Sm. 31). Bistre sketch: Berlin Museum, Suermondt Gall , No. 7god. Another sketch of the same picture : Coll, of Earl Brownlow (Sm. 31; Waag. II. 315)- Eng. by Bolswert; anon, (reverse ot Bolswert's) ; by C. Duflos (Winekl. 1535); by P. Spruyt; by Corn. Galle ; by Dord (Landon, XVII. 61) ; in stipple by Duthe and by Thouvenin. Mezzo, by Hodges. 105. Christ on the Cross, with the Virgin, St John, the Magdalen,- a monk, etc. Church of Notre-Dame, Termonde (Sm. 43). Grisaille sketch: Lichtenstein Gall, Vienna, No. 117 (Sm. 112). Eng. by P. de Baillu ; by Normand (Landon, XV. 127). Lith. by Llanta. 1 This, according to Smith, is the subject etched by Van Dyck, and engraved by Daret, Vorsterman the Younger, and Bloteling. See No. 95, above. » Smith states that the proof possessed by Mr. Colnaghi was unique. 270 Catalogue of the Works of 106 . Christ on the Cross with St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Dominick. Antwerp Gall, No. 401 (Sm. 19). Eng. by Bolswert (Weig. L 478); by C. Normand (Landon, XIV. 131). 107 . Christ on the Cross, with the Virgin and Mary Magdalen. Lille Gall., No. 147 (Sm. 39). 108 . Christ on the Cross; the executioners departing. Pinakolhek, Munich, No. 825 (Sm. 67). 109 . Christ on the Cross, with St. Anthony; small size. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 117 (Sm. 112). 110 . Christ on the Cross. 1 Belvedere Gall, Room III., No. 22 (Sm. 90). 111 . Christ on the Cross. Antwerp Gall., No. 406 (Sm. 23). A copy or repetition of this canvas in the Church of St. James, A ntwerp. Eng. by Lourie (Sm. 410); by Burdet, 1864; by Vermeiren, about 1875 ; by Erin Corr, about 1875. Mezzo, by Emile Pfeiffer ; by L. Lelli. 112 . Christ on the Cross; a monk embracing His feet. Amsterdam Gall, No. 84. 113 . Christ on the Cross, study; little angels shed tears at the foot of the cross. Hermitage Gall, No. 605. 114 . Christ on the Cross; serpent at the foot of the cross. A. Borghese Gall, Rome. B. Monte Cavallo Palace. C. Villa Albani, Rome (doubtful). 115 . Christ on the Cross. Ferdinand Spinola Palace, Genoa. 116 . Christ on the Cross. Royal Palace, Genoa. 117 Christ on the Cross. Chapel of the Convent at Sens. 118 . Christ on the Cross. Coll, of M. Chaix d'Est-Ange, Paris. Etch, by Courtry in the present volume. 1 Smith states, wrongly, that this picture is the study for that at Termonde. 119 . Christ on the Cross, with angels who receive His blood. A. Pelworth. B. Toulouse Gall., No. 84 (Sm. 409). Eng. by Hollar, 1652. Mezzo, by J. Beckett; by J. Smith. 120 . Christ on the Cross, surrounded by a border formed of griffins and ornaments in black and white. Coll, of J. Newington Hughes, Esq. (Sm. 411). 121 . Christ on the Cross ; sketch. A. Brian Coll. (1708). B. Hamilton Coll., 1801 (Sm. 33). C. Coll, of Lord Yarborough (Waag. IV. 70). 122 . Christ on the Cross. Coll, of Mr. Tomkisson (Sm. 410). Eng. by P. de Baillu, 1643 ; by F. Langot. 123 . Christ on the Cross, with the Magdalen. Cologne Gall., No. 224. 124 . Christ on the Cross. Eng. by P. Clovvet; by M. Borrekens, from drg. by Er. Quellin, at Antwerp (in nine large plates) ; by Edwards ; by J. Graf. Mezzo, by Arn, de Jode, Londiui. 125 . Christ on the Cross. Coll of Lord Arundel of Wardour. Mezzo, by B. Lens. 126 . Christ Dying. Eng. by J. C. Lodel in facsim. from the drg. in the Coll of R. Weigel (Cata. Weig. IV. 20747). 127 . Christ taken down from the Cross, with Mary Magdalen, the Virgin, and St. John. A. Antwerp Gall., No. 403 (Sm. 22). B. Coll, of Lord Lyttelton (Sm. 22). C. Madrid Gall, No. 1546. Same subject in grisaille: Randon de Boisset Coll. 1776 1 (sold for 147 francs). Eng. by Pontius ; anon, (in reverse), pub. Marietta; by H. Snyers; by F. Van den Wyngacrde; by F. Ragot (Winckl. 1542); by P. ver Plancken, Meyssens exc. (Winckl. 1543); anon, on large scale (with St. John omitted), H. Bonnart exc. Etch. anon. Aquatint by A. Van Rymsdyck, at the age of fourteen. Lith. by Mile. Asselineau, 1836. Lith. pub. by Bes and F. Dubreuil; lith. by Cayet. Parmaroli, from drg. by Madrazo. Mezzo, of Virgin’s head only, by A. Bloteling. 1 This sketch was sold with the Beurnonville collection (No. 267 in the catalogue, May, 1881). Sir Antho?iy Van Dyck 271 128 . Christ on the knees of the Virgin, mourned by angels. Antwerp Gall, No. 404 (Sm. 4). Eng. by Bolswert; anon.; by F. Langot; by C. Normand (Landon, VI. 65); by S. Richard and Jos. Franck; by C. Campion, on two sheets (Winckl. 1550); by Werzwyvel. Etch, by Ferd. LeenhofF, 1880 ; and by A. Boulard, jun., in the present volume. Mezzo, anon., E. Cooper exc. (Marmol Cata., 1337 bis). Etch, of Virgin’s head only, by Danse. 129 . Christ resting on the knees of the Virgin, with Mary Magdalen and St. John. A. Antwerp Cathedral. B. Church of St. Anthony, Antwerp. 130 . Christ mourned by Angels, with the cross behind the Virgin. Louvre, No. 1963 (Sm. 46). Eng. by L. Vorsterman ; by Normand (Landon, V. 13); by Schiavonetti, from drg. by Marchais (Musee fran^ais, and series); by Viennot; in line, anon,, pub. by Bourli; by Touze, from drg. by CceurcS (Filhol, XI., pi. 50). Mezzo, by J. Smith. Lith. by Lafosse, 1837; by C. Vogt. 131 . Christ on the knees of the Virgin, mourned by angels. Same composition as the preceding number, but larger in size. Munich Gall., No. S30 (Sm. 46). Monochrome study of this picture, in same gall., No. 831. Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dusseldorf Gall., No. 70). 132 . The Dead Christ supported by the Virgin, with St. John and one of the holy women. Munich Gall., No. 828. Sketched copy of this picture : same gall., No. 829. Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dusseldorf Gall. 43); by C. Van Caukercken. Lith. by C. Piloty. 133 . The Dead Christ on the knees of the Virgin, worshipped by Mary Magdalen, St. John, and an angel. A. Berlin Gall., No. 778. B. Church of St. Giles, Nuremberg (with several angels added above by another hand). Etch, by Fraenkel (see reproduction in present volume); by J. T. Prestel. Mezzo, by De Prenner (Winckl. 293). Lith. by C. Fischer (Berlin Gall.), pub. Simion. 134 . The Dead Christ supported by the Virgin and St. John ; monochrome study. Berlin Gall., Sucrmondt Coll., No. 790. 135 . The Dead Christ on the knees of the Virgin, with Mary Magdalen, St John, and angel. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No. 6 (Sm. 88). Eng. by De Prenner (Vienna Gall.). 136 . The Entombment of Christ, with Mary Magdalen kissing His hand ; grisaille study. Hermitage Gall., No. 606 (Sm. 22). 137 . Same subject. Stockholm Gall., No. 405. 138 *. Christ mourned by Angels. Douai Gall, No. 130. 139 . Descent from the Cross. Gall, of Elector of Saxony (Sm. 413). Etch, by L. Zucchi. 140 . The Entombment, with the Virgin, the Magdalen, St. John, and two angels. Borghese Gall., Rome. 141 . The Dead Christ surrounded by the holy women ; the Virgin closing His eyes. Lichtenstein Gall, Vienna, No. 126. 142 . The Dead Christ on the knees of Virgin. Coll, of Duke of Newcastle (Manchester Exhibition of 1857, No. 648). 143 . The Dead Christ on the knees of the Virgin. Coll, of Mr. William T. Blodgett. Eng. by C. Waltner in LArt. 144 . Descent from the Cross ; bistre sketch. Coll of C. Maude, Esq. (Sm. 357). 145 . Descent from the Cross. Colt, of Thomas Hollis. Etch, by G. B. Cipriani, London, 1767. 146 *. Descent from the Cross. Bordeaux Gall, No. 456. 147 . Christ taken down from the Cross, with angels and cherubim. Mezzo, by J. Smith (Weig. I. 6365). 148 . The Burial of Christ; Mary Magdalen holds the legs of the Dead. Eng. by L. (Lempereur), from a drg. by.the Comte de Vence. 149 . Mater Dolorosa, seated, contemplating a head of St. Veronica, held by two angels. Potsdam Gall. (Sm. 127). Eng. anon., C. Galle, exc. 150 . Mater Dolorosa, standing, a sword through her breast (Sm. 420). Eng. by C. Galle the Younger. 151 . The Resurrection of Christ. Quirinal Palace, Rome. Catalogue of the IVorks of 2 * 7.2 152 . Christ showing His wounds to St. Thomas and three others. Eng. by C. de Mechel (DOsseldorf Gall. 24). Same subject, with the figures in three-quarter length : Coll, of Sir Thomas Sebright (Waag. IV. 327). 153 . Christ showing His wounds to St. Thomas. Hermitage Gall., No. 607 (Sm. 204). Eng. by Labensky ( Description of Hermitage, I. 115, No. 41). 154 . Christ with left hand on the globe, blessing with the right. Eng. by Bolswert. 155 . Assumption of the Virgin. A. Formerly in Coll, of Duke of Marlborough (Sm. 264). Eng. by Lucas Vorsterman. B. Replica or study of same subject : Coll, of Sir C. Bagot (Sm. 433). C. Coll, of H. T. Hope, Esq. (Waag. II. 114). 156 . Pentecost, or Descent of the Holy Spirit. Berlin Gall., No. 794 (Sm. 126). Eng. by Corn. Van Caukercken ; anon. ; again anon. (Marmol Cata. 1345). See ante, the heliog. of the drg. in the Albertina, Vienna. 157 . Coronation of the Virgin. Lille Gall., No. 151 (Sm. 40). 158 . Virgin surrounded by a glory of angels. Colt, of Mr. Barry (Sm. 342; Waag. IV. 411). Eng. by L. Vorsterman the Younger (Marmol Cata. 1395 )- 159 . Souls in Purgatory ; a man between two women in the midst of flames. Coll, of Academy, Vienna. SAINTS 160 . St. Agatha ; an executioner cuts her breasts with shears (Sm. 391). Eng. by C. Galle ; and anon. 161 . St. Ambrose refusing the Emperor Theodosius ad¬ mission to the Church. National Gall., London, No. 50 (Sm. 252). Eng. by Freeman (Jones's National Gall.); by J. H. Robinson, 1836(National Gall, portfolio); by R. W. Siewer. 162 . St. Andrew the Apostle. Eng. anon. (Marmol Cata. 1400). 163 . St. Anthony of Padua holding the Child Jesus. Brussels Gall., No. 264 (Sm. 36, 205). Eng. by Krafft; by Fr. de Roi. 164 . St. Anthony of Padua, adoring the Virgin and Child Jesus. Brera Gall., Milan (Sm. 44). Eng. by E. Rousselet (Cabinet du Roi); by C. Normand (Landon, III. 85); by Bisi, from drg. by Prayer; anon., pub. P. Verhoeven. 165 . St. Anthony of Padua working a Miracle. A. Lille Gall. (Sm. 30). B. Repetition or copy of same picture : Toulouse Gall., No. 83. C. Another copy of same subject: Church of St. Saviour, Bruges. 166 . St. Anthony ministering to an old man. Formerly in possession of the Franciscans of Lille. 167 . St. Augustine in ecstasy. Church of St. Augustine, Antwerp. Black-and-white study : Coll, of P. Methuen, Esq. Eng. by P. de Jode; anon. (M. Van Enden exc.); by C. Normand (Landon, III. 107); another eng. in half-length attributed to G. Edelinck (Marmol Cata. 1403). See the heliog. pub. in present volume, after the drg. in the coll, of the Due d’Aumale. 168 . St. Barbara, holding a tower, dressed in the style of the 17th Century. Eng. by P. de Baillu. 169 . St. Barbara, martyr; study. Coll, of Mine. Wuyts, Antwerp. Eng. anon. Etch. anon, (attributed to Van Dyck by Carpenter). 170 . St. Bonaventura receiving the sacrament from an angel (Sm. 29). Eng. anon., pub. F. Van den Wyngaerde. 171 . St. Catherine 1 (martyrdom of). Coll, of Sir Charles Bagot. Eng. by Ragot. 172 . St. Cecilia playing the organ, in Louis XIII. costume. Eng. by P. de Baillu. 173 . St. Cecilia carrying a small organ under her arm. Eng. by P. de Baillu. 174 . St. Cecilia playing the double-bass, with two angels (Sm. 415). Eng. by E. Davis, 1673. 175 . St. Dominick kneeling, adoring the Virgin. Eng. by C. Duflos (Winckl. 1561). 176 . St. Dorothea, half-length, with a palm and roses in the right hand (Sm. 3S5). Eng. by C. Gallo. See ante, Holy Families with St. Catherine. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 273 177 . St. Francis receiving the insignia of the order of the Virgin ; copy. Sold in London in 1819 (Sm. 361). 178 *. St. Francis in ecstasy before the crucifix. Brussels Gall., No. 265 (Sm. 35, 206). Eng. by Krafft, 1738, from drg. by Horst; by F. de Roi. 179 . St. Francis of Assisi in ecstasy in a grotto. Madrid Gall., No. 1721. Another composition similar : same gall., No. 1663. 180 . St. Francis listening to the celestial music; three- quarter length. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No. 30 (Sm. 109). Eng. by L. Vorsterman the Younger, 1674 ; by Dagoti. 181 . St. Francis of Assisi, half-length, profile, embracing the feet of Christ nailed to the cross. Etch. anon. 182 . St. Francis, three-quarter length, holding a death’s- head. Academy of Fine Arts, Turin, No. 190. 183 . St. Francis expiring. Formerly in possession of Jesuits of Mechlin (Sm. 32). 184 *. St. George mounted on a white horse. Church of St. James, Antwerp. 185 . St. George put to death by the Pagans. Formerly at Christ Church, Oxford (Sm. 392). Eng. by Pacts, 1658. 186 . Miraculous appearance of the Virgin to St. Hermannus. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No 8 (Sm. 21, 24, IO7). Eng. by P. Pontius ; by J. Blaschke, from drg. by S. V. Perger (Belvedere Gall.) ; and anon, on small scale. 187 . St. James, profile, half-length. Coll, of Sir A. Hume, Bart. (Sm. 382). 188 *. Martyrdom of St. James the Greater, kneeling, with hands bound, near another victim who has just been executed. Valenciennes Gall., No. 124. 189 . St. John the Evangelist and St. John the Baptist between pillars. Berlin Gall., No. 799 (Sm. 124). 190 . St. John the Baptist holding a cross. Palace of Kings of Hanover, No. 15. Mezzo, in round border by P. Francois (Marmol Cata., p. 107)- 191 . St. John, head and shoulders. Hagedorn Coll., Dresden (Winckl. 15 54 )- Etch. by B. Folin, 1765. 192 . St. John the Baptist with a lamb; full-length. Coll, of John Marlin (Sm. 414). Eng. by W. Walker, 1767. 193 . Head of St. John; study for a descent from the cross. Brunswick Gall., N.o. 110. 194 . St. Jerome in a landscape, almost nude, full-length. Dresden Gall., No. 982 (Sm. 7, 8, 195, 3S4). Eng. by C. Galle, front face (Sm. 384); by Beauvais, after drg. by C. Hutin (Dresden Gall. II. 49). Mezzo, by L. Franchoys in round border, in profile, half-length. 195 . St. Jerome, known as the angel with pen. A. Coll, of Henry Spencer Lucy, Esq. (Sm. 43 5 )• B. Coll, of Matthew Anderson, Esq. (Sm. 8; Waag. IV. 480). C. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, No. 108. D. Stockholm Gall., No. 404. Sketch of same subject: Academy of St. Luke, Rome. 196 . St. Lawrence holding a book, the gridiron and a palm ; bistre sketch. Berlin Gall., Suermondt coll., No. 790 b. 197 . Martyrdom of St. Lawrence. Eng. anon. N. D, (Duflos ?). 198 . Head of the Magdalen. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No. 34 (Sm. 108). Eng. by Vorsterman (head and shoulders, profile); by Marinas (front face, three-quarter length); by A. de Jode, oval, profile, holding a death's-head (Sm. 3S8); by A. Van der Does (half-length, the hands clasped, almost full face). Mezzo, by A. Bloteling, 1676 (head and shoulders, oval). I 199 . Magdalen Penitent. A. Amsterdam Gall., No. 83 (Sm. 422). B. Coll. ofj. C. Coesvelt, Esq. C. Bordeaux Gall., No. 461. D. Coll, of J. Dingwall, Esq. (Manchester Exhibition, No. 595). Bistre sketch of same subject: Six Coll, Amster¬ dam. 200 . Magdalen, half-length, crowned by an angel. Madrid Gall., No. 442 (Sm. 197). 201 . Magdalen crouching at the foot of the cross. Eng. anon. 35 Catalogue of the JVorks of 202 . Magdalen, full-length, in a rich costume of the 17th century. Eng. by P. de Baillu. 203 . St. Martin giving half his cloak to a beggar. Saventhem Church, Belgium (Sm. 34). Sketch for same picture : Holford Coll. (Sm. 12 ; Waag. II. 200). Eng. by G. Edelinck, in octagonal form ; by Krafft; by Le Rouge and Dambrun, from drg. by S6b. Le Roy (Filhol, III. 212); by Eleonore Lingee (Landon, VII. 17); by Jos. Franck, 1872. Etch, by M. A. Boulard, jun., in present volume. 204 . St. Matthew, half-length, holding the axe. F.ng. by C. Caukercken. 205 . St. Paul, head and shoulders (Sm. 386, 387). Mezzo, by A. Bloteling. 206 . St. Paul, half-length, holding a book. Colt, of Viscount Tyrconnel. Mezzo, by J. Faber. 207 . Martyrdom of St. Peter. Brussels Gall. (Sm. 38). 208 *. St. Placidia and St. Maur received by St. Benedict at Subiaco. Douai Gall, (formerly at the Abbey of Anchin). 209 . St. Roch beseeching Christ for the plague- stricken. Coll, of W. Russell, Esq. (Waag. IV. 185). 210 . Coronation of St. Rosalie by the Child Jesus, between St. Peter and St. Paul. Belvedere Gall., Vienna (Sm. 2, 66). Eng. by P. Pontius ; by J. Axmann, from drg. by S. Von Perger (Belvedere Gall.). 211 . St. Rosalie borne to Heaven by angels. Munich Gall. (Sm. 63). Eng. by L. Vorsterman the Younger ; by C. de Mechel (DQsseldorf Gall. 84). 212 . The Trinity appearing to St. Rosalie. Munich Gall. (Sm. 62). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dilsseldorf Gall. 85). 213 . St. Rosalie. Appeared in the Coll, of the Due de Persigny (Retrospective Exhibition, 1866). 214 . St. Rosalie : her life. Ten small subjects eng. and pub. by C. Galle. 215 . St. Sebastian bound to a Tree by Soldiers. A. Munich Gall., No. 823 (Sm. 45). B. National Gall, of Scotland, Edinburgh, No. 337 (Waag. III. 268). C. Lacase Coll., Louvre. Study of same subject: Christ Church, Oxford. Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dilsseldorf Gall. 68); by J. H. Lips. Etch, by W. Peare, 1656. Lith. by S. Braun. 216 . St. Sebastian, whom a Moor is about to pierce with arrows. Munich Gall., No. 824. 217 . St. Sebastian Wounded, succoured by two angels. A. Louvre, No. 1964 (Sm. 148). B. Hermitage , No. 608 (Sm. 337). C. National Gall, of Ireland (Sm. 354). D. Coll, of Wilbraham Egerton, Esq. (Sm. 354). E. Coll, of Earl Brownloiv (bistre monochrome) (Sm. 338 ; Waag. II. 315). Eng. by L. Vorsterman the Younger ; by Voet. 218 . St. Sebastian, with an angel drawing an arrow from his body. Turin Gall., No. 402 (1866). Sketch of same subject: Bcurnonville Coll. 219 . St. Sebastian ; study of head, full-face. Coll, of Sir Charles Bagot (Sm. 434). 220 . St. Simon, profile, head and shoulders, with a saw (Sm. 383). Eng. anon., pub. C. Walk. 221 . A Saint suffering death by decapitation. Holford Coll. (Waag. II. 200). 222 . Beheading of Two Martyrs. Valenciennes Gall. Study: Coll, of M. Barely, Amiens. 223 . A Martyr (St. Barbara ?) about to be beheaded by an executioner. Etch, by Van Dyck (Sm. 390); also by Meyer (Winckl. 1571). Eng. anon. 224 . Martyrdom of a Saint, with horsemen, standards, and numerous accessories. Etch, by W. Paets, 1658. 225 . Martyr about to be Bound; on the ground, a broken idol. Eng. by P. Clovvet. 226 . Three Saints in ecstasy, adoring the Saviour, who appears to them in a glory of angels; sketch in chiaroscuro. Coll, of Baring Family (Waag. II. 182). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 275 227 . Monk, half-length, holding a crucifix in his hand. Madrid Gall., No. 1559. 228 . Christ and the Apostles, fourteen heads (.with St. Paul). Schlessheim Casl/e (Sm. 393). Eng. by Corn. Van Caukercken, pub. C. Galle. 229 . Apostles (eight heads of). Etch, by Theod. Van Kessel (Sm. 381). 230 . Head of an Apostle, turned to the left, red drapery ; half-length. Lichtenstein Coll., Vienna, No. 228. 231 . Two Apostles’ heads, one in profile, the other contemplating the sky ; small size. Lichtenstein Coll., Vienna, Nos. 130, 131. 232 . Head of Saint (female). Mezzo, by A. Bloteling, 1676, oval border. 233 . Saint Dying ; study. Hampton Court Coll., No. 399. 234 . Monk Reading, in a landscape. Mezzo, by F. Place (Weig. I. 6300). 235 . Monk’s head. Coll, of Duke of Hamilton (Waag. IV. 308). MYTHOLOGICAL SUBJECTS 236 . Cupid, full-length, holding his bow. Eng. by Poletnich; by Faithorne (Sm. 396). 237 *. Cupid, on clouds. lingers Gall., No. 249. 238 . Cupid, seated on a cushion, with a crown (child’s portrait ?). Eng. anon. (Sm. 397). 239 . Cupid Sleeping, in a landscape. Naples Gall. Eng. by Strange. 240 . Cupid holding a Quiver. Mezzo, anon. 241 . Cupid, half-length, holding two arrows. Mezzo, by W. Vaillant. Etch. anon. (Mensaert). 242 . Cupid, half-length, drapery over breast; arrows in left hand. Eng. by Le Villain (Galcrie Le Brun, Book VII., pi. 6). 243 . Four Cupids playing together. Van Loo Coll., in 1713 (Sm. 278). 244 . Four Cupids blowing soap-bubbles. Eng. anon. (Sm. 394). 245 . Cupids or children playing. Etch. anon. (Marmol Cata., No. 1434). 246 . Cupid playing with a child. Eng. by J. Daulle, 1750 (Sm. 395). 247 . Cupid crowned with roses, and a child crowned with ears of corn (Summer and Autumn). Eng. by H. Barry (Marmol Cata., No. 1440; Sm. 39S). 248 . Cupid and Psyche, in a landscape. Hampton Court Coll. (Sm. 246). Mezzo, by B. Lens. 249 . School of Love (probably inspired by Rubens’ Garden of Love). Van Loo Coll. 1713 (Sm. 277). 250 . Cupids and Tritons. Beumonville Coll. (No. 273 in Cata.). 251 . Child Bacchus mounted on a panther and sur¬ rounded by other children. Gentili Palace, Genoa (Sm. 399, 401). Eng. by G. Brunn, 1628. Mezzo, by B. Lens. 252 . Child Bacchus pressing the juice of a grape into the mouth of a tiger. Coll, of Mr. Wynn (Waag. III. 336). 253 . Bacchus at table with fauns and nymphs (Sm. 400). Etch, anon., attributed to Van Dyck. 254 . Calisto hidden in the reeds. Coll, of Earl Besborough (Sm. 402, 405). Mezzo, by R. Earlom. 255 . Danag receiving the golden shower. Dresden Gall., No. 981. Mezzo, by Arndt in Dessau, 1798. Eng. by F. Hanfs- taengl. Lith. by G. Weinhold. Reproduced in heliog. in present volume. 256 . Daedalus and Icarus; three-quarter length. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 365, 437; Waag III. 458). Mezzo, by J, Watts, 1778. 257 . Diana and Endymion Sleeping, surprised by a satyr. Madrid Gall., No. 1685. Etch. anon. (Sm. 438). 258 . Hero and Leander. Cassel Gall, No. 296. 276 Catalogue of the Works of 259 . Jupiter and Antiope; the god in the form of a satyr approaches the sleeping nymph. A. Munich Gall. (Sm. 6, 73). B. Coll of Earl of Coventry. Eng. by P. Soutman; by Van der Steen; by Val. Green ; by C. de Mechel (Dusseldorf Gall. 22). Etch, by Van Kessel (Winckl. 1582-3); by anon, on small scale. Lith. by J. A. Mayr (de Cotta, Munich Gall.). 260 . Mars bidding farewell to Venus 1 (Sm. 344). Eng. by C. Waumans; by Coelemans (Winckl. Cata. 15S4; Marmot Cata. 1462). 261 . Minerva at the Forge of Vulcan. Belvedere, Vienna (Sm. 89). Eng. by J. Axmann, from drg. by S. Von Perger (Belve¬ dere Gall.). 262 . Paris; portrait of Van Dyck as the shepherd Paris. Coll, of Sir Richard Wallace (Sm. 359). 263 . Perseus and Andromeda. Coll, of the Earl of Dunmore (Waag. IV. 457). 264 . Reynaldo and Armida. Louvre, No. 1966 (Sm. 279). Eng. by P. de Jode, 1644; by C. Waumans ; by Ragot. 265 . Reynaldo and Armida. A. Coll, of Earl Fitz William (Sm. 125; Waag. 111 . 338 ). B. Coll, of Duke of Neiocastle (Waag. IV. 5x1). C. Bordeaux Gall., No. 460. D. Formerly in Coll, of Lady Eastlake, sold at Christie's, June, 1S94. Eng. by P. de Baillu. 266 . Silenus Drunk, lying upon an overturned cask and the back of a tiger; a Faun and Bacchante in the background (Sm. 403). Etch, by the Comte de Caylus (Eng. Dept. Louvre). 267 . Silenus Drunk, led by Bacchantes. Dresden Gall., No. 980 (Sm. 193, 194). Eng. by Bolsvvert; by F. Van der Steen. Etch, by Vendramini. 268 . Silenus Drunk. A. Brussels Gall., No. 263 (Sm. 306). B. Pallavicini Palace, Genoa (Sm. 178). 1 Smith, under No. 142 of his catalogue, mentions another painting on canvas representing Mars and Venus. He gives the dimensions (4 ft. 2 in. by 3 ft. 2 in,), and states that it was engraved in the Musee fran fats. 269 . Syrinx watched by the god Pan. Eng. anon. Winckl., No. 1585. 270 . Time clipping the Wings of Love. A. Formerly at Blenheim, now in possession of Sir fohn Millais, R.A. (Sm. 562 ; Waag. III. 122). B. Stockholm Gall., No. 414. Mezzo, by J. MacArdell; by Schenk, Amsterdam; by Val. Green (Marmol Cata. 143S-9). 271 . Venus and Adonis. Brunswick Gall., No. 474. 272 *. Venus weeping for the Death of Adonis. A. Stockholm Gall., No. 406. B. Pallavicini Palace, Genoa (Sm. 291). 273 . Venus seeking Arms for Aeneas from Vulcan. A. Louvre, No. 1965 (Sm. 140). B. Potsdam Coll. (Sm. 129). Eng. by C. Normand (Landon, XI. 135). Etch, by Chataignier and Langlois, jun., from drg. by Seb. Le Roy. SUBJECTS OF ANCIENT HISTORY 274 . Achilles discovered among the Daughters of Ly- comedes. A. Coll, of Earl of Listowel (Sm. 276; Waag. II. 312 ). B. Toulouse Gall., No. 85. Eng. by F. Van den Wyngaerde. Mezzo, by J. Thomas, 1659. 275 . Achilles carried off by the Soldiers of Ulysses. Eng. anon. 276 . Belisarius receiving Alms. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 265). Eng. by G. Scotin, from drg. by Gonpy; by L. S. Bosse ; by Baron. 277 . Mead of Roman Emperor (Vitellius), painted by order of Charles I. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 250). 278 . Alneas and Dido seeking refuge in a grotto. Study, sold in London in 1829 (Sm. 436). 279 . Ozane, or the unjust and cruel judge. Description of the Palaces of Sans-Souci, by CEsterreich, 1773, No. 106. 280 . Romulus and Remus suckled by the wolf. Coll, of H. Elevin, Esq. (Sm. 406). Eng. by J. Hill. 281 . The Continence of Scipio. Coll, of Duke of Argyle, in 1766 (Sm. 404). Eng. by J. S. Miller, from drg. by R. Earlom, 1766 (Boydell Coll.). Sir A?ithony Van Dyck 282 . Seneca, head and shoulders, the torso nude. Eng. by T. Van Kessel, pub. Meyssens. Etch, anon. (This etch, has been attributed to Van Dyck and to Rubens). Theodosius. See St. Ambrose. 283 . Volumnia at the Feet of Coriolanus. Pallavicini Palace, Genoa. SUBJECTS OF MODERN HISTORY 284 *. Battle of St. Quentin, won in ISS7 by the Im¬ perial troops. Costello Venelia near Turin (end of 18th century). 285 *. Battle of St. Martin-Eglise, or Arques, Munich Gall., No. 832. 286 . The Council of Brabant at Brussels, with two allegorical figures. 1 Sketch in grisaille of the painting destroyed in the burning of Brussels, sold at Amsterdam (Hines Coll.), April 20th, 1700. Central part of this composition sketched in bistre. Coll, of M. Armand, Paris. 287 *. View of the old palace of Greenwich, with the King, the Queen, etc. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 233). ALLEGORIES, CHILDREN, STUDIES OF HEADS, ANIMALS 288 . The Love of the Sciences, by Snyders and Van Dyck. Coll, of Earl Derby, at Knowsley, I728. Eng. by H. Winstanley. 289 . Guardian angel leading a child (Sm. 3S9). Eng. anon., pub. C. Galle ; another anon., smaller. 290 . Autumn (allegory) ; study for ceiling. Beumonville Coll. (No. 270 in Cata.). 291 . Charity, a woman holding two children in her arms; another is behind her. A. Coll, of the Earl of Lonsdale (Sm. 145 ; Waag. III. 261). B. Coll, of P. Methuen, Esq. C. Coll, of Thomas Hope, Esq. D. Dulwich Gall., No. 124. Eng. by C. Caukercken; by W. Ryland. Lith. by Lafosse. 1 A manuscript of Mols says that the picture in the Town Hall of Brussels, destroyed during the bombardment of 1695, repre¬ sented Philip II. seated on his throne, surrounded by all his Court, confirming the charters and privileges of the states of the country, who are all represented. All the figures were life-size. As we have no other testimony as to this picture, save that of Mols, who had not seen the composition, it is probable that the 18th-century compiler made some mistake, and gave an inaccurate title to the personages in the picture in the Brussels Town Hall. 277 292 . Charity; a woman on a seat holding two children. Palace of Count Orsi, Bologna. Eng. by Lud. Mattiolus (Weig. I. 8200 6). 293 *. Discord kindling War. Bordeaux Gall., No. 462. 294 *. The Genius of Arts and Sciences, pieces of armour, and musical instruments. Stockholm Gall., No. 410. 295 . The Genius of War, accompanied by Cupids playing with armour. Rob it Sale, 1801 (Sm. 3 36). 296 . Royal insignia of Charles I.; crown, sceptre, and globe. Palace of the Kings of Hanover (Sm. 267). 297 . Children blowing bubbles. Hermitage, No. 636. 298 . Frieze of children, in form of a tail-piece. Drg. in British Museum. Eng. signed L. and V. in monogram. 299 . Facsimile of two drawings. Eng, by Saint Morys. 300 *. Halt of Flemish Cavaliers to reconnoitre, after Van Dyck. Cassel Gall., No. 308. 301 *. Combat of Cavaliers in a landscape by Corn, de Wael. Brignole Sala Palace, Genoa. 302 *. Falconry, with five cavaliers and four ladies; sketch. Coll, of Mr. P. Norton (Sm. 368). 303 . Falconry, with four ladies and a cavalier. Coll, of M. H. Munro, Esq. (Sm. 367). 304 . Two horsemen ; one galloping, the other trotting. Coll, of Baron L. de Rothschild, London (Waag. 11 . 130 ). 305 . Horsemanship, three horses with different move¬ ments (copy of Rubens). Buckingham Palace (Sm. 236; Waag. II. 4). 306 . Horseman at the gallop ; drawing. Etch, by the Comte de Caylus. 307 . Study for the horses of Achilles. National Gall. (Sm. 3 [ 6). 278 Catalogue of the Works of 308 . Horse pawing the ground. 324 . Head of child. Hermitage, No. 637. Eng. by C. Ploos Van Amstel (Weig. III. 13848). Mezzo, by R. Earlom, 1777, from drg. by Farington (Houghton Coll., I , pi. 42). 325 *. Two studies of heads, one of which is crowned with vine-leaves. 309 . Study of harnessed horses, seen in foreshortening. Stockholm Gall., No. 411. Brunswick Gall., No. 662. 326 *. Two studies of heads. 310 . Horse pawing the ground ; bistre study. Lyons Gall., No. 99. Brunswick Gall., No. 661. 327 *. Head of a man. 311 . Grey horse, nearly half life-size ; study. Brunswick Gall., No. 86. Coll, of Mr. R. P. Nichols (Sm. 266, 317; Waag. IV. 241). 328 . Head of a man, body seen from the back. Etch, by Ehrenreich, 1751. 312 *. Dark red spaniel. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 244). 329 . Head of a man. School of Design, Glasgow (Waag. III. 286). 313 *. Cock-fight in the reign of Charles I. A sort of engraved caricature placed under the name of 330 . Head of a man between two ages. Van Dyck (British Museum). Coll, of Mr. Morrison (Waag. II. 261). 331 . Old man with grey hair and beard (Sm. 598). Benedicite. Stockholm Gall., No. 412. 332 . Head of old man with fur on a red robe. 315 *. The salon of Rubens, with two ladies seated and Hermitage, No. 629. three children. Stockholm Gall., No. 407. 333 . Head of old man, reading over a table. Madrid Gall., No. 1494. 316 , Two children. Coll, of Mr. Wynn Ellis (Waag. II. 295). 334 . Head of old man. Glendon Hall (Waag. III. 462). 317 Young girl carried off by Cupids and pursued by an officer in armour. Coll, of Ed. Knight, Esq. PORTRAITS Facsim. of bistre drg. 335 . Adriaenssen (Alexander) ; half-length. Eng. by Ant. Van. der Does (Al., p. 105). The name 318 . Young girl watering flowers near a fountain. of Van Dyck has taken the place of that of Nys on this Mezzo, anon. (Marmol Cata., No. 1440). portrait. 319 . Young girl asleep, nude, watched by a young 336 . Ailesbury (Sir Thomas) ; three-quarter length. man. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Waag. II. 457). Sallzhalen Gall. (Winckl. 1600). Eng. by L. Sommerau, 1781. 337 . Ailesbury (Lady); three-quarter length. Com¬ panion to 336. 320 *. Child j full-length. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Waag. II. 457). Academy of Fine Arts, Venice, No. 260. 338 . Alva (?) (Duke ol); three-quarter length, dated 321 *. Young man playing the flute. 1630 (resembling the Earl of Arundel). Eng. by P. N. Six (Marmol Cata., No. 1434). Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Waag. III. 213). 322 *. Heads (group of thirty-three), of which many are 339 . Alva (?) (Duke of); equestrian portrait. by Rubens. Coll, of Earl Fits William. Etch, by the Comte de Caylus, after V. D. 340 . Albert (Archduke) in armour, on a grey horse. 323 *. Study of a man's head with a white ruff; fragment. Coll, of Sir Lawrence Dundas, Bart., in 1794 (Sm. Dresden Gall., No. 1001. 312 ). / 279 Sir Anthony Van Dyck 341 . Antwerp (Burgomaster of), full-length, dressed in black. Munich Gall., No. 839. Eng. by C. de Mechel (Ddsseldorf Gall 26). 342 . Antwerp (wife of Burgomaster of); full-length. Companion to 341. Munich Gall., No. 840 (Sm. 60). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dtlsseldorf Gall. 26). Lith bv Piloty. J 343 . Antwerp senator; three-quarter length. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Waag. IV. 514). 344 . Antwerp, Member of Council, full-length, in a violet costume. Cassel Gall., No. 111. 345 . Angusciola (Sophonisba), di Cremona; painted at Genoa in 1622. Eng. by P. de Baillu. 346 . Aremberg (Albert, Comte d’), on horseback; painted about 1640. Coll, of T. W. Coke, Esq. (Sm. 527). Eng. by P. de Baillu. Mezzo, by R. Earlom; by R. BoydelL 347 . Aremberg (Comte d’) ; head and shoulders. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 527). Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); and anon., in oval form, P. de Jode exc. (Al., p. 143). 348 . Aremberg (Due d’), equestrian portrait; study. D'Aremberg Coll. (Sm. 844). 349 . Aremberg (Marie, Comtesse d’); upright, half- length (Sm. 363, 364). Eng. by A. Lommelin ; by P. Pontius, 1645. 350 . Arundel (Thomas Howard, Earl of), seated in an armchair, holding a paper. Coll, of Stafford House (Sm. 322 ; Waag. II. 69). Study for this portrait: Coll, of A. Robarts (Sm. 630). Eng. by P. A. Tardieu (Gal. d’Orlfians, Vol. II.) ; by W. Sharp ; by Tomkins. 351 . Arundel (Thomas Howard, Earl of), upright, in armour. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 624; Waag. II. 455 )- Eng. by L. Vorsterman; by Hollar, oval, in 1636 or 1639; by Hollar, 1646. Etch, anon.,'on small scale. 352 . Arundel (Thomas Howard, Earl of) and his wife, Alithea Talbot, both seated. A. Arundel Castle Coll. (Sm. 627 ; Waag. III. 30). B. Coll, of Duke of Norfolk. Eng. by L. Vorsterman. 353 . Arundel (Alithea Talbot, Countess of) seated, in a fur cloak (Sm. 632). Eng. by Hollar in 1646 (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 354 . Arundel (Elizabeth Stuart, Countess of). Coll, of Duke of Norfolk (Sm. 632). 355 . Arundel (Earl and Countess) with their seven children. Painted by Fruytiers iu 1643, after a drg. by Van Dyck. Eng. by Vertue, 1743. 356 . Arundel (Thomas Howard, Earl of), in armour, with his son, Lord Maltravers. Coll, of Arundel Castle (Sm. 629 ; Waag. III. 31). Eng. by S. Carmona, in 1789; by J. Record. 357 . Arundel (Henry Howard, Earl of), clothed in black; three-quarter length. Coll, of Arundel Castle (Sm. 347 ; Waag. III. 31). 358 . Arundel (Henry Howard, Earl of), in armour; half- length. Coll, of Arundel Castle (Sm. 631 ; Waag. III. 30). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses) ; by Hollar (the head only). 359 . Arundel (Thomas), first Lord Wardour. A. Coll, of Lord Arundel at Wardour. B. Coll, of Duke of Norfolk (Sm. 624). Eng. in Sir R. Colt Hoare’s History of Wiltshire. 360 . Arundel (Lucy Sidney, Countess of), great-aunt of Elizabeth, first Duchess of Gordon ; head only. Coll, of Duke of Richmond (Manchester Exhibition, No. 164). 361 . Astronomer or mathematician, seated, holding a compass. See Sgravesande. Coll, of Stafford House (Sm. 825 ; Waag. II. 69). Mezzo, by W. Vaillant (Marmol Cata. 1504). Aubigny, Catherine Howard, daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, and widow of Count Neuburg, afterwards widow of George Aubigny, Duke of Lennox. See Lennox. 362 . Austria (Prince John of). Eng. by Van Kessel (Marmol Cata. 1583). Austria (Maria of), wife of Ferdinand III. See Ferdinand. 363 *. Balace (Sir John). Coll, of E. G. Bankes, Esq. (Waag. IV. 375), 364 . Balace (Lady), wife of Sir John. Coll, of E. G. Bankes, Esq. (Waag. IV. 375). 365 . Balbi, Marchesa, in a black dress. Holford Coll. (Waag. II. 200). 280 Catalogue of the Works of 366 . Balbi (member of the family), on a bay horse, advancing towards the left. Balbi Palace, Genoa. 367 . Balbi (general belonging to the family), head and shoulders, with commander’s baton. Balbi Palace, Genoa. 368 . Balbi (member of the family), full-length, in black costume. Balbi Palace, Genoa. 369 . Balbi (lady belonging to the family), full-length, seated in an armchair with a fan. Balbi Palace, Genoa. 370 . Banning, Lord ; black costume, white ruff'. Boihwell Castle Coll. (Waag. IV. 463). 371 . Barbe (Jean Baptiste), head and shoulders, the hand on the breast (Sm. 7S7). Eng. by Bolsvvert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 372 . Barberini (Cardinal) ; painted at Rome in 1623. 373 . Barlemont (Maria Margaret of), Countess of Egmont, holding a sash (Sm. 716). Eng. by Jac. Neefs (Web., p. 112; Sz. 124). 374 Bavaria (Wolfgang William, Duke of), half-length, in a cuirass. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 375 . Bavaria (Charles Ludwig, Duke of), and his brother Robert or Rupert, Duke of Cumberland ; half-length. A. Louvre, No. 1969 (Sm. 145). B. Coll, of Lord Craven, C. Coll, of Marquis of Bristol. D. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 568 ; Waag. III. 219). Eng. separately by H. Snyers ; anon.; by Cochran in Lodge's Memoirs ; by P. de Jode ; by W. Faithorne, in oval form; anon. pub. by Stent (Al. Cata., p. 146); by F. Van den Wyngaerde (Brom.). 376 . Bavaria (Charles Ludwig, Duke of), in a black costume; full-length. Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. $ (Sm. 102). 377 . Bavaria (Charles Ludwig, Duke of), in armour, hand on sword (painted in 1641). Coll, of Marchioness of Downshire, at Ombresley (Sm. 569). Eng. by VV. Hollar in 1646 ; by C. Le Blon in 1652 ; by J. Payne; by W. Vaillant; by Hollman, Jenner exc.; by J. Van Somer (Brom.). Etch, by S. Bernard in 1657. 378 . Bavaria (Prince Robert or Rupert of), as a child ; full-length. Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. 4 (Sm. 102). Eng. by J. de Prenner (Vienna Gall.). Etch, by W. Hecht in present volume. 379 . Bavaria (Prince Robert of), three-quarter length, the hand on the head of a negro. Palace of the Kings of Hanover. 380 . Bazan (Don Alvarez), Marquis of Santa-Cruz ; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Bucclcuch (Sm. 671). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon.; Eng. Dept., Louvre); by P. de Jode (on small scale). Etch, by Suz. Silvestre (head only, life-size). 381 . Bedford (Francis, Earl of), and Catherine Bridges, his wife, both seated. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm.. 592, 843). 382 . Bedford (Francis Russell, fourth Earl of); full- length, dressed in black satin (dated 1636). Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Sm. 591 ; Waag. III. 464, and IV. 334). Eng. by Vertue in 1737 (series of twelve portraits); by W. T. Fry, in Lodge's Memoirs. 383 . Bedford (William Russell, first Duke of), with Francis Russell, fourth Earl of Bedford. Coll, of Viscount Galway (Waag. IV. 517). 384 . Bedford (William Russell, Duke of); head and shoulders. Coll, of John Spencer, Esq. (Sm. 515). See Bristol, Earl of. Eng. by Houbraken in 1740 (series of twelve portraits) ; by C. Picart. 385 . Bedford (Anne Carr, Countess of), in a white gown. Companion picture to No. 382. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Sm. 506; Waag. III. 464). Eng. by Lombard (Countess Series); in Lodge's Memoirs by Robinson. Mezzo, anon. 386 . Bedford (Anne Carr, Countess of) ; three-quarter length. A. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Sm. 157,502; Waag. IV. 334 ). B. Coll, of Earl Spencer, at Althorp (Sm. 503 ; Waag. III. 458). C. Formerly in Coll, of Jeremiah Harman, Esq. (Sm. 504, 505 ). 387 . Belasyse (Lord John), Baron of Worlabye; half- length. Coll, of Newborough Hall (Sm. 572). Eng. by R. White in Gnillims Heraldry (Brom.). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 281 388. Bentivoglio (Cardinal Guido), full-length, seated beside a table. Pitti Gall., Florence (Sin, 158). Eng. full-length by Picchianti, from the drg. of Franc. Petrucci; by Meyssens; head and shoulders, J Morin ; by Masquelier, jun., from drg. of Chasselat, sen. (Filhol, IV. 245); by C. Normand (Landon, XIV. 109). Etch, by M. Gaujean in the present volume. Lith. on small scale by A. Deveria (Paris, Rittner and Goupil). See also the heliog. in this volume of the drg. belonging to M. Dutuit. 389. Berg (Henry, Count), half-length, with baton. A. Coll, of Windsor (Sm. 710). B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm.. 710; Waag. 11. 455)- C. Madrid Gall., No. 1392. Eng. by P. Pontius ; in oval, anon., C. N. Visscher exc. (Winckl. I 447 i 8); by A. de Marcenayde Ghuy, 1763; in oval, by Moncornet (Al. Cata., p. 143). 390. Bisthoven (The Rev. Father Jean Baptiste de), of the Society of Jesus. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Web., p. 122; Sz. 164; Sm. 806). 391. Blancatcio (F. Lelio), half-length, in armour. Eng. by Nic. Lauwers (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre; Sm. 673). 392. Blois (Jeanne de), afterwards Lady Rich, full- length, in black gown. See Rich. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 497). Another portrait of the same, three-quarter length. Formerly in Coll, of Jeremiah Harman, Esq. Eng. by P. de Jode (Web., p. 103 ; Sz. 106). Blount (Mountjoy). See Newport. 393. Boisschot (Anne Marie de £amudio, wife of Ferdinand de) ; dated 1630. Coll, of the Duke of Aremberg, at Brussels (Sm. 481). Eng. by Lommelin. 394. Bolingbroke (Olivier St. John, Earl of), with his wife and four children. Coll, of Lord Morley (Sm. 69). 395. Bolswert (Schelte a) ; half-length. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Web., p. 104; Sz. 107 b ; Sm. 805). 396. Bortoen (N.), Canon of St. Donatien, Bruges, with black gloves, head and shoulders in oval (Sm. 810). Eng. by Vermeulen (Bus de Ghisignies Cata. 1876). This personage, known under the name of Ignatius Joseph Lespfie, is accompanied by the coat-of-arms of Canon Bortoen. (Note by M. H. Hymans.) 397. Bosschaert (Thomas Willeborts), of Antwerp, half-length, in black, holding his gloves. Hermitage, No 623 (Sm. 822). Eng. anon. (Web., p. 50; Sz. 6). 398. Bosschaert (Madame), seated in an armchair. Hermitage, No. 624. 399. Bossu (Honord de Grimberghe, Comtesse de); head and shoulders. Eng. by J. Morin, in octagonal frame (Sm. 724). Bourbon (Antoine de), Comte de Moret. See Moret. 400. Braganza (Duchess of). Coll, of S. Fox, Esq. (Sm. 693). 401. Bran (Jerome de); half-length. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Sz. 165; Sm. 801). 402 s . Brandt (?) (Elizabeth), Rubens’ first wife, seated, holding a fan. Gotha Gall. 403. Brauwer, Adrian ; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 750). Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by E. de Boulnois (Al. Cata., p. 102) ; by Ficquet, for Descamps. 404. Breuck (Jacques du), architect, half-length, hold¬ ing a pair of compasses (Sm. 734). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 405. Breughel, John, head and shoulders, dressed in black. A. Hermitage, No. 625 (Sm. 27, 61). B. Pinako/hek, Munich, No. 861. Eng. by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by C. de Mechel (Dusseldorf Gall. 59). 406. Breughel, Peter ; head and shoulders. Coll, of Earl of Egremont (Sm. 798). Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 407. Brignole Sala (The Marchese Antonio Giuglio di), on horseback. Brignole Sala Palace, Genoa (Sm. 167). Etch, by M. Gaujean in the present volume. 408. Brignole Sala (The Marchesa Paulina Adorno di); upright, full-length. Brignole Sala Palace, Genoa (Sm. 170). 409. Brignole Sala (The Marchesa Paulina Adorno di) ; upright, full-length. Brignole Sala Palace, Genoa (Sm. 168). 410. Bristol (George Digby, second Earl of), and William, first Duke of Bedford ; full-length. A. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 334). B. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 515; Waag. 111. 458). 282 Catalogue of the Works of 411. Bristol (George Digby, Earl of), as a child. Coll, of John Spencer, Esq. (Sm. 515). Eng. by J. Houbraken (series of twelve portraits); by T. Wright in Lodge's Memoirs. 412. Brooke (Lady), seated, with her son by her side, and a greyhound at her feet. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 617; Waag. III. 213)- 413. Brudenell (two admirals belonging to the Brudenell family), in armour. Broughton Hall Coll. (Waag. III. 460). 414. Brunswick and Lunebourg (Christian, Duke of), Bishop of Ilalberstadt, half-length, in a cuirass. Eng. by R. Van Voerst (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 415. Brunyer (Abel), physician to the Due d’Orleans. Eng. by Michel Lasne (Web., p. 121). 416. Bruyant (Nicholas), who died July 12th, 1638. Eng. by P. Pontius, head in oval. 417. Buckingham (George Villiers, Duke of). A. Brera Gall., Milan, No. 264. B. Bolhwell Castle Coll. * (Waag. IV. 464). Eng. by P. de Baillu ; by L. Vorsterman (Brom.). 418. Buckingham (Lady Catharine Manners, Duchess of), with her two sons and her daughter. A. Formerly at Blenheim (Sm. 261 ; Waag. III. 123). B. Coll, of Viscount Galway (Waag. IV. 517). C. Coll, of Sir Culling Eardley (Waag. IV. 277). 419. Buckingham (Duchess of); half-length. Coll, of Lord Lyttelton (Sm. 492). 420. Buckingham (the eldest daughter of George Villiers, Duke of); three-quarter length. Broughton Hall Coll. (Waag. III. 460). 421. Buckingham (George and Francis Villiers, sons of the Duke of); full-length, dated 1635. Windsor (Sm. 219 ; Waag. II. 427). Mezzo, by MacArdell, 1752. 422. Burlington (Earl of) ; half-length. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 619). 423. Burlington (Countess of), half-length, plucking an orange from a tree. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 620). 424. Byron (John, first Lord), with a page holding his horse. Coll, of Lord Tabley (Sm. 637). 425. Byron (the wife of Sir John). Hampton Court. Copy in possession of Lord Tabley. 426. Cachiopin (Jacques de), half-length, wearing gloves, 1634. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by Gayvvood (head only) ; by Demarteau, in imitation of wash drg. 1773 (Sm. 768). 427. Callot (Jacob), seated at a table, drawing (Sm. 791)- Eng.iby L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by R Gaywood; by E. de Boulnois; by Polanzani. 428. Calvert (Anne, daughter of Lord Arundel, wife of Cecil). Coll, of Lord Baltimore (Sm. 625). Qamudio (Anne Marie de). See Boisschot. 429. Cantelmo (Andre), a general; half-length. Eng. by C. Waumans (Al. Cata., p. 142). 430. Capel (Arthur, first Lord) ; half-length. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Waag. II. 454). 431. Capel (the widow of Arthur, first Lord); half- length. Coll, of Earl oj Clarendon (Waag. II. 454). Carew (Thomas). See Killigrew. 432. Carignan (Francis Thomas of Savoy, Prince of) ; three-quarter length, dated 1634. Berlin Gall., No. 782 (Sm. 675). Same personage, head and shoulders : Windsor (Sm. 2x3). In monochrome : Pinakothek, Munich (Sm. 83). Eng. by P. Pontius, three-quarter length (Web., p. 125 ; Sz. 119); by P. Pontius, half-length (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by P. Soutman and J. Louys; by J. Caspar; anon., Moncornet exc. (Al. Cata., p. 146); anon., in oval (Al. Cata., p. 146). 433. Carignan (Francis Thomas of Savoy, Prince of), on horseback. Turin Gall., No. 363 (Sm. 182). Eng. by C. Ferreri, from drg. by Lor. Metalli (Turin Gall., III., pi. 81). 434. Carlisle (James Hay, Earl of), who died in 1636 ; full-length. A. Coll, of Lord Lyttelton. B. Coll, of Sir Edmund Bridges (Sm. 491). 435. Carlisle (Lucy Percy, Countess of), full-length, mounting a step (painted in 1637). Windsor (Sm. 563 and 659). Eng. by P. Van Gunst. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 83 436. Carlisle (Lucy Percy, Countess of), full-length, holding out her hand beneath a fountain. Coll, of Lord Windham (Sm. 564). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses) ; in Lodge's Memoirs. 437. Carlisle (Lucy Percy, Countess of), leaning on a window-sill. Eng. by P. Baillu ; by R. Gaywood. 438. Carlisle (Lucy Percy, Countess of), with Dorothy Percy, Countess of Leicester. Formerly in Coll, of Earl Waldegrave; purchased by Norton. 439. Carlisle (Margaret Russell, Countess of), seated, with her little daughter. Coil, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 565). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses). 440. Carnarvon (Robert, Earl of) Coll, of Earl of Pembroke, at Wilton (Sm. 557). Eng. by Baron (pub. by Boydell, 1770); by G. Vertue. in Lodge's Memoirs. 441. Carnarvon (Anne Sophia, Countess of). A. Coll, of Robert, Earl of Carnarvon. B. Coll, of Earl Verulam (Sm. 558). Eng. by Baron (pub. by Boydell, 1770). 442. Carnarvon (Anne Sophia Herbert, Countess of), taking a rose from a table (Sm. 558). Eng. by Hollar (Brom.); by Morin (Brom.) ; by Lombart (Series of Countesses). 443. Carnarvon (Earl and Countess of), together. Coll, of Marquis of Bath, at Long/eat (Sm. 558). Carr (Anne). See Bedford. Cary (Lucius). See Falkland. 444. Castelhaven (Elizabeth, Countess of); three-quarter length. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 655, 680). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses). 445. Cats (Jacques). Eng. by M. Natalis (Al. Cata., p. 123). 446. Cavendish (Colonel), aged twenty; head and shoulders. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 486). 447. Cavendish (Sir Charles), full-length, with armour. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Manchester, 1857). Cavendish (William). See Newcastle (Duke of). Cavendish (Anne). See Rich. Cecil (Diana). See Oxford. 448. Chaloner (Sir Thomas), half-length, upright. Hermitage, No. 620 (Sm. 648). Mezzo, by R. Earlom, from drg. by Farington, 1778 (Houghton Coll., I., pi. 47). 449. Charles I., under a dais, with the procession of the Knights of the Garter; design. Coll, of Duke of Rutland (Sm. 457). Eng. in facsim. by R. Cooper, in 1782. 450. Charles I., in armour, on horseback ; beside him, Sir Thomas Morton ; in the background a cavalry fight. A. National Gall., London, No. 1172; formerly at Blenheim. B. Copy of same picture: Coll, of Duke of Portland (Waag. IV. 512). C. Sketches or studies for this picture: Bucking¬ ham Palace (Sm. 243 ; Waag. II. 3). D. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 366; Waag. IV. 457). Eng. by Lombart. 1 451. Charles I., in armour, on horseback, under a portico, with the Due d’Epernon by his side, carrying his helmet. A. Windsor (Sm. 207 ; Waag. II. 429). Copies of this portrait: B. Hampton Court (Waag. II. 357); C. Apsley House (Waag. II. 277); D. Coll, of Lady Warren. Study for this painting : Coll, of Earl of Egremont. Eng. by Baron, 1741; by Professor C. Ferreri; by C. Pye. 452. Charles I., on horseback (a small picture). Height, 5 ft.; width, 3 ft. 4 in. Madrid Gall., No. 1282. 453. Charles I., upright, followed by his horse held by a squire and a page. Louvre, No. 1967 (Sm. 138). A modern copy : Coll, of Viscount Galway (Waag. IV. 516). Eng. by B. Strange; by Bonnefoy; by Pauquet and Duparc, from drg. by Defraine (Filhol, I. 5); by D. J. Desvachez, 1880. Etch, by M. Boulard, in the present work. 454. Charles I., upright, full-length, in royal robes. Windsor (Sm. 138). Study for this picture: Strange Coll.; afterwards in Coll, of Sir Lawrence Dundas, Bart. (Sm. 213). Eng. by Strange (1770); by Cook; in oval frame by R. White, 1685 (Sm. 449). 455. Charles I., seated, with Queen Henrietta Maria and his two sons. A. Windsor (Sm. 224). Eng. by Baron (1741); by Strange; by Massard; by Dennel (Gal. d'Orleans, Vol. II.). Repetitions or copies of this picture : B. Coll, of Duke of Richmond (formerly in Orleans Gall.). C. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire. Study of same picture: Rotterdam Gall. Fragment of same picture : Coll, of Earl of Nor- manton. This last eng. by Bakenell (Marmol Cata., No. 1474), 1 By changing the head of Lombart’s plate, it was made into an equestrian portrait of Cromwell. Catalogue of the JVorks of 284 456. Charles I., full-length, with a cuirass, holding a commander's baton (1638). Hermitage ,. No. 609. Eng. by P. Van Gunst; by Sanders. Mezzo, by Jos. Boydell, 177S (Houghton Coll., I., pi. 48, and Description of Hermitage, II., p. 2, No. 46). 457. Charles I., full-length, in a black costume. A. Formerly at Blenheim; purchased by Mr. Whitehead in 1886 (Sm. 256 ; Waag. III. 129). B. Coll, of Lord Ashburton (Waag. II. 103). 458. Charles I., in a black costume, his hand resting on his hat, lying on a table. Coll, of Sir Thomas Sebright (Waag. IV. 328). 459. Charles I., in a black costume, his hand on the hilt of his sword. Coll, of Baring Fami'y (Sm. 442). 460. Charles I., the right hand on the hip, the other hand extended (about 1636). Coll, of Earl of Harrington (Waag. IV. 225). Modern copy of same portrait, full-length : Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 234). 461. Charles I., half-length, a cloak over the left shoulder. Belvedere Gall. (Sm. 835). Eng. by De Prenner (Vienna Gall.) ; by Bl. H6fel, from drg. by S. Von Perger (Belvedere Gall.). 462. Charles I., half-length, dressed in black satin, his hat on a table. Dresden Gall., No. 9S5 (Sm. 184). Eng. by Mandel. Lith. by Fr. Hanfstaengl (Dresden Gall.). 463. Charles I., three-quarter length, in armour, his left hand resting on his helmet. A. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke, at Wilton (Sm. 440). B. Coll, of C. Beckett Denison ; purchased by Mr. Norris in 1885 (Sm. 440). C. MacLellan Coll., Glasgow (Waag. III. 290). 464. Charles I., three-quarter length, holding his gloves in his left hand. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 441 ; Waag. III. 214). Eng. by F. Faber (173S). 465. Charles I., seated in an armchair, holding a paper in his right hand. Eng. by F. Faber (Sm. 450). 466. Charles I., half-length, a baton in his right hand, his left hand resting on a globe. Formerly in Coll, of Lord Pau/el (Sm. 455). Mezzo, anon. 467. Charles I., half-length in armour, a baton in his right hand. A. Basildon Park Coll. (Waag. IV. 309). B. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Sm. 436; Waag. II. 85 )- 468. Charles I., half-length, in armour, leaning against a table on which lies the crown. Eng. by P. de Jode, pub. by Math. Antonius (Sm. 256) ; by A. Lommelin ; by P. de Jode, small head and shoulders in an oval (Sm. 440); by Romanet, from drg. by Vander- bergh (Gal. d’Orldans, Vol. II.). 469. Charles I., half-length, turned to the left, in a round medallion. Eng. by Strange for Smollett's History of England, London, 1 757 > quarto. 470. Charles I., oval portrait. Coll, of Earl of Yarborough (Manchester Exhibi¬ tion, 96). 471. Charles I., head, shown in full-face, profile, and three-quarters. 1 Windsor (Sm. 212). Eng. by W. Sharp. Apocryphal or doubtful portraits of the same: Arundel Castle Coll. (Waag. III. 30); Bankes Coll. (Waag. IV. 375); Coll, of Marquis of Hertford (Waag. IV. 87); Both well Castle Coll. (Waag. IV. 463). ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF CHARLES I.* By Soutman and Suyderhoef, in an oval border (Sm. 444) ; by M. Marnbeck (large and small size); by W. Hollar,. in armour, with background of palms (Sm. 445); by W. Hollar, with a hat, 1646 (Sm. 449) ; by G. Faithorne, with cuirass (Web., p. 120); by Skilman, surrounded by laurels, published by White (Al. Cata., p. 133); by Bern. Picart, with the Order of St. George (Sm. 453); by J. Simon (Sm. 454) ; by H. Robinson in Lodge's Memoirs-, by F. Basan, for the Odieuvre series; two engravings, anon., in oval, one with B. Moncornet exc., the other with C. Visscher exc. (Al. Cata., p. 143); by Huybrechts (fee. et exc.) j portrait of the King in armour, in a square border. Eng. anon., J. Meyssens exc. (Sm. 443); by F. Chauveau, in octagonal frame; by Dankerts (Brom.); by Vorsterman, dedicated to Mary de Medicis by the engraver ; by C. Widder (Weig. 111. 13959); by A. B. (loteling) (Brom.); by G. Vertue, in Rapin’s History; anon., Ciartres exc. (Brom.); anon., De Ram exc. (Brom.); by F. Place (Brom.). Mezzo, by J. Beckett (Sm. 440); by R. Williams (Sm. 452); by John Smith (Weig. II. 9385); anon. pub. by Alex. Brown (Sm. 448 ; Al., p. 143)- Etch, by A. de Marcenay, February, 1775. 472. Charles I. and Queen Henrietta Maria, who presents him with a crown of laurels. Buckingham Palace (Sm. 209). Eng. by R. Van Voerst, Londini, 1634; by G. Vertue (Sm. 447); copied by Visscher (Brom.). ' Sent to Bernini, who had been commissioned to execute a bust of the King. s Several of these portraits are undoubtedly engraved after the same originals ; but as it is impossible to identify the paint¬ ing which has served as model, we here group all the engraved portraits of Charles I. except those of which the original is known and which have already been mentioned above. Sir A?ithony Van Dyck 285 473. Charles I. and Queen Henrietta Maria, head and shoulders, in two oval framings. Pitti Gall., Florence (Sm. 451). Eng. by W. Hollar, Londini, 1651; by G. Barni, after a drg. by Muzzi (Pitti Gall.). Etch, by M. Gaujean in the present volume. 474. Charles I.’s children, in frocks. The Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and their elder sister. A. Turin Gall., No. 338 (Sm. 181). B. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke, at Wilton, dated 1635 (Sm. 842). Eng. by G. Thevenin 1 from drg. by L. Metalli. Etch, by M. Gaujean in the present volume. 475. Charles I.’s children. The Prince of Wales in small clothes, the Princess Mary and the Duke of York. A. Windsor (Sm. 211). Eng. by Robert Strange (1758 ?) ; by J. Burnet; by Le Blon; by Purcell (Brom.). Etch, by N. Muxel; by A. Mathey, 18S4. B. Dresden Gall., No. 987 (Sm. 183). Lith. by Hanfstaengl, 1840 (Dresden Gall.). C. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Waag. II. 457). D. Bankes Coll. (Waag. IV. 375). 476. Charles I.’s three children ; study for the Windsor picture. Louvre, No. 1968. Etch, by C. Waltner ( Gazette des Beaux-Arts)-, by F. Laguillermie, 1890. 477. Charles I.’s five children, with a large dog (dated 1637)- A. Windsor (Sm. 208). Eng. by Baron; by Strange; by R. Cooper (1762); by H. Bourne, pub. by Colnaghi; by H. Coussin; in the Cilleries royalcs d'Anglcterre, by Armengaud; anon, in Jameson’s Public Galleries, p. 320 . Mezzo, anon., pub. by Alex. Browne ; another, anon. Etch, by M. Gaujean in the present volume. B. Berlin Gall., No. 790. Lith. by Fr. Jentzen (Berlin Gall., pub. by Simion). 478. Charles I.’s children. Coll, of W. Willett, Esq., in 1813 (Sm. 353)- 479. Charles II., full-length, in red costume, with buff Coll, of the Marquis Maison. 480. Charles II., full-length, in armour, with a pistol in his right hand (about 1640). A. Windsor (Sm. 227). Eng. by W. Hollar in 1649 ; by Mouzyn. B. Madrid Gall., No. 1817. 1 This engraving was exhibited and awarded a medal at the Paris Salon in 1863. 481. Charles II., in a cuirass, with a large hat. Eng. by W. Hollar, in an oval, in 1649 i anon., P. de Jode exc.; by W. Vaillant. 482. Charles II., as a child, his hand resting on a cushion. Mezzo, by A. Bloteling (Weig. I. 5862). 483. Charles I. (a princess still a child, daughter of). Berlin Gall., No. 786. 484. Charles I. (one of the children of), head and shoulders, with some flowers. Coll, of Lord Ashburton (Waag. II. 103). Charles I.’s children. See Mary; York. 485. Charles II. of Spain, in a frock, playing with a large dog (Sm. 459). Mezzo, by W. Vaillant. Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy. See Savoy. Charles Ludwig of Bavaria. See Bavaria. 486. Charles V., on horseback; half life-size. Uffizi Gall., Florence, No. 1128 (Sm. 161). Eng. by Cosm. Mogalli, after drg. by Franc. Petrucci; by Guttenbcrg (1790), after drg. by J. B. Vicar (Florence Gall.); by Chiossone, after drg. by F. Calendi. Mezzo, by Earlom. 487. Chaworts (Patricius, Viscount); full-length; a shield lies on the ground. Coll, of Duke of Rutland (Sm. 601). Eng. by P. Van Gunst. 488. Chesterfield (Catherine Hastings, Countess of), full-length, in a landscape (in 1636). A. Coll, of Lord Folkestone (Waag. IV. 362). B. Coll, of Duke of Marlborough (Sm. 259, 651 ; Waag. III. 123). Eng. by P. Van Gunst, dedicated to the Duke of Devon¬ shire. 489. Chodkiewicz (Godfrey), Duke of Muscovy; head and shoulders. Etch. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 143). Christian, Duke of Brunswick. See Brunswick. 490. Christin, banker; head and shoulders. Coll, of the Comte de Ribeaucourt, at Brussels. Eng. by J. Morin, in an octagon. 491. Clanbrassil (Countess of). Coll, of Earl of Denbigh (Sm. 586). 492. Cleveland (Thomas Wentworth, Earl of), and his family; three-quarter length; two male and two female figures. Coll, of Lord Enfield (Waag. IV. 322). 286 Catalogue of the JVorks of 493. Cleveland (Thomas Wentworth, Earl of), 1636. Coll, of Earl Verulam (Sm. 687). 494*. Cleveland (Countess of) ; three-quarter length. Stockholm Gall., No. 408. 495. Coeberger, Wenceslas ; half-length. Drawing in the Fodor Gall., Amsterdam. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Chalc. du Louvre) ; by Gaywood (head only). 496. Colonna (Carlo), on a bay horse; a Genius in the sky. Colonna Palace, Rome. 497. Colonna, Charles, half-length, in armour. Grisaille, in possession of Duke of Bucclench. Eng. by Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept, Louvre). 498. Colonna (Lucrezia), upright, in a black velvet gown. Colonna Palace, Rome. 499. Colonna (another family portrait, female). Colonna Palace, Rome. 500. Cornelissen, Antony; half-length. Grisaille, in possession of Duke oj Bucclench (Sm. 761). Etch, by Van Dyck, and completed by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); Eng. by Silvestre, in 1709 (head only). 501. Coster, Adam de ; half-length. Stadel Gall., Frankfort. Grisaille, in possession of Duke of Bucclench (Sm. m\ Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 502. Cottington (Francis, Lord), his left hand on his sword, the right extended. A. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon, at The Grove (Sm. 634)- B. Coll, of IV. j. Lenthall, Esq. Mezzo, by Dunkerton. 503. Crane, Sir Francis, manager of the tapestry manu¬ factory at Mortlake; half-length. Coll, of John Simeo. Etch, by Fittler, in 1821 (oval). 504. Craven (William, first Earl of), full-length, in complete armour. Coll, of Earl of Craven (Waag. III. 219). 505. Crayer (Gaspard de); head and shoulders. A. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna (Sm. 751). B. Weimar Gall. Grisaille, in possession of Duke of Bucclench. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Neefs, on small scale ; by Ficquet, after drg. by Eisen, for Descamps; by Gaywood (head only); Mezzo, anon. (Al. Cata., p. 143). Lith. by Heinrich Muller (Weig. IV. 17864). 506. Crillon, in a cuirass, with the Order of the Holy Ghost. Eng. by J. Balgchou (oval). Cromwell (Oliver), on horseback. See No. 450, note. 507. Cromwell (Oliver), in a cuirass; three-quarter length. Eng. by Lombart. 508. Croy (Due Charles Alexander de), Margrave of Havrd, full-length, mounting a step. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 841 (Sm. 71). Lith. by Woelfjle ; by Piloty. 509. Croy (Genevifeve d’Urfe, wife of Due de), afterward Marquise de Havre; full-length. A. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 842 (Sm. 65). B. Formerly at Blenheim ; purchased by Dr. Meyer in 1886 (Sm. 713). Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by P, de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by C. de Mechel (Diisseldorf Gall. 28). Lith. by Woelfjle. 510. Croy (Maria Clara de), half-length, decolletee. Eng. by C. Waumans (Web., p. 114; Sz. 129). Cumberland (Duke of). See Bavaria. 511. Cusance (Beatrice de), Princesse de Cantecroix, full-length, mounting a step. A. Windsor. B. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 225). Eng. by P. de Jode (Web., p. 112; Sz. 130); by C. Waumans; anon., oval, head and shoulders, Moncornet exc. (Al. Cata., p. 143). Etch, by F. Laguillermie, in 1889. 512. Dacre (Dorothy, Lady), daughter of Dudley, Lord North, holding some roses. Coll, of Marquis of Bute, at Wroxton (Sm. 528). 513. Danby (Henry Danvers, Earl of), full-length, as a Knight of the Garter. A. Hermitage, No. 615 (Sm. 647). B. Coll, of Earl of Stamford and Warrington (Manchester Exhibition, 1857). G. Coll, of Duke of Hamilton (Sm. 647). Eng. by Podoiiusky {Description of Hermitage, II. 32, No 56). Mezzo, by Val. Green, 1775 (Houghton Coll., I., pi. 4). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 287 514. Della Faille (Alexander), Burgomaster of Antwerp; half-length. Brussels Gall., No. 266 (Sm. 730). Eng. by A. Lommelin (Icon., Chalc. du Louvre); by J. Neefs (AI. Cata., p. 123). 515. Della Faille (Jean Charles), a Jesuit, seated, in a square cap. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 516. Del Mont (Deodatus), half-length, hand on sword. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by P. F. Polanzani (head only). Mezzo, by B6chet (Weig. I. 6314). 517. Denbigh (William Fielding, Earl of), full-length, with a gun; a child by his side. A. Coll, of Duke of Hamilton. B. Coll, of Lord Denbigh (Sm. 551). Eng. in Lodge's Memoirs. 518. Denys, seated before a table on which are a sphere, a bust, etc. Mezzo, by Vaillant. 519. Derby (James Stanley, seventh Earl of), holding a helmet. A. Coll, of Earl Derby. B. Hamilton Palace Coll. (Sm. 561). Eng. by Scriven, in Lodge's Memoirs. 520. Derby (James Stanley, Earl of), with his wife, Charlotte de la Trdmouille, full-length, and a little girl. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 562). Eng. by H. Robinson. 521. Derby (Charlotte de la Tremouille, Countess of); head only. Coll, of Earl of Derby (Sm. 547). Eng. by Thompson, in Lodge's Memoirs. 522. Devonshire (Earl of), young, dressed in black silk, holding his hat. Coll, oj Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 579; Waag. III. 564). 523. Devonshire (Elizabeth Cecil, Countess of), walking, a rose in her hand. Companion to 522. A. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 581 ; Waag. III. 364)- B. Wyndham Coll., Pelwortlt (Sm. 581; Waag. III. 43)- Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses) ; by Wright, in Lodge's Memoirs. 524. Devonshire (Christiana Bruce, Countess of), full- length, holding a fan. Ailesbury Coll. (Sm. 377). 525. Digby (Sir Kenelm), half-length, beside a table on which stands a sphere. Windsor (Sm. 220). Eng. by R. Van Voerst (Icon., Chalc. du Louvre) ; by J. Houbraken (series of twelve portraits); by Gaywood (head only); by Larmessin in the Academic des Sciences (Brom.) ; by P. Stent, after the last-named (Brom.). 526. Digby (Sir Kenelm), with his wife and two children. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Sm. 222, 635 ; Waag. iv. 513). 527. Digby (Lady Venetia, wife ot Sir Kenelm), allegorical composition. Windsor (Sm. 221, 636; Waag. II. 427). 528. Digby (Lady Venetia), on her death-bed. A. Coll, of Earl Spencer, at Althorp (Sm. 222). B. Dulwich Gall., No. 242 (Sm. 636). 529. Dorset (Edward Sackville, Earl of), full-length, at the age of twenty-eight. Knolc Park Coll. (Sm. 379). Eng. by G. Vertue, 1741 (series of twelve portraits); in Lodge's Memoirs ; in Birch's Lives (Brom.). 530. Dorset (Edward Sackville, Earl of). Coll, of Earl of Lonsdale (Waag. III. 264). 531. Dorset (Anne Clifford, Countess of), full-length, holding a scarf. A. Knole Park Coll. (Sm. 378). B. Coll, of Earl Amherst (Waag. IV. 339). 532. Dorset (Mary Curzon, Countess of), as St. Agnes, seated, holding a lamb. Windsor (Sm. 526; Waag. II. 429). 533. Du Booys (Henri), half-length, showing the portrait of his wife. A. Coll, of Lord Sommers (Sm. 821). B. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke (Waag. IV. 520). Eng. by Corn. Wisscher. 534. Du Booys (H6lene Leonore de Sieveri, wife of Henri); half-length. A. Coll, of Lord Sommers (Sm. 7 2 3)- B. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke (Waag. IV. 520). Eng. by Corn, Wisscher. 535. Du Hot (Hubert). Eng. by A. Lommelin (Sz. 107). Du Pont. See Pontius. 536. Duquesnoy (Francis), half-length, holding the bust of a faun. A. Coll. 0/ King of the Belgians (Sm. 339). B. Potsdam Coll. (Sm. 132). Eng. anon, with monogram (Marmol Cata. 1583); by D. J. Desvachez, 1865. Mezzo, by P. Van Bleek, 1751 (Sm. 339) I by Van den Berghe (Marmol Cata. 1583); by R. Brookshaw. Etch, by C. Waltner for L'Art, 1879. Digby (Georges). See Bristol. 288 Catalogue of the Works of 537. Another portrait of the same, with hat on, holding in the right hand a group of three children. Eng. by MacArdell (Sm. 340). 538. Durazzo (The Marchese), seated ; his two sons beside him. Durasso Palace , Genoa (Sm. 166). 539. Edelheer (Jacob), pensioner of the town of Antwerp. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Didot Cata., No. 3046). 540. Elizabeth, daughter of Charles I. Eng. by W. Hollar (Marmol Cata., No. 1568). 541. Elizabeth, sister of Charles I., wife of Frederick V., Elector Palatine. Eng. by Bolswert (Brom.). 542. Epernon (Due d’), on horseback, crowned by Victory and Fame. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 679; Waag. III. ' 54)- 543. Erasmus, half-length, seated by a table. Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 544. Evelyn (John). Eng. by W. Hollar, 1644 (Winckl.). 545. Exeter (Frances Bridges, Dowager Countess of); half-length. Formerly in Strawberry Hill Coll. Eng. by G. Faithorne ; by J. Osborne. 546. Fairfax (Thomas). Eng. by W. Hollar (Marmol Cata., No. 1569). 547. Falkland (Lucius Cary, second Viscount); three- quarter length. A. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 6237 Waag. II. 455)- B. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire. C. Coll, of Lord Arundel. Eng. by Thompson, in Lodge's Memoirs. 548. Ferdinand of Austria (Cardinal Infant), on horse¬ back ; a battle in the background. A. Madrid Gall., No. 1242. B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon. Lith. by Jollivet (Madrid Gall. 1826, folio). 549. Ferdinand of Austria; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 700). Eng. by P. Pontius, 1634, in ecclesiastical dress (fol.) by P. de Jode, in civil dress (Sz. 135); by A. Lommelin (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by C. Galle, on a pedestal; by P. Van Sompel and P. Soutman (oval); by P. de Jode (oval) (Al. Cata., p. 115) ; by John Payne, pub. by P. Stent; by Crispin Quebom; by J. de Lew (oval) (Al. Cata., p. 118); by Alexander Vouet the Younger; by R. Gaywood (head only) ; anon., on large scale (Al. Cata., p. 144)- 550. Ferdinand III., half-length, in armour; the imperial globe on a table. Eng. by C. Galle the Younger, 1649 (Web. iio;Sz. 133); by P. de Jode the Younger; by Gaywood, head only. 551. Ferdinand III. (Maria of Austria, wife of), seated ; half-length. Eng. by C. Galle the Younger, 1649 (Sm. 699); by P. de Jode the Younger. 552. Feria (Don Emmanuel Frockas Perera and Pire- mentel, Count), half-length, in armour. Grisaille, in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 669). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); anon., half-length ; anon., oval (Al. Cata., p. 144) ; by P. de Jode the Younger. Fielding (William). See Denbigh. 553. Forman (Helena), in a landscape, holding a feather fan. Hermitage (Sm. 646). Eng. by T. Chambers, after drg. by R. Earlom, 1767 ; by Sailliard and Watts (Houghton Coll., II., pi. 36). Mezzo, anon. Etch. anon. 554. Franck (Jean Baptiste); head and shoulders, three- quarter face. Coll, of Prince Lucicn Bonaparte (Sm. 827). Grisaille: Van der Hoop Gall., Amsterdam, No. 308. Eng. by Mougeot, after drg. by Gallier (MusSe fran9ais). Etch, in outline, anon. 555. Franck (Francis); half-length. Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 556. Franck (Francis); half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. ;6z). Eng. by P. de Jode and G. Hondius (Web., p. 37; Sz. 91). Friedland (Duke of). See Wallenstein. Frockas (Don Emmanuel). See Feria. 557. Gage (George); painted in Rome, 1623. 558. Galle (Theodore); half-length. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Web., p. 91 ; Sz. 23); by Gay¬ wood (head only) (Sm. 790). 559. Gentileschi (Orazio), as an old man; half-length. Grisaille in British Museum (Sm. 760 ). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by G. B. Cecchi (Al. Cata., p. 103); by Gaywood, head only. 560. Gerbier (Balthazar), with his wife and nine children. Windsor (Sm. 237, 283). Eng. by W. Walker from drg. by Edwards, 1766 (Boydell Coll.) ; by Brookshaw. Mezzo, by MacArdell, from drg. by W. Jett (Weig. I. 639). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 289 561. Gerbier (Balthazar), half-length, holding a paper; dated 1634. Eng. by P. Pontius (Web., p. 124); on smaller scale, anon., pub. by J. Meys (Sm. 237); by Chambers, in Wal¬ pole (Brom.); anon., P. Stent exc. (Brom.). 562. Gevartius (Gaspard), half-length, holding a half¬ open book. Grisaille in possession of M. Six, Amsterdam (Sm. 739)- Another: Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch. First study in British Museum. See Van der Gheest. Eng. by P. Pontius '(Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); in manner of crayon anon. (Al. Cata., p. 144); on wood in the Magasin pittoresque, XXI., p. 237 ; by Baillie (?). 563. Gloucester (Ilenry, Duke of). Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 228). 564. Gonsalvez, Ambassador of Spain at Venice. Schamps Coll., Ghent, in 1831 (Sm. 605). Line eng. in Le Brun Coll. 565. Gonzago (Ferdinand di) ; painted at Mantua in 1622. 566. Goodwin (Arthur,) full-length, with a cloak ; dated 1639, and signed. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 602 ; Waag. III. 364). Eng. by P. Van Gunst (series of ten portraits). Goodwin (Lady). See Wenmann. 567. Goring (Lord), half-length, in armour. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 613 ; Waag. II. 458). 568. Goring (Sir Charles); his page binding on his scarf. Coll, of Duke of Manchester (Manchester Exhibition, No. 166). 569. Grandison (William Villiers, Viscount), full-length, holding a hat with plumes. A. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 548 ; Waag. II. 456). B. Coll, of Duke of Grafton. C. Coll, of Earl FitssWilliam (the last-named half- - length). Eng. by P. Van Gunst (series of ten portraits); by Picart, in Lodge’s Memoirs. 570. Granville (Sir Bevill); head and shoulders. Eng. by G. Faithorne (in oval) ; also anon. 571. Grimberghe (Honorine de), Comtesse de Bossu, head and shoulders, very decolletee. Eng. by J. Morin (in octagonal). 572. Grotius (portrait wrongly described as that ol Hugo). Ford Coll. (Waag. II. 224). Guitar-player. See No. 633. Gusman (Don Diego Philip de). See Leganes. 573. Gustavus Adolphus, half-length, in armour, with Grisaille in Pinako/hek, Munich, No. 854 (Sm. 81). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by P. de Jode. 574. Gwin 1 (Mistress), holding a bouquet of flowers (Al. Cata. 145). 575. Halifax (George Savile, Marquis of), at the age of thirty-six; three-quarter length. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 546). 576. Halmalius (Paul) ; half-length. Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept.. Louvre). 577. Hals (Franz), head and shoulders, wearing a flat cap. Eng. by D. Coster (Sm. 824). 578. Hal ton (Sir William), at the age of twenty-six; full-length. Coll, of Henry Truffnel, Esq. (Sm. 828). 579. Hamilton (James, Duke of), in armour. A. Coll, of Duke of Hamilton (full-length). B. Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch. C. Coll, of Earl of Denbigh. D. Formerly in Coll, of Jeremiah Harman, Esq. E. Coll, of Duff House (Sm. 583, 676). Eng. by P. Van Lisebetius (Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by W- Faithorne (oval); by Heath; by W. Finden, in Lodges Memoirs. 580. Hamilton (Duchess of); full-length. Companion picture to No. 579. A. Coll, of Duke of Hamilton (Waag. III. 30S). B. Coll, of Earl of Denbigh (Sm. 584). 581. Hamilton (Chevalier), half-length, in a cuirass. Eng. by L. de Chatillon. 582. Hanmer (Sir Thomas). Coll, of Sir Henry Bunbury, Bart. (Sm. 622). 583. Hanneman (Adrian). Eng. anon. (Sm. 803). 1 This is a portrait of Margaret Lemon, whose head has been replaced by that of the lady named. 37 290 Catalogue of the Works of 584. Harvey (Elizabeth), holding her scarf in her left hand. Eng. by W. Hollar, 1646; by R. Gaywood (Al. Cata., p. no). Hay (George). See Kinnoul. 585. l leem (John de), seated, hand resting on the hip. Eng. by P. Pontius, after Lyvyus (Eng. Dept., Louvre). 586. Henrietta Maria (Queen), wife of Charles I., full- length, her hand resting on a table on which is a bouquet of roses. Signed and dated 1638. A. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 467; Waag- II. 456). B. St. Petersburg Gall., No. 610 (Sm. 465). C. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 466). D. Coll, of Duke of Grafton (Sm. 468). E. Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 469). Eng. by P. Van Gunst (Houghton Coll., pi. 88). 587. Henrietta Maria; full-length; about 1636. Windsor (Sm. 216). Mezzo, by Gerald Robinson. 588. Henrietta Maria, full-length, caressing a monkey held by the dwarf Jeffrey Hudson. A. Colt, of Earl of Egremont (Sm. 474). B. Coll, of Earl Fits William (Waag. III. 340). 589. I Iem ietta Maria, full-length, hand crossed; orange silk gown. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 462; Waag. III. 2t3)- 590. Henrietta Maria; full-length; white silk gown. A. Coll, of Earl of Dun more (Waag. IV. 457). B. Coll of Lord Ashburton (Waag. II. 103). On this last canvas the Queen wears a white gown. 591. Henrietta Maria ; full-length ; blue silk gown. Formerly at Blenheim ; purchased by Messrs. Agnew in 1886 (Sm. 260; Waag. III. 122). 592. Henrietta Maria, in a yellow gown ; a dog near her. Bolhwell Castle Coll. (Waag. IV. 463). 593. Henrietta Maria, seated, in a blue gown. Coll, of Earl FitzWilliam (Waag. III. 338). 594. Henrietta Maria, seated, in a blue dress, holding some roses. Coll, of C. Beckett Denison ; purchased by Mr. Davis in 1885 (Sm. 472). 595. Henrietta Maria, three-quarter length, in white satin dies?. Dresden Gall., No. 986 (Sm. 257, 475, 476). Eng. by P. de Jode ; by J. Couchet and Lommelin (Sm. 464); by Clowet (Marmol Cata. 1585); by J. Meyssens (Sz. 128; Al. Cata., p. 121). 596. Henrietta Maria, full-face, three-quarter length. Windsor (Sm. 217). Eng. by F. Joubert. 597. Henrietta Maria, profile, half-length. Windsor (Sm. 218). Eng. by Robinson, 1827. 598. Henrietta Maria ; three-quarter length. Emile Pereire Coll. Etch, by Rajon. 599*. Henrietta Maria, holding some roses ; white silk gown. Coll, of Sir William Vernon Harcourt (Waag. IV. 247)- 600. Other portraits of the Queen ; three-quarter length. A. MacLclIan Coll., Glasgoiv (Waag. III. 290). B. Lansdowne House Coll. (Waag. II. 151). C. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 464; Waag. III. 154). D. Coll, of Earl of Harrington (Waag. IV. 235). 601. I Ienrietta Maria ; half-length. Formerly at Blenheim, now in possession of Lord Wantage (Sm. 257; Waag. III. 129). 602. Henrietta Maria crowned by an angel; allegory (one-third of life-size). MacLellan Coll., Glasgow (Waag. III. 291). 603. Other portraits of the Queen, head and shoulders, replicas or copies. A. Seymour Coll. (Waag. II. 242) ; B. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Waag. II. 85 ; Sm. 473); C. Coll, of Lord Lyttelton (Waag. III. 227); D. Dalkeith Palace Coll. (Waag. 111. 314) ; E. Arundel Castle Coll. (Waag. III. 30); F. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (sm. 479; Waag. IV. 334); G. Bankes Coll. (Waag. IV. 375); H. Coll, of T. Emerson, Esq., two portraits (Sm. 470, 471); I. Drawing in Hope Coll. (Waag. IV. 18S). 604. Engraved portraits of Queen Henrietta Maria : The Queen seated ; one of her sons on her knee; the other standing to the right. Eng. by Strange 1784 (companion to the portrait of Charles I. followed by his horse); by J. B. Compagnies. Another portrait: eng. by W. Faithorne (Brom.). Another portrait of the Queen seated: eng. by W. H. Watt. The same, half-length, with a high head-dress : mezzo, by John de Later (Weig., III., 16135); half-leneth mezzo, anon., address of A. Browne (Al. Cata., p. 144); head and shoulders, in oval; mezzo, anon. P. Tempest exc. (Al. Cata., p. 145); head and shoulders, in oval, with four lines of title, eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 145); head and shoulders, eng. by P. Soutman and J. Suyderhoef (Sm. 477); by H. T. Ryall, in Lodge's Memoirs (Sm. 467) ; by Dankaerts. 1645 (Sm. 478); mezzo, anon, after the painting in St. John's College, Cambridge. 605. Henrietta Maria, head in an oval. See Charles 1. No. 473- Pitti Gall., Florence (Sm. 451). Eng. by G. Barni, from drg. by A. Muzzi; by G. Glover (Brom.), head only; by W. Hollar, 1641 ; by S. (Brom.). Etch, by M. Gaujean in the present volume. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 291 606. Herbert (Lady Penelope), holding a scarf. Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses). 607. Herbert (Sir Philip). Eng. anon,, in oval (Sm. 654). 608. Herbert (Margaret Smith, widow of Thomas Cary, afterwards Lady), half-length, holding a scarf; about 1636. Coll, oj Duke of Buccleueh (Sm. 653). Eng. by P. Van Gunst (series of ten portraits); by I Pontius; by W. Faithorne. 609. Hertford (William Seymour, Marquis of), full- length, in armour. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 574 ; Waag. II. 455)- Eng. by Dunkerton ; by R. Cooper, in Lodge's Memoirs. 610. Hertoge (Josse de), Seigneur of Franoy, ambas¬ sador at Ratisbon in 1636. Eng. by Jac. Neefs (Icon.; Sm. 819). 611. Hervey, Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Hervey. Eng. by Hollar, 1646 (Brom.). 612. Holland (Henry Rich, Earl of), second son of Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick ; full-length. A. Coll, of Duke of Buccleueh (Sm. 5 54). Eng. by P. Clovvet (Web., p. 102); by W. Faithorne, in oval; by R. Van Voerst; by Glover; by Pass, in Lodge's Memoirs-, anon., G. Hendricx exc. (Marmol Cata. 1580). Mezzo, anon. Portraits of the same personage: B. Formerly in Coll, of Jeremiah Harman, Esq. (Sm. 555)» C. Eothwell Castle Coll. (Waag. IV. 464); D. Ingram Coll. (Waag. III. 332); E. Glendon Hall Coll. (Waag. III. 462). 613. Holland (the daughter of the Earl of), full-length, in white satin dress. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 840). 614. Hondius (William); half-length. Eng. by Hondius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre; Sm. 776). 615. Honthorst (Gerard), half-length. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by W. H. Worthington; by T. Chambers (Sm 780). 616. Hopton (portrait of Ralph, Lord), seated, holding a ring. Coll, of Earl of Egremont (Sm. 578). Eng. in Lodge's Memoirs. 617. Hosius (John), consul. Eng. by Melchior Kiisel (Didot Cata. 3039). 618. Hoot (Hubert de). Eng. anon. (Sm. 666). 619. Howard (Mistress) ; three-quarter length. BotInvell Castle Coll. (Waag. IV. 464). 620. Howard (Catherine Neville, wife of Robert). Eng. anon., A. Brown exc. (Brom.). Howard (Thomas). See Arundel. 621. Huntly (George Gordon, second Marquis of); full- length. A. Coll, of Duke of Buccleueh (Sm. 577). B. Coll, of Duke of Bedford. Eng. by J. Cochran, in Lodge's Memoirs. Mezzo, by Val. Green, 1775. 622. I Iuyghens (Constantine) and his five children ; in medallions, on the same picture. The Hague Gall., No. 205. Eng. on wood by Tamisier {Mag. pi/loresque, XXIX. 181). Lith. by B. Waanders in the Kutistkronijk, 1S47. Etch, by Courtry in the present volume. 623. Huyghens (Constantine), opening a book placed on a table. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Vorsterman (Sm. 738); by Gaywood (head only) (Sm. 737). 624. Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain, ruler of tire Netherlands ; three-quarter length. A. Turin Gall., No. 35 1 • B. Parma Gall. C. Louvre, No. 1970 (Sm. 146). D. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No. ;6 (Sm. 94). E. Berlin Gall., No. 788. F. Coll, of Earl of Hopetoun (Waag. III. 310). In possession of Duke of Buccleueh. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by G. Hondius, 1633, oval; by P. Soutman and Van Sompel, oval border; by Levasseur, 1869 (Eng. Dept., Louvre); by G. Rousselet (Al. Cata., p. 132); by Boutrois, from drg. by Le Roy (Filhol, X. 683); by Gaywood; anon., in oval, P. de Jode exc.; anon., in square frame; anon., oval, B. Montcornet exc. (Al. Cata., p. 144). Mezzo, by W. Vaillant (Al. Cata., p. 135). 625*. Jabach, seated in an armchair; three-quarter length. Cologne Gall., No. 624. 626. James I.; full-length. A. Windsor (Sm. 248). B. Bothwell Castle Coll. (Waag. IV. 463). Eng. by Vertue, 1721; by B. Picart, 1724, head and shoulders. Mezzo, by Faber ; by J. Smith, 1721. 627. James I. (The Queen Consort of), the Queen of Bohemia, and Prince Henry. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 249). 628. Jode (Peter de), father and son, engravers ; one of the two seated at a table, his hand on a paper. Capitol Gall., Rome, No. 100. 629. Jode (Peter de) the Elder; half-length. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Gaywood, head only (Sm. 783). 292 Catalogue of the W\orks of 630. Jode (Peter de) the Younger; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by P. de Jode (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 631. Jones (Inigo), architect; half-length. 1 A. Hermitage, No. 626 (Sm. 223). B. Coll, of Queen Victoria. Eng. by Robert Van Voerst (C. Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by H. Cook ; by Gaywood (head only). Mezzo, by J. Spilsbury, oval, 1766; by Val Green (Houghton Coll., I., pi. 16). 632. Jordaens (Jacob); half-length. Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre ; Sm. 749). 633. A Guitar-player. Stanley Coll. (Sm. 281). Eng. by Brichet (Poulain Coll., No. 116); in line, by Petrini (Luc. Bonaparte Coll., No. 8). 634. Junius (Francis); half-length. Grisaille in Bodleian Library, Oxford (Sm. 806, 807). Eng. by Burghers; by G. Vertue; by W. Hollar, 1659 I by J. Van Dalen. 635. Juxon (William), Archbishop of Canterbury. Coll, of Bishop of London, in 1831 (Sm. 599). 636. Kenelmacey (Countess of). Coll, of Earl of Denbigh (Sm. 587). 637. Killigrew (Thomas) and Thomas Carew; half- length ; signed and dated 1638. Windsor (Sm. 214). 638. Killigrew (Thomas); half-length ; dated 1638. A. Coll, of Duke of Newcastle. B. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 273). C. Coll, of W. Caipenter, Esq. (Sm. 570). Eng. by Geddes. Etch. anon, (head only). 639. Killigrew (Thomas), with a dog. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 571). 640. Killigrew (Mistress), and Mistress Morton, seated. See also Kirk (Mistress). Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 841). 64L Killigrew, or Killegry (Mistress), holding a crown of flowers (Sm. 664). Eng. by W. Hollar, 1652 ; by Gronsvelt (Winckl.); by Gaywood. 642. Kinnoul (George Hay, Earl of Kinnoul), full- length, in armour. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 689; Waag. II. 456). 1 Lord Hatherton possessed a copy of this portrait executed by Hogarth. 643. Kirk (Mistress Anne), Lady of the Chamber to the Queen; with a dog. A. Coll, of Earl de Grey, (Sm. 531 ; Waag. II. 85). B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon. Eng. by Gaywood. Mezzo, by J. Beckett. 644. Kirk (Mistress Anne), and the Countess of Morton, seated side by side. (Sm. 532.) Eng. by J. Gronsvelt. 645. Kirk (Mistress), alone. Eng. by Hollar. 646. Kynalmekie (Countess of). Coll, of Earl of Denbigh (Manchester Exhibition, No. 593). 647. Langlois (Francis), known as Ciartres, holding a bagpipe ; three-quarter length. Coll, of Miss Tail, in 1831 (Sm. 305). Eng. by J. Pesne, 1645; by Nic. Poilly, head and shoulders, in oval; by P. G. Langlois; on wood, in the Magasin pittoresque, XX. 393. 648. Laniere (Nicolas), music master to Charles I. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 242). La Tremouille (Charlotte de). See Derby. 649. Laud (William), Archbishop of Canterbury; full- length. A. Hermitage, No. 612 (Sm. 560). Same personage, half-length: B. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Waag. IV. 5 r 3)- C. Coll, of Sir f. C. Hobhouse. D. Lambeth Palace Coll. Eng. by W. Hollar, 1641, head and shoulders; by Cochran, in Lodge's Memoirs', by Vertue (Brom.). Mezzo, by J. Watson, 1779 (Houghton Coll., II., pi. 11).; anon., pub. by D. Loggan. 650. Le Blon (Michael); half-length. Amsterdam Coll., No. 306. Eng. by T. Matham (Sm. 809). 651. Le Clerc ; young man, half-length. Coll, of Earl Brownlow (Sm. 534; Waag. II. 215). Mezzo, by W. Vaillant. 652. Leganfes (Don Diego Philip de Gusman, Marquis of), half-length, in a cuirass. A. Formerly in Coll, of W. H. Aspinwall, Esq. (sold at Christie’s, June 25th, 1886). B. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 670). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 653. Leicester (Dorothy Percy, Countess of), seated, in a white silk dress. Formerly in Coll, of Col. Wyndham ; purchased by Messrs. Colnaghi. (Sm. 566.) Eng. in Lodge's Memoirs. Sir A?ithoiiy Van Dyck 293 654. Lemon (Margaret) ; half-length. A. Hampton Court (Sm. 229). B. Coll of Earl Spencer, at A/thorp. Eng. by W. Hollar, 1646; by R. Gaywood, pub. by Stent; by A. Lommelin (Sz. 113); by J. Morin (?), in octagonal (Al. Cata., p. 222) ; anon. 655. Lemon (Margaret) ; shown as Judith, holding a sword. Coll, of Earl Waldegrave. 656. Lennox (Elizabeth Villiers, Duchess of). Eng. by W. Hollar. 657. Lennox (Catherine Howard, Duchess of), known also as Lady Aubigny; half-length, holding some flowers. A. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 240). B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 690; Waag. ”■ 4 - 57 )- C. Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna. Eng. by R. Lommelin (Sz. 114); by A. de Jode (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by J. Gronsvelt (Didot Cata. 3024). Lennox (Duke and Duchess of Richmond and). See Richmond. 658. Le Roy (Jacques), Seigneur of Herbais; seated in an armchair. A. Coll, of Earl Brownlow (Sm. 725). B. A Private Coll, in Valenciennes. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Sz. 115; Eng. Dept., Louvre). 659. Le Roy (Philip), Lord of Ravels. A. Coll, of Sir Richard Wallace-, full-length; 1630 (Sm. 104, 369). B. Belvedere, Vienna (half-length), Room III., No. 15. Etch, by Van Dyck. Eng. by Pontius and Vorsterman (Web. 125; Sz. 170); anon., after Poutius. Mezzo, anon. (Al. Cata., p. 145)- 660. Le Roy (The wife of Philip) ; full-length. Com¬ panion to No. 659 (1631). Coll, of Sir Richard Wallace (Waag. II. 157)- Etch. by M. Gaujean in the present volume. 661. Le Sceur (Hubert) ; statuary. Eng. by P. Van Somer (Brom.). 662. Lespde (Ignatius Joseph), Canon of Bruges. See Bortoen. 683. Leven (Alexander Lesley, Earl of). Eng. in Clarendotis History (Brom.). 664. Levison (Sir Richard). Coll, of Duke of Buckingham (Sm. 688). 665. Liberti (Henry), organist of Antwerp Cathedral, holding a paper with music. A. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 848 (Sm. 49). B. Madrid Gall., No. 1447- Eng. by P. de Jode (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). Lith. by Piloty. Eng. in colours by J. Hazard (Weig. HI. 15454, No. 13). Ligne (Ernestine de). See Nassau (Countess of). 666. Lindsey (Lord), full-length, in armour. > Bolhwell Castle Coll. (Sm. 553 ; Waag IV. 462). 667. Lindsey (Robert Bertie, Earl of), in armour. Coll, of Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (Sm. 552). Eng. by G. Vertue, in Lodge's Memoirs. 668. Lindsey (Montague Bertie, Earl of), in a cuirass. A. Coll, of Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (Sm. 553). B. Bolhwell Castle Coll. Eng. by Vertue, in Lodge's Memoirs-, by Faithorne. 669. Lipse (Justus), hand on a book laid on a table. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 728). Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by E. de Boulnois ; by Galle (oval). Mezzo, by Schinck. 670. Littleton (Edward, Lord), Chief Justice of Common Pleas. Eng. by W. Faithorne (Web. 121). Mezzo, by R. Williams (Al. Cata. 142). 671. Livens (John), elbow resting on a book on a table. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre ) ; by Polanzani (head only); by Gaywood (head only) (Sm. 754)- 672. Lomellini family ; painted at Genoa. National Gall, of Scotland, Edinburgh, No. 338. 673. Longucval (Charles de) ; head and shoulders, in oval. Eng. by P. de Jode the Elder (Al. Cata., p. 114). Lorraine (Henrietta of). See Phalsburg. Lorraine (Margaret of). See Orleans. 674. Lumague,' banker; head and shoulders (Sm. 81 r, 814). Eng. by Michael Lasne (Web., p. 122); by Susanne Silvestre. 675. Macclesfield (Earl of). Coll, of Lord Salisbury (Sm. 615). 676. Maharkyzus or Marquis (Lazare), an Antwerp physician ; seated in an armchair. Eng by P. de Jode the Younger (Sm. 535, 818, 820). Mezzo, by Seb. Barras (Web. 116). Mainwaring (Sir Thomas). See Strafford. 677. Malderus (John), Bishop of Antwerp ; seated; three-quarter length. A. Antwerp Gall., No. 402 (Sm. 20, 226). B. Hermitage (a copy), No. 638. Eng. by W. Hollar, 1645 (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by A. Lommelin (Sz. 172) i by A. B. de Quertemont (Weig. III. 15783)- 1 The inscription on Susanne Silvestre’s print states that the picture was painted at Genoa. Catalogue of the Works of 2 94 678 . Mallery (Charles de), engraver; three-quarter length. A. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 847 (Sm. 85). B. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Sm. 529). C. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 335). Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 529). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by S. Silvestre (head only); by Jean Morin (Winckl.). Mezzo, by Langlois, 1797. 679 . Mansfield (Earnest, Earl of), half-length, in a cuirass. Eng. by R. Van Voerst (Web. 126 ; Sz. 173 ; Sm. 708). 680 . Margaret, Princess of the House of Austria, in the habit of a Carmelite. Madrid Gall. (Sm. 198). 681 . Mary (Princess), daughter of Charles I. A. Coll, of Earl of Harrington. B. Coll, of Earl of Normanton (Sm. 460, 720; Waag. IV. 238, 364). Eng. by W. Faithorne; by C. Van Queborne, in oval (Al. Cata., p. 132); by C. Van Dalen (Al. Cata. 104); by H. Hondius (Marmol Cata. 1579). Mezzo, by H. Coussin (Weig. I. 6422). 682 . Mary (Princess), with Prince William Henry of Orange, her betrothed. Amsterdam Gall., No. 307 (Sm. 461). Marquis (Lazare). See Maharkyzus. 683 . Marselaer (Frederic de), holding a paper. National Gall, of Ireland, Dublin. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Web. 122; Sz. 175); by C. Galle; head and shoulders, in oval (Sm. 704). 684 . Maurice (Prince), nephew of Charles I.; full-length. Coll, of Earl Craven (Manchester Exhibition, No. 114). 685 . Medicis (Mary de), half-length, in dccollelec dress. A. Borghese Gall., Rome. B. Coll, of Lord Folkestone (Sm. 596, 597; Waag. IV. 362). C. Formerly at Blenheim ; purchased by Sedel- meyer in 1886. Bistre sketch : Pinakothek, Munich, No. 851 (Sm. 75 )- Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); bv Van Sompel and Soutman, in oval; anon., in oval, small scale (Al. Cata., p. 145). 686. Medicis (Mar}' de); head and shoulders. A. Lille Gall., No. 150. B. Bordeaux Gall., No. 457. 687 . Menns (Sir Thomas), in a cuirass. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 593). Eng. by E. V. Utterson, 688. Merian (M.). Eng. anon. (Didot Cata., No. 3014). 689 . Meyssens (John); half-length. Eng. by C. Galle the Younger (Web., p. m ; Sz. 138; Sm. 668). 690 . Middlesex (Rachel Fawe, Countess of); three- quarter length. Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses). 69 L Middleton (Sir Hugh). Coll, of Duke of Portland (Waag. IV. 512). 692 . Minnes (Sir John), admiral, three-quarter length, in a cuirass. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Waag. II. 456). 693 . Mirabella (Antonio di Zuniga and Davila, Marchese di); half-length. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 727; Waag. III. Eng. by C. Waumans (Web., p. 115; Sz. 139); by A. Bloteling; by Flachenecker. 694 . Miraeus (Albert), seated in an armchair near a table. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Sm. 540). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Diamaer, in oval (Al. Cata., p. 105). 695 . Mirevelt (Michael), half-length, by a table holding a palette (Sm. 757). Eng. by G. J. Delphius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by Boulnois, on a small scale. 698 . Modena (Maria Beatrice, Princess of), half-length, seated. Eng. in the manner of Hollar (Al. Cata., p. 145). 697 . Moens (Adrian), carrying a portfolio under his Van Schorel Coll., 1774 (Sm. 304). 698 . Momper 1 (Judocus de); three-quarter length. Etch, by Van Dyck, completed by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; copy of same plate (Sm. 756). 699 . Moncada (Francis di), Marquis d’Aytona, on horse¬ back. Louvre, No. 1971 (Sm. 143). Eng. by Raph. Morgen, 1793 ; by Duplessis-Bertaux and Villerey, from drg. by Seb. Le Roy (Filhol, IV. 275). 700 . Moncada (Francis di), Marquis d’Aytona ; head and shoulders. A. Louvre, No. 1972. B. Belvedere, Vienna, Room III., No. 19 (Sm. 95). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Web., p. 107; Sz. 95); by P. Soutman and Suyderhoef; by P. de Jode, in oval; anon., in oval, Montcornet exc. (Al. Cata. 145). Mezzo, by Bechet (Weig. I. 6318). 1 The Beuruonville collection included (No. 272 in catalogue, May, 1SS1) a supposed portrait of Judocus de Momper. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 2 95 701. Monmouth (Duke of), as a youth. Dalkeith Palace Coll. (Waag. III. 313). Eng. by W. Faithome (Web., p. 120). 702. Monmouth (Countess of) ; full-length. Coll, of Lord Folkestone ( Waag. IV. 362). 703. Montfort (John de), half-length, in a black costume. A. Belvedere, Vienna, Room III., No. 25 (Sm. !05). B. Ujfisi Call., Florence, No. 1115 (Sm. 162). Eng. by P. de Jode (Web. 112; Sz. 140); by J. Kowatsch, from drg. by Von Perger (Belvedere Gall.) ; by De Prenner, in oval (Vienna Gall.). Mezzo, anon. 704. Montrose (James Graham, Marquis of), in a cuirass. A. Coll, of Duke of Montrose (Sm. 582). B. Coll, of M. Serevil/e, 1811 (Sm. 343). Eng. by Houbrakcn, 1740 (series of twelve portraits); by Robinson, in Lodge's Memoirs ; by Strange, in a medal¬ lion (in Smollett's History of England ); by Vertue (Brom.) 705. Mordaunt d’Aviland (Jean, Viscomte). Eng. by W. Faithorne (Web., p. 119). 706. Moret (Antoine de Bourbon, Comte de) ; head and shoulders (Sm. 695). Eng. by P de Baillu (Web. 109; Sz. 125); anon., head and shoulders, Montcornet exc. (Al. Cata. 143). 707. Moretus (Balthazar), his hand resting on two large books. Eng. anon., Galle exc. (Sm. 808). 708. Morton (Anne, Countess of), taking up a rose off a table. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 652). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses); anon., in oval. 709. Mowbray and Maltravers (Henry, Baron), son of Earl of Arundel. Coll, of General Craig, 1812 (Sm. 347). 710. Musician ; a man striking a musical instrument. Madrid Gall., No. 1393- 711. Musician playing the violin and singing. Coll, of Earl of Midgrave (Sm. 883). 712. Mytens 1 (Daniel) ; three-quarter length. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by W. Raddon, in Walpole (Sm. 763). 713. Mytens (Daniel) and his wife; three-quarter length. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Sm. 764; Waag. III. 464, and IV. 335). 1 The first state of the plate issued by Van Enden bears the name Isaac Mytens. 714. Nassau-Siegen (Ernestine, Princesse de Ligne, Countess of), upright, her hand on a chair (Sm. ? 21 ). Eng. by Mich. Natalis (Sz. 141). 715. Nassau (John, Count of), with his wife, his son, and three daughters ; full-length ; painted 1634. Coll, of Lord Cowper (Sm. 292; Waag. III. 16). Eng. by Baron, 1761. 716. Nassau (John, Count of) ; half-figure, full-face, in armour. Coll, of Lord Ashburton (Sm. 374; Waag. II. 103). Grisaille in Pinakothek, Munich, No. 857 (Sm. 77)- Another : Veyer Gall., Cologne, No. 225. Eng. by P. Pontius (Web., p. 475; Sz. 49); by L. Vorsterman, in oval (Sz. 160); by Soutman and Suyder- hoef; by P. de Jode, in oval. 717. Nassau-Siegen (Henry of). Eng. by P. Philipps. Neuburg (Count of). See Pfalz-Neuburg. Neuburg (Widow of Count of). See Aubigny. 718. Newcastle (William Cavendish, Duke of); full- length. A. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 509; Waag. III. 459). B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon. C. Coll, of Duke of Portland. D. Ho/yrood Palace. E. Woburn Coll. F. Burleigh Coll. G. Coll, of Earl of Oxford. Eng. by Houbraken ; by G. Vertue, London, 1739. 719. Newport (Montjoy Blount, Earl of), with Lord George Goring and a little boy ; about 1634. Petworth Coll. (Sm. 611; Waag. III. 34). 720*. Newport (Countess of) ; ascription doubtful. Coll, of Sir Peter Lely, 1680 (Sm. 612). 721. Nole (Andre Colyns de), his hand on a skull. Pinakothek, Munich, No. S44 (Sm. 57). Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). Lith. by Woelfjle. 722. Nole (The wife of the sculptor Colyns de), with her daughter on her knee. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 845. Lith. by J. Woelfjle. 296 Catalogue of the JVorks of 723. Northumberland (Algernon Percy, Earl of), up¬ right, with his wife Anne Cecil, seated, and her daughter. A. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 610; Waag. III. 33)- B. Coll, of Marquis of Salisbury. C. Coll, of Duke of Manchester. 724. Northumberland (Algernon Percy, Earl of), Lord High Admiral, full-length, with a cuirass. A. Coll, of Earl of Essex (Sm. 609). B. Coll, of Duke of Bedford. C. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Waag. IV. 334, 456). Eng. by J. Houbraken, 1738 (series of twelve poVtraits); by J. Payne; by C. Van Dalen ; by Scriven, in Lodge's Memoirs ; by G. Glover (Brom.); anon., oval. 725. Northumberland (Henry Percy, Earl of); an old man seated in an armchair. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 608 ; Waag. III. 34)- 726. Odescalchi (Don Livio), holding his sword with the left hand. Coll, of Sir H. H. Campbell, sold at Christie’s, June, 1894 (Waag. IV. 443). 727. Oliver (Peter) ; painter. (Sm. 804.) Eng. by W. Finden, in Walpole; anon. (R. Van Voerst ?). 728 Orange (Frederick Henry, Prince of), Count of Nassau, half-length, in armour. A. Gall, of The Hague (Weig. I. 491). B. Madrid Gall., No. 1272. C. Brignole Sala Palace, Genoa (Sm. 171). Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 711). Eng. by P. Pontius; by P. Pontius, on large scale (Web,, p. 124 ; Sz. 116) ; by C. Waumans (Web., p. 114; Sz. 143); by P. de Jode, oval; by R. Gaywood (head only). 729. Orange (William, Prince of); a child, in a frock and a cap with feathers. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 495 ; Waag. III. 35). Eng. by Vertue; by Von Michaelis. 730. Orange (William, Prince of); a child, in a garden. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Waag. IV. 513). 73L Orange (William, Prince of), with a cuirass and a Hermitage, No. 611 (Sm. 712). Eng. by W. Faithorne (Web., p. 119; Sm. 496); in the Description of the Hermitage, II. 74. Orange (Prince of), with Princess Mary his wife, while still children. See Mary. 732. Orange (Maurice, Prince of). Coll, of S. Fox, Esq. (Sm. 692). 733. Orange (The young Prince of), with a hat and feathers. Coll, of the Friends of the Arts, Prague. 734. Orange (Emilie de Solms, Princess of); three- quarter length. A. Belvedere, Vienna, Room III., No. 24 (Sm. 101). B. Coll, of Lord Craven (Waag. III. 219). Grisaille in possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by C. Waumans (Web., p. 114; Sz. 144); by P. de Jode, 1638, in oval (Sm. 721); by De Prenner (Vienna Gall.). 735. Orleans (Gaston, Due d’), half-length, in a cuirass, his hand on his helmet. A. Coll, of Queen Victoria. 1 B. Coll, of Lord Folkestone (Waag. IV. 360). C. Coll, of Lord Radnor. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by P. de Jode ; by P. Soutraan and P. Van Sompel ; by R. Gaillard, head and shoulders (Odieuvre series); anon, in oval (Al. Cata. 144). 736. Orleans (Margaret of Lorraine, Duchesse d’) ; three-quarter length. Ujfisi Gall., Florence, No. 196 (Sm. 163). Bistre sketch: Pinakothek, Munich, No. 853 (Sm. 74). Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by P. Soutman and P. Van Sompel; by P. de Jode the Elder (Sm. 7 I5)- 737. Ormond (The Duchess of) ; full-length. Coll, of the Duke of Bedford (Sm. 559; Waag. III. 464). 738. Oxford (Lady Diana Cecil, Countess of), holding a rose. A. Madrid Gall., No. 1245. B. Coll, of Earl of Stamford and Warrington. Etch, by Le Couteux in 1882. 739. Palamedes Palamedessen; painter; three-quarter length. Grisaille in.Pinakothek, Munich, No. 859 (Sm. 80). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 740. Pappenheim (Godfrey Henry, Count of), half- length, in armour. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 709). Eng. by C. Galle (Web., p. in ; Sz. 145); by P. de Jode the Younger, in oval (Al. Cata., p. 114). 1 In the Chantilly collection there is a full-length portrait of the Duke of Orleans, a feeble copy of a canvas by Van Dyck. Sir Anthony Van Dyck y van Dyck 297 741. Parr (Thomas) (the famous "Old Parr”), painted in his hundred and fifty-first year. Dresden Gall., No. 993 (Sm. 282). 754. Pembroke (The two daughters of the Earl of), half-length, in a garden, gathering roses. Hermitage , No. 634. 742. Paston (Sir William), with long curled hair. Eng. by W. Faithome (Sm. 658). 755. Pembroke (Two ladies of the family), half-length, seated in a garden, holding roses. 743. Paston (Lady). Eng. by W. Faithorne (Sm. 657). Hermitage, No. 633. 744. Paulett (Lady), full-length, a rose in her right hand. Bothwell Cast/e Coll. (Waag. IV. 463). 756. Pembroke (Penelope, daughter of Sir Richard Naunton, wife of Philip, Earl of). Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 523 and 838). Eng. by Hollar; by Lombart; by Baron, 1740 (Brom.). 745. Peiresc (Nicolas Fabri de), at a table laden with books; half-length; painted in 1625. Gtisaille in possession of Duke of Buccletich (Sm. 7S2). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Gayvvood, head only ; by N. de Larmessin. 757. Pembroke (Susan Vere, first wife of Philip, Earl of). Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 524). 758. Pembroke (Lady Mary Herbert, wife of the fourth Earl of). 746. Pembroke (William Herbert, Earl of). Eng. in Clarendon's History (Brom.). A. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke. B. Coll, of Duke of Beaufort (Sm. 525). 747. Pembroke (Philip Herbert, Earl of), with his wife, sons, and daughters. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 516; Waag. Ill 153). Study: Hermitage, No. 614. Another study : Coll, of Lord Carnarvon. Eng. by Baron, 1740. C. Glendon Hall Coll. (Waag. III. 462). 759. Pepyn (Martin); painter; half-lengtlr. Signed: Me pictorem pictor pinxit. A 0 1632, D.D. Ant. Van Dyck Eques il/ustris. Ed. Rums Coll., Antwerp ; formerly in Coll, of the King of the Belgians (Sm. 371). Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. 748. Pembroke (Philip Herbert, Earl of) ; half-length. Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). A. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke. B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon. 760 ‘ Percival ( Phili P)‘ C. Coll, of Duke of Buckingham (Sm. 517). Eng. by R. Van Voerst (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). .c-ug. uy yv. 1 urns (Drom.;. 761. Percy (Sir Charles), three-quarter length, in 749. Pembroke (Philip Herbert, Earl of), full-length, in the act of mounting a step. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon (Sm. 839; Waag. II. 457)- armour. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 494; Waag. III. 34). 750. Pembroke (Philip Herbert, Earl of), a young man ; three-quarter length. A. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 520). B. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Manchester Exhibi¬ tion, No. 99). C. Coll, of Earl of Verulam (Sm. 517, 519). Eng. by W. Hollar, 1642; by Lombart (Series of Countesses); by Worlidge, in Lodges Memoirs. 762. Percy of Alnwick (Henry, Lord), in a black silk costume. Coll, oj Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 493 ; Waag. III. 34). Percy (Algernon). See Northumberland. 763. Percy (Lord), with his sister by his side. 751. Pembroke (Earl of). Dulwich Gall., No. 214 (Sm. 521 ; Waag. II. 342). Coll, of Earl of Essex (Sm. 626). Percy (Dorothy). See Leicester. 752. Pembroke (Thomas Herbert, eighth Earl of). Coll, of Viscount Galway (Waag. IV. 517). Percy (Lucy). See Carlisle. 753. Pembroke (Countess of). Companion portrait to °’ 75764 . Peter (?) (picture representing the family) (St Dulwich Call., No. 250 (Sm. 522; Waag. II. 342). I 272). 38 Catalogue of the Works of 298 765. Pfalz-Neuburg (Count Wolfgang William), full- length, with a large dog, 1628. A. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 837 (Sm. 51). B. Schamps Coll., Ghent (Sm. 607) ; and Coll, of M. L. Alvin, Brussels. C. Three-quarter-length portrait: Coll, of Due d' Aurna/e. D. Palace of the Kings of Hanover. Grisaille study: Pinakothek, Munich, No. 838; another in Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by Vorsterman ; by C. de Mechel (Diisseldorf Gall. 25). Lith. by Piloty ; by W. Flachenecker (Cotta. Gall., Munich). 766. Phalsburg (Henrietta of Lorraine, Princess of); full-length ; 1634. A. Coll, of Earl of Carlisle (Sm. 327). B. Formerly in Coll, of Duke of Hamilton (Waag. Ill. 298); sold at Christie’s in 1882 to Mr. F. Davis. Eng. by C. Galle (Web., p. hi; Sz. 146). 767. Phalsburg (Henrietta of Lorraine, Princess of); full-length, with a young negro holding a basket of fruits; painted in 1634. Eng. by Voisand (Gall, d Orleans, Vol. II.). 768. Philip IV. on horseback, in armour, under an arch. Balbi Piovera Palace, Genoa. According to tra¬ dition the head was re-painted by Velasquez (Sm. 7°l). Eng. by P. de Jode the Elder in 1660 (Al. Cata., p. 115)- 769. Piccolomini (Count Octavio), Spanish general ; head and shoulders, in oval. Eng. by P. de Jode the Elder (Al Cata., p. 114)* Pimentel. See Feria (Count). 770. Poelenbourg (Cornelius), painter; three-quarter length. Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre; Sm. 771). 771. Pole on horseback (?). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Diisseldorf Gall. 29). 772. Ponciau (Peter), connoisseur. Eng. by Van der Does. ■'773. Pontius (Paul), engraver; half-length. Coll, of Cardinal Valenti, Amsterdam, in tj6j (Sm. 789). Grisaille in possession of the Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 788). Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept.. Louvre); Eng. by P. Pontius, almost in profile (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); also in broad point, in reverse. Mezzo, by J. Watson. 774. Porter (Sir Endymion), with his wife and children. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 238). 775. Porter (Sir Endymion); half-length. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke (Sm. 616). See post, Van Dyck, No. 902. 776. Porter (Lady); three-quarter length. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 614; Waag. III. 34). 777. Portland (Richard Weston, Earl of), leaning against a table, holding a letter. A. Coll, of Earl Verulam (Sm. 575, 576). B. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon. C. Bankes Coll. (Waag. IV. 375). Eng. by Hollar, 1645 ; also in Lodge's Memoirs. 778. Portland (Frances Stuart, Countess of), full-length, plucking a rose. A. Coll, of Lord Lyttelton (Sm. 488). B. Formerly in Coll, of Jeremiah Harman, Esq. (Sm. 490). Eng. by W. Hollar, 1650; by R. Gaywood ; anon., in Gaywnod’s manner. Mezzo, anon.; another mezzo, head only. A. Brown exc. (Sm. 489). 779. Puget de la Serre, in ecclesiastical dress, his hand on the back of a chair (Sm. 667). Eng. by M. Lasne. 780. Puteanus (Erycius), seated before a book resting on a table. Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 781. Pye (Sir William) (Sm. 274). 782. Pye (Lady) (Sm. 27s). 783. Queensberry (Lady). Bothwell Castle Coll. 784. Raphael d’Urbin. Eng. by P. Pontius, it is said under Van Dyck's direction (Sz. 149). Ravensteyn. See Van Ravensteyn. 785. Rich (Anne Cavendish, Lady); three-quarter length. See Blois (Jeanne de). Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (S.n. 49S ; Waag. 111. 34)- 786. Richardot (The personage known under the name of President John), with his son; three-quarter length. Louvre, No. 1985 (Sm. IS 2 )- Eng. by Massard, sen., after drg. by Naigeon (Musce franfais, II. 77); by C. Giraud, 1829 (Eng. Dept., Louvre). Etch, by L. A. Claessens (Weig. III. 16496, No. 57). 787*. Riche (Lady Isabella). Holyrood Palace (Sm. 499)- Sir Anthony Van Dyck 299 788. Richmond and Lennox (James Stuart, Duke of), full-length, with a greyhound. A. Coll, of Lord Methuen (Sm. 837; Waag. IV. 396). B. Coll, of SirJ. S. Sidney, Bart. C. Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch. D. Coll, of Earl of Clarendon. E. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke. F. Coll, of Earl of Carlisle (Sm. 594, 595). G. Coll, of Lord Craven (Waag. III. 219). Eng, by Houbraken (series of twelve portraits); by Faithome, in oval; by Hollar; by Stent; by Vaughan. Mezzo, by R. Earlom, 1773. 789. Richmond (James Stuart, Duke of), half-length, holding a pear. Louvre, No. 1975 (Sm. 150). Etch, by M. Noel Masson in the present volume. 790. Richmond and Lennox (James Stuart, Duke of), full-length, dressed as a shepherd. Coll, of Earl Darnley (Sm. 536 ; Waag. III. 24). 791. Richmond (Lady Mary Herbert, Duchess of), full-length, taking gloves handed to her by a dwarf. A. Coll, of Earl of Pembroke (Sm. 585 and 836; Waag. III. 154). B. Formerly at Blenheim ; purchased by Mr. Miller in 1886 (Sm. 253 ; Waag. III. 123). C. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 234). 792. Richmond (Frances Howard, Duchess of), holding Coll, of Marquis of Bath ; formerly in Orleans Coll. (Sm. 328). 793. Richmond (Mary Villiers, Duchess of) (so-called by Smith, but in reality Penelope, Countess of Pem¬ broke. See No. 756), holding a scarf in her hand. Formerly at Blenheim ; purchased by Waters in 1886 (Sm. 254). 794. Richmond (Mary Villiers, Duchess of), full-length, with her son as a Cupid, holding an ariow. Formerly in Coll, of Duke of Hamilton ; bought by C. Beckett Denison in 1882 ; now in possession of Mr. Boore (Waag. III. 297). 795. Richmond (Mary Villiers, Duchess of), as St. Agnes; full-length. Windsor (Sm. 231 ; Waag. II. 427). Eng. by G. Bockman (Brom.). 796. Richmond and Lennox (Elizabeth Villiers, Duchess of), holding roses in her hands. Eng. by W. Hollar (Sz. 150); by R. Gay wood (Al. Cata., p. 110) ; by W. Vaillant; by Voisand; in Lodge's Memoirs (Sm. 633). Mezzo, by J. Van dcr Bruggen, 1682. , Rivers (Countess of). See Thimbleby. 797. Rockox (Nicholas); seated in an armchair by a table 1 (Sm. 293). Coll, of Count Stroganoff j St. Petersburg. Eng. by L. Vorsterman, in 1625 (Web., p. 127); by P. Pontius, in oval (Icon., Eng Dept., Louvre). 798. Rockox (The niece of Nicholas), with her child. Coll, of Count Stroganoff, St. Petersburg (Waag. ). 799. Roelans 2 (D. Jacob), seated at his desk; three- quarter length (Sm. 816). Eng. by P. Pontius (Al. Cata., p. 127). 800. Rogers (Mr.), a large dog by his side. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 621). 801. Rogiers (Theodore), sculptor; three-quarter length. Eng. by Clowet (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 802. Rombouts (Theodore), painter; three-quarter length. Hermitage, No. 640 (Sm. 777). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Boulnois ; by Ficquet, after drg. by Eisen; by Michael Aubert, in oval, for Dargenville; by R. Gaywood (Al. Cata., p. 110). 803. Roose (P.), President of the Council of Brabant, in an armchair ; three-quarter length. Coll, of Comtesse de Beaufort, Brussels. Eng. by R. Collin. Mezzo, by J. F. Leonart 804. Rubens and two other figures; three-quarter length. National Gall., London (Sm. 318). Eng. by W. Holl; by John H. Robinson, 1830 (National Gall., folio). 805. Rubens (Peter Paul), full-length, with a key. Signed: Ant. Van Dyck, Eques, pin.xf. A. Coll of Earl Spencer (Sm. 500; Waag. III. 458). B. Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. in colour by J. C. Le Blon (No. 8 in Coll, of Dresden Copper Plates (Weig. I. 8323). 806. Rubens (Peter Paul); half-length ; bistre sketch. A. Six Coll., Amsterdam (Sm. 482). B. Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 483). C. Ham. Court Coll. (Waag. 111. 225). 1 A three-quarter-length painted portrait of M. Rockox was some years since offered by M. de Reume of Paris to the Brussels Gallery, which, however, did not purchase it. * This portrait is after Th. Villeborts. 3 °° Catalogue of the Wo?~ks of 807. Rubens (Peter Paul); head and shoulders. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 482-484). Eng. by P. Pontius, under Van Dyck's direction ; by P. Pontius alone (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Ficquet, from drg. by F.isen, for Descamps ; by J. de Wisscher, head only ; by Folo (L. Bonaparte Coll.); by E. Boulnois; by R. Gaywood, 1656; by Moncornet, in oval, 1657 ; by W. Baiilie ; by Lutma ; by B. Cecclii (Al. Cata., p. 103); anon., for Dargenville; anon., Jac. de Man exc. (Al. Cata., p. 146); by J. Audran, 1710, from drg. by J. M. Nattier ; anon., after last-named, pub. by Daumont (Al. Cata., p. 146); by S. 808. Rubens and Van Dyck. Small round pictures in grisaille for engraving. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Waag. II. 94). 809. Rubens, Peter Paul. Coll, of Edward Gray, Esq. (Sm. 351). Eng. by W. Wollett. 810. Rubens (The son of). Coll, of Lord Folkestone (Sm. 302; Waag. IV. 360). Mezzo, by Pichler, Vienna. 811. Rubens (The brother of). Dresden Gall., No. 994. 812. Rubens (A lady said to be the mother of). Uffisi Gall., Florence, No. 139. Rupert (Prince). See Bavaria. Russell (William). See Bedford. 813. Ruthven (Lord and Lady). Munich (?) (Sm. 56). 814. Ruthven (Maria), holding a violin and bow. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 849 (Sm. 52). 815. Ruthven (Maria), as the Virgin, holding a Child. Sir R. Lyttelton’s Coll. (Sm. 744). Eng. by F. Bartolozzi, 1770 (Boydell Coll.). 816. Ruthven (Maria), wife of Van Dyck ; half-length. Eng. by Bolsvvert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by W. Faithorne; by F. Van den Wyngaerde (Didot Cata., No. 3072); by Meyssens (Sz. 131 ; Al. Cata., p. 122); by]. Morin (Sm. 52) ; by L. Ferdinand ; with monogram D. V. L. (Al. Cata., p. 146). Etch. anon. (Marmol Cata., No. 1515). Lith. by Flacbenecker; by Ach. Deverin. 817. Ruthven (A lady as Minerva, with Cupid by her side, said to be a portrait of Maria). Blaise Castle Coll. (Waag. III. 191). Eng. by T. Benedetti, 1836 (Weig. I. 5083). Ruvigny (Rachel). See Southampton. 818. Ryckaert (Martin), painter, with a fur-trimmed cloak and cap. A. Dresden Gall., No. 990 (Sm. 192). B. Madrid Gall., No. 1233. C. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, No. 148. D. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 741 ; Waag. III. 214). E. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke (Waag. IV. 518). F. Coll, of Lord Folkestone (Waag. IV. 35 5)- Grisaille of same portrait: Aix Gall. (Bourguignon de Fabregoules Coll.), No. 256.* Eng. by Jac. Neefs (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Boulnois; by J. R. Smith; byC. G. Rasp, Dresden. Lith. by F. Hanfstaengl, 1837 (Dresden Gall.). 819. Sachtleven (Cornelius), painter; three-quarter length. . Grisaille in Fodor Gall., Amsterdam (Sm. 781). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre), Sackville (Edward). See Dorset. 820. Salisbury (Charles Cranbourne, Earl of), full- length, in armour. A. Coll, of Earl of Egremont (Sm. 542). B. Coll, of Lord Salisbury (Sm. 543). Santa Cruz (Don Alvarez Bazan, Marquis of). See Bazan. 821. Savoy (Amedeus and Louisa, children of Prince Thomas of), while still quite young. Turin Gall., No. 26. Eng, by Sam. Jesi, from drg. by Lor. Metalli (Turin Gall., II., p. 62). 822. Savoy (Charles Emmanuel, Duke of); head and shoulders; painted in 1624. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 76). Eng, by Mich. Aubert, in oval, Odieuvre series (Al. Cata., p. 99); by P. Rucholle (Sz. 162). 823. Savoy (A young prince of the House of), with flowers and a fan. Turin Gall., No. 30. Eng. by Raggi, from drg. by Lor. Metalli (Turin Gall., III. 90). 824. Savoy (Princess Maria Catherine of Spain, wife of Charles Emmanuel of), holding the portrait of her son Thomas. Turin Gall., No. 7- Savoy (Francis Thomas of). See Carignan. 825. Savoy (Duchess of), full-length, standing near an armchair; 1625. Coll, of Earl of Aberdeen (Sm. 539). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 3 GI 826. Savoy (Six heads of the Royal family of); a woman, three little girls, and two boys. Turin Gall., No. 349. 827. Scaglia (Caesar Alexander), Abbot of Staffarde ; full-face, half-length. A. Antwerp Gall., No. 405 (Sm. 295). B. Ho/ford Coll. (Waag. II. 200). Monochrome sketch, in bistre : Pinakolhek, Munich, No. 858 (Sm. 78). Beurnonville Coll., No. 266 in Cata. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by C. Waumans (Al. Cata., p. 142). 837. Shirley, Sir Robert, full-length, dressed in Persian costume; painted in 1623. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 545 ; Waag. III. 40). 838. Shirley (The wife of Sir Robert), full-length, in Persian costume ; painted in 1623. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Sm. 544). Eng. by Hollar. 839. Sidney (Lady Betty); half-length. Coll, of Duke of Richmond (Manchester Exhibition, No. 157). 828. Schotten (Mary Anne); portrait painted for a tomb. Formerly in the Church of St. Gudule, Brussels (Sm. 37). 829. Schut (Cornelius), three-quarter length, leaning on the base of a pillar (Sm. 755). The drawing, belonging to M. Dutuit, is reproduced in this volume by heliogravure. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 830. Scribani (Charles), rector of the Jesuit College, Antwerp. A. Belvedere, Vienna, Room III., No. 28 (Sm. 93). B. Wynn Ellis Coll. (Waag. II. 295). Eng. by P. Clowet (Web., p. 117 ; Sz. 177); by P. Pontius (on small scale). 831. Seghers (Daniel), painter. Grisaille in British Museum (Sm. 748). Eng. by L. Vorsterman the Younger (Web., p. too ; Sz. 64). Sieveri (Helen Leonora di). See Du Booys. 840. Simons (Quintyn), painter; half-length. Hague Gall., No. 80 (Sm. 136). Eng. by P. de Jode (Web., p. 121 ; Sz. 178); by Boutrois, from drg. by Girod {Music Napoleon, IX. 641); by Lange ( Stcengracht , No. 68). Smith (Margaret). See Herbert. 841. Snayers (Peter), painter, half-length, with a broad-brimmed hat. Bistre sketch: Pinakolhek, Munich, No. 850 (Sm. 84). Eng. by And. Stock (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); another by the same (Marmol Cata., No. 1582). 842. Snellincx (John), painter; half-length. Formerly in Church of St. George, Antwerp (Sm. 28). Etch, by Van Dyck, completed by P. dc Jode (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); copy of same etch, by a pupil. Eng. by Susaune Silvestre, head only; by Dandre (Al. Cata., p. J04). 832, Seghers (Gerard), half-length, wrapped in a cloak (Sm. 747). See the heliogravure of the drg. of this portrait, belonging to M. Armand, pub. in the present work. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Boulnois (Al. Cata., p. 102) ; also anon. 833. Selden (John), jurisconsult. Eng. by J. Faber (Brom.). Seymour (William). See Hertford. 834*. Sfsndrato (Sigismund), Marquis de Montasie, Spanish general; head and shoulders. Eng. by P. de Jode the Elder (Al. Cata., p. 114). 835*. S’Gravesande (William James), mathematician (wrongly attributed to Van Dyck). Eng. by Houbraken (Sm. 717). 836. Sheffield (Sir.); "so catalogued in accordance with the coat-of-arms in the corner ” (half-length); dated 1627. Hague Gall., No. 78 (Sm. 134). Eng. by. J. C. Ulmer, from drg. by Gianni (Music francais, II. 76); by A. L. Zeelander, from drg. by Heideloff ( Sleengraclt , No. 24). 843. Snellincx (portrait of a rnan, wrongly described as Snellincx). Windsor (Waag. II. 429). 844. Snyders (Francis); three-quarter length. Coll, of Earl of Carlisle (Sm. 239; Waag. III. 319)- Etch, by Van Dyck, finished by J. Neefs (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). Eng. anon., on small scale, pub. by Meyssens (Al. Cata. 14b); by Susanne Silvestre, from drg. byBertin; by Lerouge and Dequevauviller (Gal. d'Orleans, Vol. II.). 845. Snyders (Francis); head and shoulders. Pinakolhek, Munich, No. 834. Signed: A. V. Dyckf. (Sm. 54). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dusseldorf Gall., 299). Eng. on • wood in Magasinpitloresquc , 1853 (XX, 284); litho. by Piloty. 846. Snyders (Francis), seated by his wife; three- quarter length. Cassel Gall., No. 115. 847. Snyders (Francis), with his wife seated in an armchair, and his daughter. Hermitage, No. 627 (Sm. 300). Lith. by Huot (Hermitage Gall.). 02 Catalogue of the Works of 848. Snyders (Francis), with his wife and daughter. Coll, of Sir Culling Eardley, Bart. (Manchester Exhibition, No. 605). 849. Snyders (The wife of Francis), in a white cap. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 330; Waag. III. 213)- Study for this portrait: Coll, of Hon. G. f. Vernon. 850. Southampton (T. Wriothesley, Earl of); full- length. A. Coll, of Duke of Portland. B. Coll, of Duke of Buckingham. 851. Southampton (Rachel Ruvigny, wife of Thomas, Earl of), in the clouds, with a sceptre; allegory, painted in 1636. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 510; Waag. III. 459). Mezzo, by MacArdell, 1758. 852. Southampton (Rachel Ruvigny, Countess of) ; full- length. A. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Sm. 511). B. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke (Sm. S T2 )- C. Coll of Duke of Graf ton (Sm. 513). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses). 853. Southampton (Elizabeth Leigh, wife of Henry, Earl of); seated. Coll, of Countess de Grey (Sm. 530). Mezzo, anon., R. Thompson exc. (Al. Cata. 146). 854. Spencer (Penelope Wriothesley, Countess of), full-length, with a little dog. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Sm. 501 ; Waag. III. 458). 855. Spinola (Agostino), on a grey horse, advancing forwards ; a negro by his side. Ferdinand Spinola Palace, Genoa. 856 Spinola (Agostino), three-quarter length, in a cuirass. Ferdinand Spinola Palace, Genoa. 857. Spinola (Marchesa Ambrosio), half-length, in a cuirass. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 702). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Soutman and Louys, in oval. 858. Spinola (Marchesa), with her granddaughter; full-length. Coll, of Lord Caledon (Waag. IV. 151). 859. Spinola (Polyxena), first Marchioness of Leganes. Madrid Gall, No. 1772. 860. Spinola (A man of the family); head and shoulders, in oval. Ferdinand Spinola Palace, Genoa. 861. Spranger (Bartholomew). Etch, by Polanzani. 862. Stafford (William Howard, Viscount); three- quarter length. Coll of Marquis of Bute (Sm. 573; Waag. III. 475)- Eng. H. Robinson, in Lodge's Memoirs. 863. Stalbent (Adrian), painter ; half-length (Sm. 753). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); copy of same, anon. (Al. Cata. 147); eng. in stipple, by Otho Christian. Stanley (James). See Derby. 864. Steenwyck (Henry), painter, half-length, holding a paper (Sm. 766). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by R. Gaywood (head only). 865. Stevens (Adrian), half-length, holding a glove (Sm. 8t 3 ). Eng. by A. Lommelin (Sz. 179). 866. Stevens (Peter), connoisseur; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 74°). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng, Dept., Louvre). 867. Strafford (Thomas Wentworth, Earl of), with his secretary, Sir Thomas Mainwaring, seated by a table; three-quarter length. A. Coll, of Earl FitzWilliam (Sm. 589 ; Waag. III. 338). B. Formerly al Blenheim, purchased by Miller in 1886. Sketch in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. Eng. by P. de Jode; by Vertue ; by Houston. 868. Strafford (Thomas Wentworth, Earl of), on a grey horse, his hat in his hand. Brunswick Gall., No. 139. 869. Strafford (Thomas Wentworth, Earl of), three- quarter length, in armour. A. Coil, of Col Wyndhatn, al Pelworth (Sm. 588 ; Waag. III. 34). B. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Waag. IV. 515). C. Bothwell Castle Coll (Waag. IV. 463). D. Coll of Earl Fits William, at Wentworth House (Sm. 588; Waag. III. 339, 340). E. Osterley Park Coll. (Waag. IV. 271). F. Coll, of Lord Enfield (Waag. IV. 325). Eng. by W. Hollar, 1640; by G. Vertue, 1739; by R. White; by Wisscher; by Moncornet; by G. Glover; by Cooper; by R. Houston(Brom.); by P. de Jode (Brom.) ; by Robinson, in Lodge's Memoirs-, by J. Houbraken, 1740 (series of twelve portraits); by Strange (round medallion, in Smollett's History of England). Mezzo, anon. (Al. Cata. 147)- 870. Strafford (Earl of), bald-headed, in armour. Coll, of Earl FitzWilliam (Sm. 589; Waag. III. 342). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 3°3 871. Strafford (William, Anne and Arabella, children of the Earl of) ; full-length. Coll, of Earl FiteWilliam (Sm. 590; Waag. III. 338). Eng. by Vertue, 1739. 872. Strafford (Arabella, second wife of Lord), full- length, raising a curtain. Coll, of Earl Fits William (Waag. III. 340). 873. Stuart (Lord Bernard and Lord John); full- length. A. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Sm. 537, 538 ; Waag. III. 24). B. Coll, of Earl of Darnley. C. Coll, of Lord Roys/on. Mezzo, by MacArdell; anon., pub. by R. Thompson. 874. Suckling (Sir John), full-length, holding a page of Shakespeare. Coll, of Dr. Lee (Sm. 684). Eng- by G. Vertue, 1744 (series of twelve portraits); by W. P. Scherlack, pub. by Smith. 875. Sunderland (Dorothy Sidney, Countess of), three- quarter length, holding a flower in her hand. A. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworlh (Sm. 485, 508 ; Waag. III. 43). B. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 507). Eng. by Lombart (Series of Countesses); by T. Wright, in Lodges Memoirs. 876. Suttermans (Justus), half-length, holding a chain in his hand. Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); eng. anon., head only (Sm. 797). Sweden (Gustavus Adolphus, King of). See Gustavus Adolphus. 877*. Symens (Peter), of Brussels ; half-length. Cassel Gall, No. 120 (Sm. 802). Eng. anon. (A. Lommelin), pub. by De Man. (Icon., Eng, Dept., Louvre). 878. Taie (The Chevalier Engelbert), Baron de Wemmel; head and shoulders, oval. Dresden Gall., No. 991 (Sm. 703). Eng. by C. Galle the Younger (Web. 112; Sz. 153). Lith. by R. Ilanfstaengl (Dresden Gall.). 879. Tassis (Anthony de), Canon of Antwerp; three- quarter length. Lichtenstein Gall. (Sm. 114). Eng. by J. Neefs (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 880. Tassis (Maria Louisa de Tassis); three-quarter length. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, No. 115 (Sm. 113). Eng. by C. Vermeulen (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); anon.; on wood, Mag asm pit tor esq ue, XXXIII., 1S86. Lith. by J. C. Koch, 1835, under the name of Princess de la Tour et Tassis (Weig. I. 1004); by J. F. Vogel. 881. Temple (Sir William). Barry Coll. (Waag. IV. 412). 882. Thimbleby (Lady Elizabeth) and Catherine, Countess Rivers, to whom Cupid offers flowers. Coll, of Earl Spencer (Sm. 514 ; Waag. III. 458). 883. Tilly (John Tserclaes, Count), three-quarter length, in a cuirass. Hermitage, No. 639. Bistre sketch: Pinakothek, Munich, No. 856. (Sm. 79> Eng. by P. de Jode the Elder (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 884. Titian and his mistress ; half-length (Sm. 685). Etch, by Van Dyck (Web. 38; Eng. Dept, Louvre). Eng. in reverse by Pauli (Al. Cata., p. 147). 885. Triest (Anthony), Bishop of Ghent, seated in an armchair. A. Hermitage, No. 613. B. Coll, of Earl Brownlow (Waag. II. 315). C. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Sm. 307; Waag. II. 86).' Etch, by Van Dyck, completed by P. de Jode (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). Eng. by Vorledge, head only. 886. Tulden (Deodorus Van), standing before an open book on a table ; three-quarter length. Drawing reproduced in the present work. Louvre (Sm. 729). Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 887. Urfd (Honore d’), half-length, her hand on the back of a chair. Eng. by P. de Baillu (Web., p. 110; Sz. 154)1 by Van Schuppen, in oval (Sm. 714). Urfe (Genevieve d’). See Croy. Van Assche (Isabella). See Van Merstraeten. 888. Van Balen (Henry), painter, head and shoulders, his hand on a sculptured head. Oval medallion facing that of his wife : Church of St. James, Antwerp (Sm. 26). Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 792). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Ficquet, from drg. by Eisen. 889. Van Ceulen (Janson); half-length. Coll, of Gerard Hoet, sold in ij6o. 890. Van den Berghe ;(Henry, Count), three-quarter length, in a cuirass. Windsor (Sm. 241). Eng. by P. Pontius, on large scale. 891. Van den Eyden (Hubert), statue, his elbow resting on a colossal head. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre; I Sm. 793). 3°4 Catalogue of the Works of 892. Van den Wouwer or Waverius (John), half-length, with a fur cloak ; 1632. Hermitage, No. 622 (Sm. 303). Etch, by Van Dyck, completed by P. Pontius (C. Icon.’ Eng. Dept., Louvre). Eng. by Sanders ( Description of Hermitage, I. 82, No. 29). 893. Van der Borcht (Nicolas), admiral, full-length; the sea in the background. Amsterdam Gall., No. 309 (Sm. 137, 352). Eng. by C Vermeulen, 1703. 894. Van der Ee (Francis), holding a paper in his left hand (Sm. 812). Etch, anon., Meyssens exc. (Sz. 132; Al. 122). 895. Van der Gheest (Cornelius), head and shoulders, hands crossed. National Gall., London, No. 52. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch. Another grisaille : Coll, of Count Dubus de Ghisig- nies (Sm. 251, 782). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon,, Eng. Dept., Louvre); by J. Rogers ; by George T. Doo, 1S30 (National Gall., folio); by Sievier ; by VV. H. Worthington ; by T. Wolnoth. 896. Van der Lamen (Christopher), painter, half-length, the right hand on the left wrist (Sm. 769). Eng. by Cloivet (Icon., Eng. Dept,, Louvre), 897. Van Diepenbecke (Abraham), painter. Grisaille in Gall, of Aix (Fabregoules Coll.), No. 256. 897 a. Van Dyck (Anna), nun in the Facon Convent, Antwerp (the portrait mentioned by Mols). 898. Van Dyck (Anthony), painter, on a grey horse, with a greyhound ; small size. Coll, of Wilbraham Talton Egerton (Sm. 743). 899. Van Dyck (Equestrian portrait of); reduced copy. Fodor Gall., Amsterdam. 900. Van Dyck (Anthony) ; half-length. 1 Pinakothek, Munich, No. 833 (Sm. 53). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Diisseldorf Gall. 60); by Banner- man, in oval. Lith. by Piloty. 901. Van Dyck (Anthony), head and shoulders, with a gold chain. Uffisi Gall., Florence, No. 223 (Sm. 159). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Eng. Dept., Louvre); in re¬ verse, anon., for Dargenville; by T, Worlidge; by Blote- ling; by R. Gaywood, 1656 ; by De Larmessin ; by Blot, from drg. by Wicar (Florence Gall.) ; by DeMannez (J.A.) ; by P. A. Pazzi, from drg. by Dom. Ferretti; by Edessi. 902. Van Djck (Anthony), wkh Sir Endymion Porter, head and shoulders, in oval. Madrid Gall., No. 1407 (Sm. 745). Eng. by F. Selma. Etch, by Milius in the present work. 903. Van Dyck (Anthony), head and shoulders, in oval. A. Louvre, No. 1983 (Sm. 139). B. Tomeline Coll. (Waag. III. 441). Eng. by Bertinot, 1865 (Eng. Dept., Louvre) ; by Pannier, from drg. by Sandoz (in the Mai tree dans tes Arts du Dessin)\ by Sittel, 1851 ; by Delgorgue, from drg. by TrCzel (Filhol, II. .13)- 904 Van Dyck (Anthony), still young; head and shoulders. Windsor { Sm. 215; Waag. II. 429). 905. Van Dyck (Anthony): three-quarter length ; painted in England. Hermitage. Lith. by Huot (Hermitage Gall.). 906. Van Dyck (Anthony), holding a globe. Gotha Gall., No. 1. Eng. by VV. Hollar, 1644 (Sm. 742). 907. Van Dyck (Anthony), holding a staff in the left hand ; three-quarter length. A. Brunszvick Gall., No. 109. B. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 336). C. Capello Coll., Amsterdam, 1767 (Sm. 288). Study of another portrait of the same, sold in Paris in 1823 (Sm. 372), 908. Van Dyck (Anthony); etched and engraved por¬ traits. 1 Etch, by Van Dyck, finished by J. Neefs, frontispiece of the Icon. (Eng. Dept., Louvre); anon. (Didot Cata. 3013); by Geddes (Sm. 742). Mezzo, by J. Van der Bruggen, 1682 (Sm. 742); by W. Vaillant (Sm. 742); by James Watson (Winckl. 1462). Eng. by P. Pontius (Sm. 742); by Sus. Silvestre (Sm. 742) ; by J. Daulle for the Odicuvre Coll. ; by A. Clowet, pub. Odieuvre, in a border of laurels ; by Ficquet, from drg. by Eisen, for Descamps; by Banncrman, in Walpole's Anecdotes ; by Schiavonetti, pub. by W. Muller, London, 1807 (Sm. 359); by Delgorgue, from drg. by Trezel; by P. Pontius, from drg. by Er. Quellinus, facing portrait of Rubens (Sm. 484); by Worthington for Wal¬ pole (Sm. 742); by E. Mandel (Weig. II. 11026); by De Mannez in the Musee Historiqne, Beige (Weig. IV. 1S322); by Nissen (Weig. IV., p. 169); by Fleichsmann, for F. Kind’s work Van Dyck's Landlebcn (Weig. IV., p. 169); by B. Eredi (Weig. IV., p. 169; Al. Caia., p. 108); by A. Cappellan, 1780 (Weig. IV., p. 169). Eng. in imitation of a drg. by G. C. K. (ilian). Lith. anon., pub. Lemercier, 1837; by A. Dautbagc (Weig. IV., p. 169); by J. Selb (Weig. IV., p. 169). 909*. Van Eck (Baldinus), half-length, his hand on his sword. Eng. by P. Pontius, 1657 (Al. Cata., p. 128). This portiait is not by Van Dyck, though engraved under lus 910. Van Ertvelt (Andrew), painter; half-length ; sea background. Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre; Sm. 59, 770). 1 Other portraits, which we do not mention here, are to be found in the biographies of the artist published at various 1 A replica of this portrait was in the Walpole collection. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 305 911. Van Ertvelt (Andrew), full-length, seated at an easel, a dog at his feet. Augsburg Call. Eng. by C. de Mechel (Dusseldorf Gall. 82). 912. Van Goyen (John Joseph) ; half-length. Drawing in Fodor Gall., Amsterdam. Eng. by C. Ploos Van Amstel, 1821. 913. Van Hontsum (Zegerus), Canon of Antwerp, hold¬ ing a book and cap. Coll, of Queen Victoria (Sm. 239, 638). Eng. by A. Lommelin (Sz. 112). 914. Van Leers, Burgomaster of Antwerp, half-length, with his wife and son. Cassel Gall., No. 113. 915. Vanlonius, or Vanloon (Theodore); half-length. Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre; Sm. 77S). 916. Van .Merstraeten (Justus); Syndic of Brussels; half-length; the Digest of Laws, and a bust of Seneca near him; dated 1636. Cassel Gall., No. 116 (Sm. 155). Mezzo, by. J. T. Leonard. Etch, by Unger. 917. Van Merstraeten (Isabella Van Assche, wife of Justus) ; half-length. Cassel Gall., No. 117 (Sm. 156, 662). Mezzo, by J. T. Leonard. Etch, by Unger. 918. Van Mildert (John), statuary ; half-length. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); anon. (Sm. 773)- 919. Van Noort (Adam), painter ; half-length. Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 920. Van Opstal (Anthony), painter ; half-length. Eng. by Meyssens (?) (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 921. Van Ravesteyn (John), painter; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 774). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 922. Van Uden (Lucas), half-length, pencil in hand. Bistre sketch: Pinakothek, Munich, No. 860 (Sm. 76). Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Michael Aubert, for Dargenville (Al. Cata., p. 99); by Gaywood, head only. 923. Van Ufer (?) (John). Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 336). 924. Van Voerst (Robert), engraver, half-length, holding a paper. Drawing in the Louvre (Sm. 779). See the re¬ production in facsimile given in the present work. Eng. by Chambars (Brom.); by R. Van Voerst (Icon,, Eng. Dept., Louvre); in facs. of drg. by A. Masson, after the drg. in the Louvre (Eng. Dept., Louvre). 925. Vieuville (Marquis de), holding a glove ; he wears the Order of the Holy Ghost. Coll, of Marquis of Breadalbane (Sm. 829). Eng. by R. Cooper. 926. Vilain (Francis), Bishop of Tournai, seated in an armchair. Eng. by P. Van Schuppen (Winckl. 1450). Villiers (Elizabeth). See Lennox. Villiers (Francis and George). See Buckingham. Villiers (William). See Grandison. 927. Vinck (N . . . ). Van der Schriek Coll, Louvain, sold in 1861. 928. Vivero (Alf. Peres de), Count of Fuensaldana. Eng. by L. Vorsterman. 929. Vorsterman (Lucas), engraver ; half-length. Etch, by Van Dyck (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). Eng. by L. Vorsterman the Younger (Web., p. 12S—Sz. 161, Eng. Dept., Louvre); anon., in Gayvvood’s manner (Al. Cata., p. 147); anon., head only (Sm. 785, 786). 930. Vorsterman (Lucas), playing the flute. Coll, of Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1795 (Sm. 315). 931. Vos (Cornelius de), painter ; half-length. Eng. by L. Vorsterman (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Polanzani, head only ; by R. Gaywood, head only (Sm. 767). 932. Vos (The wife of Cornelius de). Coll, of Sir R. Wallace (Sm. 356). 933. Vos (William de). Etch, by Van Dyck, finished by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 934. Vos (Paul de), painter; half-length. Coll, of King of the Belgians (Sm. 355). Etch, by Van Dyck, completed by Bolswert. Eng. by A. Lommelin (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 935. Vos (Simon de), painter; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 752)- Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 936. Vouet (Simon), painter; half-length. Eng. by Robert Van Voerst (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 39 3°6 Catalogue of the IVorks of 937. Vrancx (Sebastian), painter, half-length, without cloak. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Buccleuch (Sm. 759). Eng. by Bolswert (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 938. Wael (John de), painter, and his wife, in their old age; half-length. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 846 (Sm. 72). Etch, by Hecht in the present work. Lith. by Piloty. 939. Wael (John de) and his wife ; head and shoulders. Church of Nolre-Dame, Antwerp. 940. Wael (John de), painter; three-quarter length. Etch, by Van Dyck, completed by Lommelin (Icon., Eng. Dept., Lorn re; Sm. 8co). 941. Wael (Lucas and Cornelius de), one standing, the other seated. Capitol Gall., Rome, No. 106. Study : Cassel Gall., No. 112 (Sm. 289). Eng. by W. Hollar, 1646 (Sz. 15s); by Gaywood (Al. Cata., p. no). 942. Wael (Fragment of a large picture representing the family) (Waag. III. 222). 943. Wake (Anna); half-length ; dated 1628. The Hague Gall., No. 79 (Sm. 135). Eng. by P. Clowet; by A. L. Zeelander, from drg. by Heideloff ( Steengracht ; No. 25). Wales (Prince of). See Charles I. (children of), and Charles II. 944. Wallenstein (Count Albert of), Duke of Friedland, in armour; half-length. Bistre sketch : Pinakothek, Munich, No. 855 (Sm. 82). Eng. by P. de Jode the Younger (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). 945. Wandesford (Lord), seated in an armchair. Hermitage, No. 621 (Sm. 649). Mezzo, by J. Watson, 1778, from drg. by Farington (Houghton Coll., I., pi. 50). 946. Warwick (Robert Rich, Earl of), full-length, in armour; 1632. A. Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 549; Waag. III. 214). B. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke. Eng. by W. Faithorne (head and shoulders); by Houbraken (series of twelve portraits); by Robinson, in Lodges Memoirs-, in Clarendon’s History (Brom). 947. Warwick (Elizabeth, Countess of). Eng. in oval by P. Pontius (Sm. 550). 948. Wenman (Joan, daughter of Richard, Viscount), wife of Lord Goodwin, full-length, holding a tulip. Hermitage, No. 619 (Sm. 603, 645). Mezzo, by J. Boydell, 1779 (Houghton Coll., II., pi. 12). Wentworth (Thomas), Earl of Strafford. See Strafford. Wentworth (Thomas), Earl of Cleveland. See Cleveland. 949. Westmoreland (Rachel, daughter of Francis, Earl of), full-length, plucking a rose. Fotheringay Castle Coll. (Waag. III. 410). 950. Wharton (Thomas, Lord), full-length, with the Order of the Bath. A. Hermitage, No. 617 (Sm. 640). B. Coll, of Lady Southcote. Mezzo, by Val. Green, 1775 (Houghton Coll., I., pi. 3; Description of Hermitage, II. 34). 951. Wharton (Philip, Lord), at the age of nineteen, holding a crook. Hermitage, No. 616 (Sm. 641). Eng. by Podolinsky ( Description of Hermitage, No. 57). 952. Wharton (Lady Philadelphia), seated; three- quarter length. Eng. by Dunkarton, 1781 (Houghton Coll., II., pi. 23). 953. Wharton (Philadelphia and Elizabeth, daughters of Philip, Lord), at the ages of four and five years. Hermitage, No. 618 (Sm. 642). Eng. by P. Van Gunst (series of ten portraits);—Houghton Coll., II., pi. 69. Mezzo, by Dunkarton. 954 Wharton (Lady), daughter of Arthur Goodwin, plucking a rose. Coll, of Duke of Devonshire (Sm. 643 ; Waag. III. 364)- Eng. by P. Van Gunst. 955. Wildens (John), painter; half-length (Sm. 772). Cassel Gall, (head only). Eng. by P. Pontius (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre); by Ficquet, from drg. by Eisen for Descamps; by Michael Aubert, for Dargenville. William of Orange. See Mary (Princess). 956. Wilton (Penelope, Countess of). Eng. by W. Hollar (Marmol Cata. 1563). 957. Witt (Cornelius de). Eng. by W. Baillie, pub. by Boydell, 1787. 958. Wolfaert (Artus), painter ; half-length. Grisaille in possession of Duke of Bucclcuch (Sm. 75*)- Eng. by C. de Galle the Elder (Icon., Eng. Dept., Louvre). Waverius (John). See Van den Wouver. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 3°7 959. Worcester (Edward Somerset, second Marquis of), in armour. Coll, of Duke of Beaufort (Sm. 556). Eng. in Lodge's Memoirs. 960. York (James, Duke of), son of Charles I. Eng. by Faithorne (Web., p. 118); by Miger, from drg. by Vanderbergh (Gal. d’Orldans, Vol. II.; Sm. 323). See also Charles I. (Children of). PORTRAITS OF PERSONAGES UNKNOWN 1 FAMILY PORTRAITS 961. A family consisting of father, mother, and five children, the father playing a guitar. Formerly in possession of the Comte de Ribeau r court at Brussels (Sm. 280). An identical composition; formerly in Six Coll, Amsterdam (Sm. 280, 290). 962. A German family (?). (Sm. 271.) 963. A family consisting of father and mother, with a young child on her knees. Coll, of Sir Culling Eardley (Waag. IV. 276). 964. A man standing, and a woman seated, holding each other’s hands; three-quarter length. Cassel Gall, No. 114. 965. Three half-length figures. Coll, of Duke of Northumberland (Waag. I. 394). 966. A young man standing, showing some plans to a prelate seated (monochrome). Bcurnonville Coll. (No. 269 erf Cata., May, 1881). 967. Two men, half-length, father and son, beside a table laden with jewels. Brignole Sola Palace, Genoa. MALE PORTRAITS 968. A man standing, full-length, and a child (said to be Rubens’ brother). Louvre, No. 1973 (Sm. 154). 969*. Young man in a cuirass, on horseback. Ba/bi Palace, Genoa. 970. Study for a man on horseback. Christ Church, Oxford. 1 At the head of this series are placed those family pictures which group together two or more figures; then follow male portraits, equestrian portraits, full-length figures, figures in armour, three-quarter, half-length, head-and-shoulder portraits, and male figures seated. With the portraits of women and children placed after the male portraits, the same order is adopted: from complete portraits to those representing the head only. Those figures known only in engraving and bearing no name are relegated to a special separate list at the end. 971. General in armour, on a grey horse rearing. Goll Coll, Amsterdam, 1828 (Sm. 376). 972. Man, full-length, with a cuirass; a cane in his right hand. Academy of Vienna. 973. Officer in armour, his left hand on the hilt of his sword (Sm. 606). Line eng. in the Le Brun Coll. 974. Officer in complete armour, holding the scabbard of his sword in his left hand; half-length. Coll, of the Hon. G.John Vernon (Sm. 639). 975. Nobleman; three-quarter length; in armour, hold¬ ing the shaft of a lance. Dulwich Gall. (Sm. 682). 976. Man in armour, full-length, holding a baton; his helmet and gauntlet by his side. Coll, of Earl of Hardwicke (Waag. IV. 519). 977. Italian nobleman in armour ; full-length. 1 Scottish National Gall., Edinburgh, No. 339 (Waag. III. 268). 978. Man in armour; three-quarter length; in a black hat (supposed to be Archduke Albert). Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, No. 147. 979. Nobleman, in Damascene gilt armour, bare-headed ; half-length. Belvedere Gall, Vienna; Room III., No. 10 (Sm. 96). Eng. by De Prenner (Vienna Gall.). 980. Nobleman in armour, the left hand holding a baton; three-quarter length. Dresden Gall, No. 922 (Sm. 188). 981. Man in a cuirass, with a belt embroidered with gold. Dresden Gall, No. 997 (Sm. 191). 982*. Man in a cuirass, holding a baton ; head and shoulders. Dresden Gall, No. 1000. 983. Warrior in a cuirass, three-quarter length, head bare ; left hand in front, a baton in the right. Coll, of Due d’Aumale, at Chantilly. 984. Man in a cuirass, three-quarter length, holding a baton (grisaille). Lichtenstein Gall, Vienna, No. 907. 985. Man in armour and a red robe. Coll, of Earl Amherst (Waag. IV. 338). 1 Purchased from the Gentili family, Genoa. 3°8 Catalogue of the IVo?'ks of 986*. Nobleman in armour, his helmet by his side (supposed to be Archduke Albert). See No. 978. Dulwich Call., No. 218 (Sm. 831 ; Waag. II. 342). 987. Nobleman in armour, holding his sword. Coll, of Sir A. Campbell (Waag. III. 293). 988. A Warrior. Adorno Palace, Genoa. 989. Nobleman, full-length, in a cuirass, wearing the robes of a British peer. (Sm. 325, 326.) Eng. by Macret (Gal. d'Orleans, Vol. II.). 990. Man, full-length, described by the name of Spinola. (He does not resemble that general.) Coll, of Earl of Hopetoun (Waag. III. 311). 991. Nobleman in black silk costume, a chair on his left. In possession of M. Spruyt, dealer, Brussels, in 1829 (Sm. 487). S92. Nobleman, richly dressed, holding his cane and a paper in his left hand. (Sm. 324.) Eng. by Viel (Gal. d’Orleans). 993. Nobleman, full-length; companion picture to a lady, also full-length. Coll, of M. de Calonne, 1795 ; formerly in that of Sir Joshua Reynolds (Sm. 319, 320). 994. Man, full-length, in black costume, grey tuft on chin ; architectural background. Cassel Gall., No. 118. 995. Man ; full-length. Coll, of Duke of Bucclcuch (Waag. IV. 436). 996. Nobleman ; full-length. Madrid Gall. (Sm. 201). 997. Nobleman ; full-length. Madrid Gall. (Sm. 202). 998. Nobleman, full-length, his left hand on the hilt of his sword, his right hand on his hat. Companion picture to the Marchesa Jeronima di Brignole. Brignole. Sa/a Palace, Genoa (Sm. 169). 999. Man, full-length, in a black costume, his hat in his right hand. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 843 (Sm. 50. See also 55)- Eng. by C. de Mechel (Diisseldorf Gall. 27). Etch, by E. Salmon in the present work. Lith. by Piloty. 1000. Two portraits ; full-length. Formerly in the Palace of the Duke of San Pietro (Sm. 177). 1001. Man, full-length, clothed in black; his hat on a table on the right. Beurnonville Coll. (No. 265 in Cata., May, 1881). Etch, by Duvivier. 1002. Portrait of a Palatine Prince (?), full-length, his right hand on the back of a chair. Beurnonville Coll. (No. 274 in Cata.). See below, No. 1112. 1003. Man dressed in black, with a long white ruff; three-quarter length. Dresden Gall., No. 988. 1004. Man dressed in black, with a cloak. Dresden Gall., No. 995 (Sm. 185). 1005. Man dressed in black; head and shoulders, full- face, bald head. Dresden Gall., No. 996 (Sm. 196). Lith. by F. Hanfstaengl (De Cotta Gall., Dresden). 1006. Man dressed in black, with a small white collar ; head and shoulders. Dresden Gall., No. 998 (Sm. 187). 1007. Nobleman, removing his gloves. Dresden Gall. (?) (Sm. 189). 1008*. Man with turned-up mustachios, dark clothes with a ruff, Spanish sleeves. Dresden Gall., No. 999. 1009*. Two male portraits, three-quarter length, in black; one turned to the left, the other to the right. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, Nos. 122 and 123. 1010. Man, three-quarter length, in a black doublet, one hand on his hip, the other on his sword. Pallavicini Palace, Genoa. 1011. Young man, three-quarter length, his hand on his chest, holding a glove. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No. 29 (Sm. 106). 1012. Young man, head and shoulders, dressed in black. Belvedere Gall., Vienna, Room III., No. 16. 1013. Man, three-quarter length, the head bare, a cloak on the right arm. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 128. 1014. A thin man, three-quarter length, leaning against a chair, without cloak. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, No. 143. Sir Anthony Van Dyck 3°9 1015. Painter (Snyders ?) ; head and shoulders; curtain hiding a portion of the sky. Lichtenstein Gall., Vienna, No. 136. 1016. Man, three-quarter length, showing both hands ; red curtain and a column in the background. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 137. 1017. Man dressed in black, three-quarter length, the hand in front of the body, pointing with the finger. Brunswick Gall., No. 111. 1018*. Man, fair, wrapped in a cloak, which lets one hand be seen; dated 1631. Toumai Gall. 1019. Man in black, with white ruff; canvas glued on wood. Berlin Gall., No 768. 1020. Man in black, half-length, holding his gloves and a paper. Hermitage, No. 630. 1021. Young man in black ; three-quarter length; land¬ scape background. Coll, of Earl of Burlington (Waag. IV. 425). 1022. Man in doublet of foliomort satin. Louvre, No. 1976. 1023. Man in black, half-length, heavy face, thick lips. Louvre, No. 1977 (Sm. 144). Eng. by Tavernier, from drg. by Bourdet (Filhol, XI., pi. 71). 1024. Man with a black cloak and slashed sleeves; half-length. Louvre, No. 1978. 1025. Man, half-length, old; red curtain. Belvedere Gall., Room V., No. 17 (Sm. 97). Eng. by De Prenner (Vienna Gall.). 1026. Man, half-length, wrapped in a cloak, which lets the left hand be seen. Eng. by Mougeot, from drg. by Gallier ( Musee franfais II. 83). 1027. Nobleman, dressed in white satin, with slashed sleeves; half-length. Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. 21 (Sm. 98, 834). 1028. Man, half-length, in black costume; Flemish type. Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. 23 (Sm. 99). Eng. by De Prenner (Vienna Gall.). 1029. Nobleman, leaning on a table covered with musical instruments. Vienna Gall. (?) (Sm. 106). 1030. Man, half-length, dressed in black. Madrid Gall., No. 1394. 1031. Man, half-length, dressed in black, with white ruff. Naples Gall. (Hall of Masterpieces). 1032. Nobleman, half-length, dressed in black silk with a cloak; aged about fifty years. Coll, of T. Emmerson, Esq. (Sm. 826). 1033. Nobleman, wrapped in a black cloak (attributed to Velasquez). Coll, of Earl of Warwick (Sm. 832; Waag. III. 212). Eng. by T. Blackmore. 1034. Nobleman, name unknown. Coll, of Marquis of Breadalbane (Waag. II. 239). 1035. Man, painted under the influence of Titian. Bridgewater House Coll. (Waag. II. 40). 1036. Man, dressed in black, with a book in his left hand. Buckingham Palace (Waag. II. 4). 1037. Gentleman, with brown hair, his hand on his breast. Goll. Coll., Amsterdam, 1828 (Sm. 375)- 1038. Gentleman, with brown hair; dressed in black silk. Coll, of A. Geddes, Esq. (Sm. 373). 1039. Gentleman, seen three-quarter face, wrapped in a black cloak. Coll, of Due de Praslin, 1793 (Sm. 310). See also 815. Eng. by Morin. 1040. Gentleman in black, fondling a spaniel, his hand on the hilt of his sword. Coll, of Due de Praslin, 1793 (Sm. 309). 1041. Man dressed in black, his hat in his hand. Coll, of Due de Ta/lard, 1736, No. 151 (Sm. 285). 1042. Man dressed in black; a colonnade in the back¬ ground. Robit Cata., 1801 (Sm. 334). 1043. Gentleman, aged about thirty-five, dressed in black, with a starched collar. Formerly in Coll, of Jeremiah Harman, Esq. (Sm. 6 77 )- 1044. Gentleman (described under the name of Rubens), wrapped in a cloak (Sm. 350). Eng, by Folo (Luc, Bonaparte Gal., pi. 7). Catalogue of the JVorks of io 1045*. Gentleman, three-quarter face, dressed in black, with short hair, and a cloak. Moretus Coll., Antwerp (Sm. 674). 1046. Gentleman, in a black cloak, with a broad frieze. Stebrecht Coll., Antwerp, 1754. (Sm. 298). 1047. Gentleman, in a broad ruff. Lormier Coll., The Hague, 1763 (Sm. 299). 1048. Gentleman, represented as a magistrate. Coll, of H. Hope, Esq., 1816 (Sm. 360). 1049. Man dressed in black, with a broad white collar ; head and shoulders. Coll, of Mr. Abraham Robarts (Waag. IV. 163). 1050. Man, head and shoulders, in oval; broad, starched ruff. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 239. See Sm. 115 to 122. 1051. Man, head and shoulders, a sword at the side ; hands shown. Coll, of M. Edouard Andre. Eng. by A. Gilbert {Gas. des Beaux-Arts, 1874, 215). Reproduced in this work. 1052. Man, dressed in black, head and shoulders, with a white collar; almost bald, with heavy moustache (painted on wood). Cassel Gall., No. 108. 1053*. Dutchman (?). Besattfon Gall., No. 82. 1054. Man, head and shoulders; in the background, a red curtain. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 140. See Sm. 115 to 122. 1055. Man, head and shoulders, dressed in black ; turned towards the right. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 114. See Sm. 115 to 122. 1056. Young man, holding his hand on his breast, the fingers spread out. Munich Gall. (Sm. 58). Eng. by C. Langlois, 1797 (Al. Cata., p. 117). 1057*. Man, head and shoulders, painted in brown tones. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 835. 1058. Man, head and shoulders. Brer a Gall., Milan. 1059. Man, head and shoulders; painted in brown tones. Coll, of Andrew Fountaine, Esq.; sold at Christie’s, July, 1894 (Waag. III. 429). 1060. Young man, head and shoulders, dressed in black; very dark. Rospigliosi Palace, Rome (Hall of Aurora). 1061*. Man, head and shoulders, dressed in black, with white ruff. Avignon Gall., No. 100. 1062. Man; head and shoulders; half life-size ; white collar. Basildon Park Coll. (Waag. IV. 110). 1063. Man ; head and shoulders. Coll, of Duke of Bedford (Waag. IV. 335). 1064. Man ; head and shoulders. Coll, of Sir Richard Wallace (No. 91 in Cata. of Bethnal Green Exhibition, 1872). 1065*. Portrait of a man. Uffizi Gall., Florence, No. 791. 1066*. Three male portraits; one representing an abbot. Corsini Palace, Rome. 1067. Gentleman, with fair hair; richly embroidered coat. Naples Gall., No. 12. 1068. Man, head and shoulders; oval portrait, forming companion to a portrait of Rubens. Durasso Palace, Genoa. 1069. Gentleman, with brown hair ; dressed in black. Brignole Sa/a Palace, Genoa (Sm. 173). PORTRAITS OF MEN SEATED 1070. Man, dressed in black, full-length ; he is seated in an armchair, playing the lute. Coll, of Baring Family (Waag. IV. 98). 1071. Man dressed in black, seated in an armchair, turned to the right. Hermitage, No. 632. 1072. Man, bald, seated in an armchair; showing a medallion, with his gloved hand. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 149. 1073. Young man, dressed in black, full-length, seated red curtain (Italian manner). Coll, of Marquis of Hertford (Waag. IV. 86). Sir Anthony Van Dyck 3 1074. Gentleman in black; seated in an armchair, taking a paper from a table. Companion to portrait of a woman, No. 1097. Gaillard de Gagny Coll., 1762 (Sm. 286). 1075. Man in black, seated on a chair; landscape back¬ ground. Stafford House Coll. (Waag. II. 69). 1076. Genoese senator, full-length; seated in an arm¬ chair holding a roll of paper. 1 Coll, of Sir Robert Peel (Sm. 179). 1077. Bishop in bis episcopal costume. Formerly in the Marcellino Durazzo Palace , Genoa (Sm. 176). 1078*. Portrait of a man. Bordeaux Gall, No. 459. PORTRAITS OF CHILDREN 1079. Three children in the same picture. Coll, of Earl de Grey (Manchester Exhibition, No. 660). 1080. Three children ; a little girl in white satin, with a dog, between two little boys, one in black, the other in red. Durazzo Palace, Genoa. 1081. Two youths. Coll, of Duke of Buccleuch (Waag. IV. 437). 1082. Child lying on a bed. Coll, of Duke of Portland (Sm. 296; Waag. IV. 514)- 1083. Young boy, full-length, dressed in white, his hand on the back of a red armchair. Coll, of Lord Kinnaird (Waag. IV. 445). 1084. Young boy, full-length, dressed in white satin, beside a chair on which is perched a parrot. Durazzo Palace, Genoa (Sm. 164). 1085. Head and shoulders of a child ; life-size study. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 863. 1086. Young man wearing a hat, with a falcon on his wrist. Formerly in the possession of the Canon Baut, at Brussels (Sm. 817). 1087. Young man ; only one hand visible. Coll, of Sir Robert Peel (Waag. I. 400). 1 Formerly in possession of the Balbi family. 1088. Young man, half-length, in black, leaning against the base of a column. Hermitage, No. 631. 1089. Young man, half-length, in a black doublet slashed with white (long supposed to be the portrait of Van Dyck). Hermitage, No. 628. 1090*. Young man, almost nude, sliding on the ice. Potsdam Gall. (Sm. 133). 1091. Young man, turned to the right. Academy, Vienna. PORTRAITS OF WOMEN WITH CHILDREN 1092. Lady seated, with a little girl standing beside her. Louvre, No. 1974 (Sm. 153). Eng. by Henriquel-Dupont, from drg. by C. Chausselat (Musfie Royal) ; by Levasseur, from drg. by Bourdet (Filhol, XI, pi. 41). 1093. Lady, seated in an armchair, with a little girl standing beside her with a cap on her head. Eng. by Basan (Cabinet Choiseul, No. 83). 1094. Two English ladies, half-length, seated ; one of them holds an orange branch and a rose. Morrison Coll. (Waag. IV. 310). 1095. Lady, in a red gown, seated in an armchair; a little girl near her. Hermitage, No. 635 (Sm. 301). Eng. by Sailliard. 1096. Lady, with her child in her arms. Coll, of Due de Tallard (Sm. 284). 1097. Lady, holding a child by the hand. Companion picture to a gentleman seated in an armchair, No. 1074. Gaillard de Gagny Coll., 1762 (Sm. 287). 1098. Lady, in a black silk gown, with her child on her knees. Coll, of Lord Kinnaird (Waag. IV. 445). See Sm. 533. 1099. Lady, dressed in black, seated in an armchair, holding a child on her knee. 1 Coll, of Sir Abraham Hume (Sm. 533). Eng. by J. Smith. 1100. Lady, dressed in black, seated in an armchair, her child on her knee. Coll, of Earl Brownlow (Waag. II. 315). 1 Formerly in the possession of the Balbi family. 212 Catalogue of the IVorks of PORTRAITS OF WOMEN 1101. Young princess ; full-length. Turin Gall., No. 8. 1102. Young girl, full-length, in a landscape, holding a greyhound. Antwerp Gall., No. 407. Eng. by P. Spruyt. 1103. Lady, holding a fan, full-length, facing a gentleman in armour. Goll. of Earl of Hardwicke (Sm. 326; Waag. IV. SI9> Eng. by Macret, 1807 (Gal. d’Orlfians, Vol. II.). 1104. Lady, full-length, the left hand on a cane, the right resting on a table; widow’s dress. Eng. by Voisand (Gal. d’OrlGans, Vol. II.). 1105. Young lady, dressed in black silk. Potsdam Gall. (3m. 131). 1106. Lady, full-length, in black, white collar of point lace, leaning on a red armchair. Cassel Gall., No. 119. 1107. Lady, in dress of black velvet, faced with white satin embroidered with gold, holding a fan, her right hand on the basin of a fountain. Royal Palace, Genoa. 1108*. Lady, described as Queen Henrietta Maria, full- length, dressed in white satin, taking a rose from a plate held by a negro boy. Pinakothek, Munich, No. 866 (Sm. 66). Eng. by C. de Mechel (Diisseldorf Gall. 58). 1109. Lady, known by the name "The woman with the glove.” Coll, of Comte Dubus de Ghisignies, Brussels (Sm. 480 ?). 1110. Lady, in green dress, seated beside a table. Coll, of Col. Wyndham, at Petworth (Waag. III. 43). 1111 Lady, full-length, dressed in a black gown, seated in an armchair. 1 Coll, of Sir Robert Peel (Sm. 180). 1112. Palatine Princess, holding a white feather fan. Beurnonville Coll. (No. 275 in Cata., May, 1881). Companion to No. 274 of same coll. See above, No. 1002. 1113. Lady, aged twenty-five, the left hand resting on a table. Coll, of Earl of Egrcmont (Sm. 541). 1114. Lady, half-length, seated in an armchair. An 0 . 50. Stockholm Gall., No. 409. 1115. Lady seated ; three-quarter length. Coll, of Sir A. Campbell (Waag. III. 292). 1116. Lady seated. Exhibited at the Ducal Palace, Brussels, in 1855. 111 7 Young woman, in a black dress, seated in an armchair; three-quarter length. Coll, of Sir Richard Wallace (Waag. IV. 87). 1118. Nun, in a blue gown, seated in an armchair; three-quarter length. Stockholm Gall., No. 413. 1119. Lady, with a gold chain on her neck. Dresden Gall. (?) (Sm. 190). 1120. Lady; three-quarter length ; red curtain to the right. Dresden Gall., No. 989. 1121. Woman of the middle-class, with a white kerchief; three-quarter length. Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. 20 (Sm. 100). 1122. Woman of the middle-class, aged, in a black cap, flat collar, and sleeves ; half-length. Belvedere Gall., Room III., No. 26. 1123. Lady dressed in black, with white collar; three- quarter length. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 127. 1124. Young woman holding a gold necklace with both hands ; three-quarter length. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 138. 1125*. Lady holding a leafy branch; three-quarter length. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 151. 1126. Young woman in black, with a plaited collar. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 146. 1127. Young woman, upright; three-quarter length, in a rich costume. Coll, of the Due d'Aumale, at Chantilly. 1128. Portrait of a lady ; small siae. Madrid Gall. (Sm. 200). | 1129. Lady plucking a flower from a rose-bush ; profile. Chrislianborg Gall., Copenhagen, No. 167. 1130. Elderly woman, half-length, with a gold necklace set with precious stones. Madrid Gall., No. 1314. Formerly in the possession of the Balbi family. 1132. Woman, head and shoulders, turning to the left. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 141. 1133*. Portrait of a woman. Pitti Palace, No. 34. 1134. I lead and shoulders of a woman, in black dress with white collar. (Painted on wood.) Cassel Gall., No. 109. 1135. Woman, head and shoulders, described as Queen Elizabeth ; black dress, pearl necklace. Academy of Saint Luke, Rome. 1136. Woman in a black dress. Lansdowne House Coll. (Waag. II. 150). 1137. Woman, not quite full-length ; less than life-size. Brera Gall., Milan, No. 136. 1138. Two female heads. Ditchley Park Coll. (Waag. III. 134). 1139. Portrait of a woman. Hampton Court, No. 123. 1140. Portrait of a woman. Coll, of Comte Duchatel, Paris. 1141. Portrait of an old woman. Lille Gall., No. 149. 1142*. Head of a woman. Lichtenstein Gall., No. 135. PORTRAITS KNOWN ONLY IN ENGRAVING 1143. A sculptor, with his hand on the head of a colossal statue. (Sm. 650.) Eng. by J. Van Somer (Al. Cata., p. 133). 1144. Man, head and shoulders, the head bare. Eng. in 1751 by Ehrenreich (AI. Cata., p. 1155. Gentleman, three-quarter face, one hand gloved, the other resting on a table. Eng. by T. V. Cruys (Sm. 697). 1156. Gentleman, three-quarter face, curly hair; a narrow frill at the neck. 1145. Man with his right arm wound in his cloak, his left hanging by his side. Eng. by Boutrois, from drg. by Girod. 1146. Man with a high plaited ruff, a gold chain and buttons of precious stones. Eng. by A. de Marcenay de Giiuy (1763). Dedicated to the memory of V. D. See Berg (H. Comte de). Eng. by J. E. Marais, 1795 (Sm. 696). 1157. Gentleman, in black, holding a letter. Eng. by F. A. Riedel, 1755 ; by Gibbon, head only (Sm. 6S1, 719). 1158. Gentleman in a black coat, with a collar; he wears a beard and moustaches. Mezzo, by Kreutzer, Vienna (Sm. 683). 1159. Man in a ruff. Eng. by J. J. de Boissieu, after the picture of M. de S6ve, of Lyons (Al. Cata., p. 101; Sm. 665). 1160. Two Flemings, half-length (perhaps after one of the pictures in the Capitol at Rome). Eng. by V. Denon (Weig. II. 12544; Al. Cata., p. 105 ; Sm. 830). 1161. Man, head and shoulders, in oval; full-face, curly hair. Eng. anon. (Gall, of Prints, Paris, No. I.). 1162. An Artist, resembling Van Dyck, with a large cloak; bare head, and moustaches. Mezzo. 1 Catalogue of the {Forks of Sir Anthony Van Dyck 3 1 4- 1163. Man with curly hair, holding a paper. Eng. anon. 1164. Head of a man, three-quarter face, ending at neck. Etch. anon. (Gall, of Prints, Paris, No. I.). 1165. Head of a man, turned to the right. Eng. anon. (Gall, of Prints, Paris, No. I.). 1166. Man, half-length, seated, his hat in his left hand; armorial bearings in right-hand corner. Eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 147)- 1167. Man holding a sword in his left hand and a baton in his right. Eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 147; Sm. 663). 1168. Man, half-length, his left hand on a book; armorial bearings and motto in the background. Eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 148). 1169. Man, three-quarter length, his hat in his right hand, the other hand on a table. Eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 147) 1170. Man wrapped in a cloak which lets the left hand be seen. Eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 147- See Sm. 706). 1171. Man, half-length, holding in his right hand a letter addressed to Mme. de Rsin. Etch. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 147)- 1172. Man, half-length, seated, leaning on a wall. Eng. anon. (Al. Cata., p. 147). 1173. Head of a young man singing. Mezzo, by J. de Groot (Winckl. 1591 ; Weig. I. 6076). 1174. Head of a man resembling Van Dyck. Etch, with the inscription A. Van Dyck (Winckl. 1590). 1175. Head and shoulders of young man; shirt-neck open. Eng. in imitation of pencil anon. (Gall, of Prints, Paris). 1176. Head of child. Eng. in imitation of pencil anon. (Gall, of Prints, Paris). 1177. Head of a man wearing a hat, left profile. Eng. in imitation of pencil anon. (Gall, of Prints, Paris). 1178. Fancy heads: Der Empfindsame (Sentiment); der Freymtithige (Sincerity). Eng. by C. W. Bock, after the Munich pictures (Winckl. > 594)- 1179. Head of a man. Eng. in imitation of pencil by B. Schreuder (Wcig. III. 16339)- 1180. Studies in black-and-white crayon on coloured paper, after Van Dyck. Lith. by Mile. Bes (Weig. II. 12730). 1181. An Englishwoman holding a fan. Eng. by W. Hollar, 1649. 1182. Lady holding a crown of flowers in her left hand ; half-length. Eng. by J. Groonsvelt (Al. Cata., p. 110; Sm. 661). 1183. Woman, full-length, bare head with cuily hair, drawing back a curtain with her right hand. Mezzo, by W. Vaillant (Winckl. 1468; Weig. 1. 5864). 1184. Woman, head and shoulders, with a pearl necklace; octagonal frame. Eng. by J. Morin. 1185. Young woman of gentle features, with high- necked lace stomacher, double-rowed pearl necklace, puffed sleeves. Eng. anon. 1186. Woman holding a large feather in the manner of a fan. Eng. by Clowet. 1187. Woman, right profile, with pearl necklace. Eng. by L. Ferdinand. 1188. Woman, turning to the left, with pearl necklace and earrings merely indicated. Eng.by W. Hollar, 1641. 1189. Head of a woman, on a black background, in oval; single pearl necklace. Eng; anon. 1190. Woman holding a fan. Eng. by Von Prenner (Al. Cata., p. 131). 1191. Child seated. Eng. in style of wash-drawing, by J. Hazard (Weig. 111. 15454. No. 10). 1192. Little girl walking on a carpet with pattern ol large flowers; a little dog in front of her. Mezzo, anon. ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF THE NAMES OF PERSONS, PLACES, AND SUBJECTS OF PICTURES IN THE BIOGRAPHY OF VAN DYCK Italics signify the names of places and subjects of pictures. An asterisk * indicates an illustration in the text; P. signifies Painter ; Eng., Engraver; Sc., Sculptor; Etch., Etcher; Arch., Architect; Colt., Collection. Achilles discovered among the Daughters of Lycomcdes, 44*, 142. 15S Aclceon changed to a Stag, 157 Adoration of the Shepherds. See Jesus (Nativity of) Alba (Duke of), 10 Albert (Archduke), 10, 26, 94 Albertina Coll., Vienna, 31, 87, 99, 121. 122, 171, 179, 181, 1S5, 219 Althorp, 121, 172, 190 Amsterdam, 19, 121 ; (Gallery of), 96, 188. Andre (M. Edouard), 237 Andrew (Richard), 242, 243, 246 Angiviller (Comte d'), 162, 164, 194, 196 Anhalt-Dessau (Prince of), 142 Anne (Queen), 260 Antin (Due d’), 199 Antwerp, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10,11, 12, 15, 23,24, 38, 84, 102, 103, 105, 109, 116, 119, 126, 128, 130, 141, 142, 14S. 15°, 1 S r - ‘6°, 162, 215, 216, 217, 218, 222, 233. 239, 240, 242, 244, 245, 243. 252, 25256, 257; (Beguinage of), 3, 105, 108, 115; (Cathedral of), 2, 14, 32; (Confrater¬ nity of Bachelors of), 168 ; (Dominican Convent of), 5, 16, 18, 84, 85, 90, 116 ; (Convent of the Canonesses of St. Augustine), 3 ; (Convent of the Facons), 3; (Church of St. Augustine), 14, 102, 103, 105, 116; (Church of the Jesuits), 18, 19, 20, 24, 83, 108, 109, no; (Church of St. James). 244; (Fran¬ ciscan Church), 107, 109, 218; (Church of St. Paul or the Dominicans), 16, [8 ; (Church of St. Michael), 4, 106, hi ; (Guild nf St. Luke), 16, 46, 216, 252, 256, 257; (Gallery of), 18, 84, 85, 86, 90, 115, 116, 218, 256; (Burgo¬ master of), and his Wife, 133, 136 Apollo (Dance nj ) and the Muses, 206 Apollo flaying Marsyas, 206 Apostles (Meads of), 24, 32, 34 Apsley House, 198 Arago (Coll, of M. Etienne), 141* Aremberg (Coll, of Prince d’), 26 Aremberg (Ernestine de Ligne, Comtesse d'), 211 Armand (Coll, of M.), 33*, 36, 43*, 97*, 9 S Arundel Castle, 172 Arundel (Thomas Howard, Earl of), 20, 21, 22, 23, 64,99, >72, 180, 1S1, 203,212, 214, 223, 254 Arundel (Lady Alithea Talbot, Countess ol), 64, 65, 172, 203, 212, 214 Arundel (Lucy Sidney, Countess of), 228, 229 Ashburton (Coll, of Lord), 64, 200 Assumption of the Virgin , 19 Athol (John Stuart, Earl of), 228 Aumale (Coll, of Due d'), 64, lit*, 1 '33 Bacchanalia, 158, 206 Bacre (Gerard de), 39 Baert (M.), 153 Bagot (Coll, of Sir Charles), 36 Baillie (William), Eng., 53 Baillu (Peter de), Eng., 156 Barbe (J. B.), Eng., 126 Barberini (Cardinal), 59 Baring Family (Coll, of), 88 Baron, Eng., 192, 203, 212 Basle, 256 Bavaria (Ludwig Henry, of), 142 Bayreuth (Margravine of), 40 Beck (David), P., 256 Bedford (Coll, of Duke of), 172, 224 Bedford (Francis Russell, Earl of), 224 Bedford (William, Duke of), 190, 227 Belgium, 32, 36, 78, 85, 167, 169; (Academy of), no, 176 Belisarius receiving Alms, 158 Bellarmin (Cardinal), 61 Bellori (John Peter), 45, 206, 231 Belvedere Gallery, Vienna, 19, 20, S8, 95, no, ill, 115, 116, 133, 143, 158, 167, 168, 214 Bentivoglio (Cardinal), 59, 60, 64, 72, 81 j Bergen-op-V.oom, 253 Berlin (Gallery), 36, 40, 66, 90, 115, 120, 187, 188, 217, 224 Bernini (Chevalier), 185, 192, 193 Bertinot (M.), Eng., 117*, 119 Bertolotti (Chevalier), 58 Beumonviile (Coll, of Baron de), 89, 167* Beydaels (Melchior), 103 Bie (Cornelius de), 244 Bie (Jacob de), Eng., 11 Blackfriars, 182, 219, 239, 240, 242 Blanc (M. Charles), 116, 130, 194 Blenheim Coll. 197, 19S Bohemia (Queen of), 192 Bois-le-Duc, 1 | Boisschot (Ferdinand de), 26 ; Bologna, 54, 57 ' Bolswert (Schelte h), Eng., 4, 36, 41, 85, 106, 107, 118, 158,225*, 250 , Bonifazio, P„ 57 | Borghese Gallery, 61 1 Born II. (Peter), P., 257 Both (De), 154 Bothwell Castle, 170 Bouchout, 245 Boulard (M. A.), Etch., 27, 155, 194 Bout (Thierry), 9 18, Brandenburg (Frederick of), 142 Brandenburg (Frederick William, Elector of), 142 Brandenburg (Ludwig of), 142 Brandt (Isabella), 9, 24, 120 Braye (Roger), 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, ' 53 . '54 Brera Gallery, Milan, 68 Bresme (M. de), 199 Breughel the Younger (John), P., 35, 124, 128 Breughel (Peter), 124, 128 Breughel (Velvet) the Elder, 7 Brie lie, 100 Brigittine Convent, at Hoboken, 38 Brignole Sala Gallery, 47, 48, 49 Brignole Sala (The Marchese Antonio Giulio di), 48, 261 Brignole Sala (The Marchesa Jeronima di), 49 Brignole Sala (The Marchesa Paulina Adorna di), 48, 49, 261 Bril (Paul), 55 Bristol (George Digby, Earl of), 189, 190, 227 British Museum, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 109, "5. Vo, '98, 204, 221, 245 Brompton, 209, 211 Brouwer (Adrian), 125 Bruges, 39, 166, 255 Brun (G.), Eng., 47 Bruno (Giambattista), 161 Brussels, 10, 25, 27, 85, 94, 95, 96, 97', 98, no, 151, 168, 169, 179, 215, 216, 217, 224, 244; (Royal Library of), 152; Chamber of Accounts, 168 ; Gallery, 86, Buccleuch (Coll, of Duke of), 228, 246, 259 Buckhurst (Lord), 254 Buckingham (Duke ol), 21, 176, 204, 210, 257; (Duchess of, and her Children), 224; (Sons of Duke of), 212, 224 Buckingham Palace, 172, 198, 200, 20S Burger (William), 122 Burlamachi (Philip), 190, 191 Byron (Sir John), 228 Casads Tribute 49 Calais, 199 Callot (Jacob), Eng., 45, 53, 55* 126 «.Alphabetical Index 16 Cambrai (Capuchins of), 166 Camudio (Marie Anne de), 26 Canuwe (Baron), 205 Capitol Gallery, 46, 62, 76 Carbonell (Martin de), 244 Carew (Thomas), 214, 226, 229 Carignan (Prince Thomas de), 66, 72, 217 Carleton (Dudley), 23, 100 Carlisle (Anne), 222, 255 Carlisle (Coll, of Earl of), 122 Carlisle Family, 254 Carlisle (Lucy, Countess of), 214, 224, 227 Carpenter (W. H.), 20, 22, 23, 24, 128, 174, 176, 178, 182, 190, 191, 193, 204, 222, 238, 243 Carraccii (The), P., 57 Carye (Thomas), 224 Cassel { Gallery), 47, 76, 123. '37, 224 Castelli (Bernardino), P., 53 Gastello (Castellino), P., 53 Cavendish (Charles), 228 Caylus (Comte de), 261* Chai.x d'Est-Ange (M.), 116 Chantilly, 118, 133 - Charavay (M. Etienne), 234 Charity, 142, 149*, 158 Charles 1., 21, 24, 53, 57- 64, 83, 98, 122, 140, 142, 156, 172, 173. '74, 175. '77. 175, 179, 180, 182, 183, 1S4, 185, 1S6, 187, 18S, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 207, 209, 210, 214, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 241, 248, 249, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262 Charles 1. (Children of), 66, 67, 184, 186, 1S7*, l88, I9I, I92, I97, 212, 224, 22f, 249. 254 Charles /. Hunting, 191, 193, 194, '95, 196, 197, 224 Charles II., 243, 244, 259, 260 Charles V., 62, 120 Chatsworth, 45, 7 2 , 74, 76 Chavigny (M. de), 234, 235 Chennevieres (Coll, of the Marquis, de), 41, 42, 81*, 175*, 19S Cheiiton (Battle of), 227 Choiseul Praslin (Coll, of), So Christ, 247*; and the Man Sick of the Palsy, 99* ; seised by the Soldiers, 24, 25, 29*, 3'*, 34, I 20 ! crowned with Thorns and mocked, 36, 40, 41*, 91", 120, 128; before Pilate, 61; bearing His Cross, 16, 49, 167* ; on the Cross, 18, 50, 61, 62, 84, 85, 89, 90, 106, 107, 108, 116, 164, 166, 168, 2c6, 244, 261; dead on the Knees of His Mother, 4, 59, 112, 114; ( Resur¬ rection of), 62. See Descent from the Cross ; Erection of the Cross ; Jesus Christiana of Sweden, 256 Civita-Vecchia, 54 Clarendon (Coll, of the Earl of), 172, 19S Clement VIII. (Pope), 60 Cleyn (Francis), P-, 230 Clifden (Lord), 74 Coeberger (Wenceslas), 125 Coenen (Ignatius), 103 Cologne, 220 Colonna (Lucrezia), 61 Com peris (Mary), 2 Conti (Gallery of Prince de), 79 Conway (Lord), 222 Cooper (Richard), Eng., 193, 231 Comelissen (Anthony), Connoisseur, 126, 12S, 129* Correggio, 246 Coster (Adam de), P., 125 Coster (Daniel), Eng., 144 Cottington (Lord), 222 Courtral. (Church of Notre-Dame at), 90, 146, 14S, 149, '5°, '5', .152, 153, '54 Cowley (Catherine), 240 Cowper (Earl), 212 Crane (Francis), 230 Craven (Coll, of Earl), 228 Crayer (Gaspard de), P., 15, 17*, 124, 253 Cromwell (Oliver), 140, 199, 214 Croy (Charles Alexander de), 134, 136 Crozat Catalogue, 250 Cunningham (Peter), 227 Cupers or Cuypers (Mary), 3, 5, 6 Cupids, 158 Cupids (Dance of) with Venus and Adonis, 206 Danae, 158 Danby (Earl of), 228 Darnley (Lord), 227 De la Belle (Etienne), 79 Delft, 256 Del Marmol, Connoisseur, 154 Del Mont (Deodatus), P., 125 De Meghem (Aurelius), 240 De Neve (Cornelius), P., 254 De Piles, 220, 221 Derby (Coll, of Earl of), 228 Derkermis (Sister Sara), 85 Derkindee (Abraham), 241 Descamps (Jean Baptiste), 13, 25, 103,146, 148, 154 Descent from the Ci-oss, 14, 61, 114, 116, 206. See Christ dead on the Knees of His Mother Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, 37', 38. 120 Devonshire (Coll, of Duke of), 45, 72, 74, 76, 226, 257 Diercx (Adrian), 3, 240 Digby (Sir Kenelm), 180, 181*, 203, 204, 205, 206, 235 Digby (Lady Venetia), 203, 204, 207, 222 Dobson (William), P., 190, 254 Dorset Family, 254 Drapery (Study of), 145, 147 Dresden (Gallery), 8, 4 2, 66, 91, 137, 158, 185, 1S6, 195, 200 Du Barry (Comtesse), 194, 195, 196 Dulwich (Gallery), 204 Dunes (Abbey of the), 39, 40, 120, 162 Dunkirk, 254 Duplessis (M. Georges), 128 Duquesnoy (Francis), Sc., 54, 218, Durazzo Palace (Gallery of), 51 Dilsseldorf (Gallery), 88, 112, 133 Dutartre, 196 Dutrfivoux Coll., 79 Dutuit (Coll, of M.), 17, 40, 59, 128 Edeliuck (Gerard), Eng., 12 Edinburgh (Scot. Nat. Gal.), 51, 89 Education of Bacchus, 47, 76 Edward III., 231 Eisen (Francis), Eng., ic6 Elizabeth, Daughter of Charles I., 187, 191 Eltham, 182 England, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 51, 52, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 72, 80, 83, 88, 94, 99, 101, 112, 118, 119, 132, 140, 142, 143, 160, 162, 168, 170, 171, 172, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 184, 185, 188, 190, 200, 203, 206, 208, 210, 212, 215, 216, 21S, 222, 226, 227, 230, 234, 235, 238, 239, 240, 242, 249, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 Epemon (Due d'), 197 Erard (Coll, of M.), 35 Erasmus (Didier), 12S, 132 Erection of the Cross, 146, 150, 152, 154 Essers (Gabriel), 245 Essex (Coll, of Earl of), 228 Fairfax (Thomas), 254 Faithorne (W.), Eng., 190 Faucheux (M.), 79 Fauns and Nymphs, 261* Ferdinand (Cardinal Infant), 107, 169,217, 218,2.9 Ferdinand II. (Grand Duke of Tuscany), 52 Ffitis (M. Edouard), 176 Fielding, 192 Fillon (Coll, of M. Benjamin), 44, 129, '58, 234 Firmin-Didot Coll., 106 FitzWilliam (Coll, of Earl), 191, 207, 214, 228 Floddcn Field (Battle of), 212 Florence, 56, 62, 68, 172, 200, 210; Pitti Gallery, 59, 64; Uffizi Gallery, 62, 63, 1K5 Fouchier (Bertrand), 253 FouquiSres (Jacques), 15 Fourment (Helen), 120 France, 26, 76, 83, 112, 160, 180, 199, 223, 233, 234 Franck, 9 Franck the Younger (Francis), 124*, 125, ' 128 Franck (M. Joseph), Eng., 27 Franqucndal, 26 Freart de Chantelou (The Brothers), 61 Frederick II. (King of Prussia), 40 Frederick V. (Elector Palatine), 258 Frontispiece of Van Dyck's Iconography, '35* Fruytiers (Philip), 212 Gachard (M.), 176 Gage (George), 59 Gainsborough (Thomas), P., 260 Galba (Head of), 184 Galesloot (M.), 30, 32 Galle (Cornelius), Eng., 34 Galle (Theodore), Eng., 126 Galliera (Duchesse de), 47 Galway (Viscount), 200, 224 Garden of Love, 43", 143 Gaujean (M.), Etch., 60,• 64 Geldorp (George), 99, 174, 180, 2 58, 259 Gdnard (M.), Record Keeper of Antwerp, 103 Genoa, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 59, 64, 65, 68, 70, 74, 76, 119, 134, 222, 252, 261 Gentileschi (Orazio), P., 52, 53, 56* Gentili (Palace), Genoa, 76 George IV., 188 Gerbier (Balthazar). 172, 176, 177, 178, 179, 208, 209 Gevartius (Gaspard), 126, 219* Gheerolfs (Cornelius), 92, 94 Ghent, 64, 90, 126; (Church of St. Michael), 106, 107, 10S, 116; (Church of St. Peter), 64 Giorgione, P., 57 Gloucester (Duke of), 256 C>odd6 Catalogue, 25 Gonzago (Ferdinand di), 57; (Vincenzo di), 57 ; (Gallery of the Princes of), 57 Goodwin (Arthur), 226 Goodwin (Jane), 226 Goring (Sir Charles), 228 Gowrie (Lord), 223 Granville (B.), 226 Greece, 21, 64 Gregory XV. (Pope), 59 t Alphabetical Index 3*7 Grey (Coll, of Earl de), 227, 228 Grimaldi (Francis), 47 Grove Park, 172, 198 Guarini (Giambattista), 143 Gustavus Adolphus, 144 Haarlem, 96, 144 Hague (The), 23, 31, 143, 1S1, 254, 256; (Gallery of), 100, 101, 233 Halmalius (Paul), Senator, 128 Hals (Franz), P., 96, 138, 144 Hamilton (Duke of), 22S Hampton Court, 193, 198, 210 Hanneman (Adrian), P., 254 Hardwicke (Coll, of Lord), 172 Harrington (Coll, of Earl of), 200, 224 Hart Davis Coll., 158 Head of a Child, 65*, 93* Head of a Faun, 45* Head of a Man, 171“, 173', 183*, 195* Hecht (Herr W.), Etch., 46, 214 Heldewerwe or Hillerwerwe, 39 Hendricx (Giles), Publisher, 135 Henrietta Anne (Daughter of Charles L), 187, 191 Henrietta Maria (Daughter of Charles I.), 186, 191 Henrietta Maria (Queen), 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 192, 200, 201. 202, 206, 208, 224, 226, 228, 232, 257 Henry IV. (of France), S3 Henry VII., 253 Henry VIII., 253 Henry (Prince), 191, 193 Heralds-at-Arms (English), 179* Herman Joseph (The Marriage of the Blessed), no, m, 119, 167, 168 Hermitage Gallery, 64, 124, 126 Hertford (Coll, of Marquis of), 146 His de la Salle (Coll, of M.), 37, 113. >23 Hoboken, 38, 39 Hoeck, P., 58 Hoet Catalogue, 27, 31 Hoff (John), 242 Hogarth (William), P., 229 Holbein (Hans), P., 253 Holland, 27, 100, 142, 143, 144, 199, 233 Holland (Lord), 192, 228 Hollar (Wenceslas), Eng., 22 Holy Family, 4,64, 66, 142. See Virgin Hondius (William), Eng., 69, 95, 126, 144 Hondt (Marie de), 244 Honthorst (Gerard), 126, 144 Hoogstraten Convent, 244 Hoppner (John, R.A.), Sale, 80 Hopton, Ambassador, 192, Horses (Studies of), 198 Houbraken (Arnold), P., 103, 255 Houze de I’Aulnoit (M. A.), 166 Hudson (Jeffrey), 191, 207, 228 Huntley (Gordon, Marquis of), 228 Huyghens (Constantine), 126, 233 Hymans (M. Henri), 100 Incredulity of St. Thomas, 86 Ireland, 19 j Isabella Clara Eugenia (Infanta), 10, 26, 68, 69*, 94, 95, 169, 217 Italy, 7, 9, >5. «. 2 3, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 45. 46, 47. 5°. 5>. S 2 , 53. 54. 55. 57, 58, 64, 81, 83, 108, 134, 160, 166, 172, 248, 249, 253 Jabach (Everard), 175, 220 James l. (of England and VI. of Scotland), 22, 24, 223 James IV. (of Scotland), 212 Jameson (George), 254 Jansenius (Marinus), 102, 103, 104, 119 Janssens, 32 Jaspers (J. B.), 257 Jeaurat (Etienne), 196 Jesus (Nativity of), 92, 94; in the Manger, 61 ; standing on the Globe, 87*; be¬ tween Mary and St. Joseph, 19; bless¬ ing St. John, 115*; blessing St. Jerome, 121*, 122*. See Christ Jode (Peter de), Eng., 3, 34, 104, 105, 134 Jode (Peter de), Father and Son, 62, 126, 250 John of Gaunt, 241 Jones (Inigo), Arch., 22, 182, 229, 229*, 232 Jordaens (Jacob), P., 14, 19, 34, 102, 105, 125, 142, 253 Joseph II. (Emperor), 85 Judgment of Cambyscs (The), 96 Judith and Holofernes, 206 Junius (Francis), 205 Jupiter a>id Antiopc, 120, 158 Kent (County of), 181, 182 Killigrew (Thomas), 193, 214, 226, 228, 229 Kirk (Mrs. Anna), 228 Kneller (Sir Godfrey), 260 Lacaze Coll., 89 La Faille (Alexandre de), 126 La Faille (Jean de), 126 La Ferri6re (Coll, of the Chevalier de), 79 La Guiche (Coll, of the Comte de), 194 Landscape (Study of), 170* Langlois, Known as Chartres (Francis), 79, So. 233 Langlois (Peter Gabriel), Eng., 79 Laniere (Nicolas), 176 Lassay (Coll, of the Marquis de), 194 La TrCmouille (Charlotte de), 228 Laud (Archbishop), 226, 228 Lautrec (Coll, of M. de), 79 Lauwcrs (Conrad), Eng., 85 Lauvvcrs (Nicolas), Eng., 85 Lawrence (Coll, of Sir Thomas), 233, 236 Le Doux, Arch., 195, 196 Leicester (Countess of), 214 Lely (Sir Peter), P., 228, 231, 245, 259 Lemon (Margaret), 222 Lempereur Coll., 233 Leonart (J. F.), Eng., 224 Leopold II. (King of the Belgians), 55 Le Roy (Philip), Lord of Ravels, 126, 129, 146, 229 Leyden, 255 Liberti (Henri), 126, 137, 140 Uerre (Church of St. Gommaire), 245 Lille, 150, 151; Hospital, 164, 166; Gal¬ lery, 162, 166, 167; (Franciscans of), 164 Lindsay Family, 254 Lipse (Justus), 126 Livens (John), P„ 126 Lombart (Peter), Eng., 198, 212, 226 Lomellini Family, 51, 52 Lomellini (Orazio), 52 London, 22, 101, 173, 180, 181, 189, 197, 216, 237, 239, 240, 241, 244, 255, 260; (St. Paul’s Cathedral), 239, 241 Loo (Castle of), 142 Lorraine (Henrietta of), 216 Lorraine (Margaret of), 216 Louis XIII., 60, 162, 216, 234 Louis XIV., 30, 175 Louis XV., 194 Louis XVI., 162, 194, 196 Louvain, 131 Louvre Gallery, 25, 29, 37, 38, 42, 66, 68, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 107, ii2, ”3. ”4, 117, 119. 127. 131. >45. ‘47. >49. >55. 156, 157. 158, 163, 165, 169, ‘73, >75, ‘83, 185, 186, 1S7, 189, 194, 197, 201, 207, 214, 224, 247, 258; (Eng. Dept.), 68, 205 Love (Allegory of), 142; (School of), 142 Lucicnnes, 196 Lyttelton (Lord), 227 MacArdell, Eng., 224 Madagascar, 214 Madonna, 51. See Virgin Madrid (Gallery), 24, 34, 35, 42, 115, 126, 143, 189, 200, 217 Maeslricht, 30 Magdalen (The), 107, 115 Magdalen inspired by the Song of the Angels, 206 Magnasco (Alexander), P. t 54 Malderus (John), 126 Mallery (Charles de), Eng., 126, 137 Manchester (Coll, of Duke of), 22S Manchester Exhibition of 1857...122, 146, 156, 190, 227 Mantua, 57 Maria Theresa (Empress), no, 168 Mariette (Pierre-Jean), 4, 12, 14, 106, 107, 118, 201, 207, 233, 250 Marlborough (Coll, of Duke of), 198 Marseilles, 76 Masson (M.), Etch., 86 Matthew (Toby), 23 Maurice (Prince), 227 Mechlin Cathedral, 90, to6, 107, 116; (Franciscan Church), 107 Medici Gallery, 11, 20, 79, 83, 101 Medici (Lorenzo di), 56 Medici (Maria di), 61, 82, 160, 162, 167, 176, 178 Meeting of Brussels Magistrates, 96, 97*, 98, 217, 218 Memling (John), P., 9 Mennis (John), 193 Merian the Younger (Matthew), P., 256 Methuen (Coll, of M. Paul), 35 Methven (Dorothy), 223 Meulenaere (Charles-Franfois de), 151, ‘5 2 > ‘53 Michael Angelo, 247 Milan, 65, 68 Milo of CroIona, 261 Minderhoul, 4 Minerva (Portrait of a Lady as), 204 Minerva seeking Arms for Achilles from Vulcan, 138 Mirabella (Marchese di), 52 Mirevelt (Michael), P., 126, 144, 256 Mistress of Titian (The), 128 Modena, 68 Moerman (Fran^ois-Augustin de), 152 Mols (Francis), 3, 18, 27.102, 120, 152, 218 Momper (Josse de), 125, 129 Moncada (Fabrizzio di), 52 Moncada (Francis di), Marquis d’Aytona, 107, 169, 170, 217 Montagu, 234 Montaiglon (M. Anatole de), 25 Montfort (John de), 62 Montgomeryshire, 243 Morin (Jean), Eng., 60 Morre, 192 Mortlake Tapestry Manufactory, 230, 231 Morton (Sir Thomas), 197 Mother between her Two Sons, A, 51 Munich, 197, 214; (Pinakothek), 34, 46, 88, 89, 90, 112,114, “8, 123, 125, 126, ‘33. ‘34, ‘37- ‘44. 158, 189, 217 3 i 8 e .Alphabetical Index Munster ,; 253 Mytens, (raniel), P., ico, 126, 180, 181 Naples, 68 Nassan-Dietz (Albertina Agnes, Princess of), 142 Nassau-Siegcn (John, Count of), 211 Neefs (Jacob). F.ng., 143 Neuburg (Wolfgang William, Count Palatine of the Rhine, and of), 133, 136 Newcastle (Coll, of Duke of), 156, 193. 226, 228 Newcastle (William Cavendish, Duke of), 22S Nole (Andre Colyns de), Sc., 126 Nole (The Wife of Andre Colyns de), 137 Norgate (Edward). 180, 1S1 Northington (Coll, of Lord), 193, 232 Northumberland (Algernon Pcrcv, Earl of), 224, 228 Nuremberg (Church of St. Giles), 115 Poelembnurg (Cornelius), P„ 126, 144 Pontius (Paul), Eng., 3, 7, 13, 86, in, 119, I2i, 126, 129, 132, 250 Porter (Sir Endymion), 156, 174, 175, 189, 190 Portland (Coll, of Duke of), 172, 226, 228 Portmore (Earl of), 18S Poussin, P., 234 Prague , 22 Praslin (Coll, of Due de), 79 Preisler (John Justin), Eng., 20 Preston (Battle of), 228 Prideaux (Humphrey). 65 Procession of the Knights of the Garter, 158, 191, 192, 231, 259 Prussia (Coll, of King of), 36, 39, 88. See Berlin (Gallery) Pruj stinck (Cornelia), 1 Pryse (Sir Richard), of Gogerddan, 243 Puget (Peter), Sc., 261, 262 Punt (John), Eng., 20 Sachtleven (Cornelius), 126, 144 Sackville (Edward), 254 Sainsbury (W. Noel), 23 St. Agatha, 120 St. Agnes, 204 St. Ambrose, 120 St. Anthony, 120 St. Anthony of Padua worshipping the Chihl Jesus, 68, 120 St. Anthony of Piidita (Miracle of), 166 St. Apollinia (Martyrdom of), 102, 105 St. Augustine in Ecstasy, 3, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, no, 119, 120 St. Bernard's Abbey, on the Scheldt, 38 St. Bonaventura (Communion of), 120 .'t. Catherine (Martyrdom oj), 33', 36 St Cecilia, 120 St. Francis, 120 St. Francis Xavier working Miracles in the Indies, 19 St. George, 120 St Ignatius Iwyola delivering the Pos¬ sessed, 19 St.John, 38, 106, 107, 114, in, 11S, 120 St. John the Baptist in the Desert, 206 St. Jerome, 44. 119, 120, 121’, 122’ St. Lievin (Martyrdom of), 36 Si. Magdalen, 120 St. Martin dividing his Cloak, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 81, 120, 208 St. Martin-figlise (Battle of), 158 St. Nicholas of To/cntino, 103, 105 St. Parti, 111 St. Peter, 107 St. Peter (Martyrdom of), 120 St. Petersburg. See Hermitage St. Rosalie (Mystic Marriage of), no, in, 113', 167 St. Sebastian (Martyrdom of), 14, 88, 89, 119 St. Stephen (Martyrdom of), 61 Salmon (M ), Fitch., 134 Samson and Delilah, 158, 159’ Sanderus, Historian, 102 Sandrart (Joachim), 256 Sans-Souci (Description of Palace of), 79 Satyr pressing a Bunch of Grapes, 161 * Saumaise (Claude de), 65 Saventhem, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 208 Savoy (Duke of), 216; (Charles Emmanuel, Duke of), 66 Savoy (Emmanuel Philibert of), 70 Savoy (Victor Amcdeus of), 66 Scaglia (Ctesar Alexander), 114, 126, 21S Schlesshcim (Gallery of), 34 Schorel de Wilryck, 39 Schut (Cornelius), P., 125 Scipio (Continence of), 158, 163* Scribanius (Charles), 133 Sebright Coll., 200, 224 Seghers (Gerard), P., 125, 132, 139*, 161 Selden (John), 65 Serpent (Brazen), 41 *, 42 Seymour (Jane), 253 Sheffield (Lord), ico Shirley (Robert), 59 Sicily, 52, 70 Sidney (Lady Betty), 228 Simeo (Coll, of Mr. John), 230 Siret (M. Adolphe), 155 Six (Coll, of M.), 121 Smith (John), 36, 60, So, 110, 171, 189, 215, 226 Smith (Margaret), 224 Snayers (Peter), P. 125 Snellincx (John), P., 125, 129, 136*, 137 ’ Snyders (Francis), P., 14, 52, 82, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 146, 229, 252 Olivier (Peter and Isaac), P„ 206 Orange (Frederick Henry of Nassau, Prince of)- 142. >43- iS4 Orange (Prince ol), 49, 188 Ordescalchi (Livio), 52 Orleans (Gallery), 24, 122, 228 Orleans (Gaston d’), 162, 184, 216 Orleans (Henriette-Marie, Duchessed’), 66 Orleans (Margaret of Lorraine, Duchesse d‘), 62. See Lorraine Orleans (Philip Ducd’), 188 Oxford, 255 Oxford and Elgin (Countess of), 22S Paggi (Giambattista), 54 Pailiet, Appraiser, 70 Paix (Prince de la), 61 Palamedessen (Palamedes), P., 126, 144 Palermo, 70 Pallavicini Gallery, 51 Palma, P.. 15, 57 Paris, 32, 45, 68, 78, So, 85, 90, 101, 216; (Gallery of Prints), 106 Parma (Gallery), 68 Paul V. (Pope), 60 Paulmy (Marquis de), 79 Peace, 165* Peiresc (Nicolas Claude Fabricius de), 76, 78, 126 Pembroke (County of), 244 Pembroke (Family of the Earl of), 96, 209, Pembroke (Philip, Earl of), 212* Pembroke (Philip Herbert, Earl of), 186, 203, 209, 224, 228 Pentecost. See Descent of Holy Ghost Pepyn (Martin), P., 125 Pereire Coll., 185 l’ery (Mr.), 174 Pesne (John), Eng., 79 Petav (Denis), 65 Petitot (John), P., 257 Petrucci, Draughtsman, 60 Petti (William). 64 Pctworth (Coll.), 772 Phalzburg (Ludwig, Prince of), 216 Philip, IV. (of Spain), 35, 51, 217. See Spain Picchianti (John), Eng., 60 Pierce (Edward), P„ 255 Pie/a. See Descent from the Cross and Christ Dead Pigage, 133 Pinchart (M. Alexandre), 92, 103, 142, 16S Piot (M. Charles), no Pipe Player (Tie), 79, So Ouellyn (Erasmus), P., 15. 19, 85 ; Raleigh (Carey), 222 Raphael, P., 15, 230, 247 | Reiffenberg (Baron), 18 I Reiset, (M.), 64 j Rembrandt Van Ryn, P., 96 Rest in Egypt (The), 53*, 64, 118, 206 1 Reyn (John de), P., 254 | Reynaldo and Armida, 142, 156, 174 Reynolds (Sir Joshua), P., 104, 232, 260 Rhodes, 60 Richardot (President), 95 Richelieu (Cardinal), 160, 216, 234, 235 I Richmond and Lennox (James Stuart, Duke of), 228 ; (John and Richard, Sons j of Duke of), 214 ; (Duchess of), 204 . Richmond (Coll, of Duke of), 228, 229 j Rochefort (Marquis de), 30 Rockox (Nicolas), 85, 86, 126 Rombouts (Theodore), 125 Rome, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, S9, 119, 134, 166; (Academy of St. Luke), 62; (Church of San Giacomo degli Spagnuoli), 60; (Church of Santo Maria del Popolo), 61; (Colonna Palace), 61; (Corsini Palace), 6i, 89; (Monte Cavallo Palace), 62; (Rospigliosi Palace), 61 ; (Siren Tavern), 58; (Villa Albani), 61. See Capitol Roose (John), P., 53, 252, 262 Rooses (M. Max), 23 Rosa (Joseph), no Rousselet (Giles), Eng., 68, 120 Rowlon Heath (Battle of), 227 Royal Palace (Genoa), 50 | Royston (Lord), 224 Rubembre (Prince de), 26 | Rubens (Peter Paul), P., 2, 6, 9, to, 11, 12, '3*, ‘4, 15- 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 29, 34, 35- 36, 41. 42, 44. 45. 47- 5°. 5 2 , 54- 57, 62, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 10S, IC9, no, 112, 116, 118, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128, 150, 160, 161, 177, 178, 186, 188, 193, 208, 209, 210, 215, 218, 229, 230, 231, 236, 237, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 254, 261 Ruffec (Coll, of Marquise de), 79 Rupert (Prince), 214, 228, 255, 258 Russel (Theodore), P,, 255 Russia, 118. See Hermitage (Gallery of) Ruthven (Maria), 223, 225*, 234, 238, 239. 240, 242, 243 Ruthven (Patrick), 242, 243, 245 Rutland (Coll, of Duke ol), 193, 232 | Ryckaert (Martin), P., 137, 140, 143” Index 3 1 9 Snyers, P., 154 Solins (Amelia of), 142, 143 Somerset (Duke of), 192 Sophonisba di Cremona, P., 52 Soprani (Raffaello), 44, 54, 252 Southampton (Rachel de Ruvigny, Coun¬ tess of), 204, 224, 228, 257 Spain (King ol), 120 Spencer (Coll, of Earl), 121, 171, 190, 227 Spinola (Agostino), 50, 261 Spinola (Ferdinando), Coll, of Palace, 50 Spinola (Marchesa), 52 Spruyt (Father), 110 Staffarde, 128 Stalbent (Adrian), P., 125 Stamford and Warrington (Coll, of Earl of), 228 Stanhope (Lady), 222 Steen (Barony of), 215 Steentvyck (Henry), P., 126, 254, 258 Stepney of Prendergast (John), 244 Stepney of Prendergast (Thomas), 244 Stevens (Peter), P., 126 Stone (Henry), P., 257 Strafford (Thomas Wentworth, Earl of), 191, 203, 207, 214, 228, 232; (The Children of), 226 Strange (Robert), Eng., 193, 197 Strawberry Hill, 206 Stuart (John and Bernard), 227 Studies of Female Figures, 245* Study of Landscape, 170* Suckling (Sir John), 193 Surrey (Earl of), 212 Sussex (Earl of), 100 Susannah and the Elders, 5, 112, 158 Suttermans (Justus), P., 125, 129 Szwykowski (Ignatius Von), 128 Tabley (Coll, of Lord de), 228 Tamizey de Larroque (M.), 78 Tassis (Antoine de), 128 Teniers (David), P., 15, 261 Termondc (Church of Notre-Dame), 89, 90, 92, 94, 166 Tervacque (Francis), 151 Thetis coming to seek Arms for Achilles from Vulcan, 142 Thibaudeau (M. A. W.), 242 Thiers (Coll, of Baron de), 194 Thisbe (Studiesfor), 201 Thore (Theophile). See Burger Thys or Tyssens (Peter), P., 256 Tilly (John, Count), 144 Time clipping the Wings of Love, 142, 158 Tintoretto, P., 15, 57 Tirinus (Father), 18 Titian, P., 15, 44, 5°, 5*5, 57,7', 73, 75, 77, 81, 86, 88, 120, 162, 247, 248; (The Mistress of), 128 Tobias (The Young), 51 Triest (Anthony), 119, 126, 129 Trinity (The) adored by a Nun, 111 Tross (Edwin), 26 Turin, 65, 66, 68 ; Gallery, 66, 68,94, 186, 217, 224 Turquet de Mayerne (Theodore), 236, 237, 238 Tuscany (Grand Duke of), 210, 212. See Ferdinand If. Uffizi Gallery. See Florence Urbanus VIII. (Pope), 60 Urfe (Genevieve d'), 134 Valkenisse (Philippe de), 217 Van Assche (Isabella), 224 Van Balen (Henry), P., 6, 7, 8, 8*, 9, 1S6, 253 Van Belcamp (John), P., 253, 254 Van Bleek, Eng., 54 Van Bockhorst (John), or Lange Jan, 252, 253 Van Caukercken (Cornelius), Eng., 34 Van Ceulen (Cornelius Jansen), P., 100, 181,253, 255 Van Delmonte or Du Mont (Deodatus), P-, 15 Van den Branden (M.), 5, 6, it, 151 Van den Enden (Martin), 128, 132 Van den Eynden (Hubert), Sc., 126 Van den Wouver (John), or Waverius, 12S Van de Putte (Abbe), 155 Van der Elst (Anne), 28 Van der Geest (Cornelius), 126 Van der Heist (Bartholomew), P., 96, 138 Van der Lamen (Charles), P., 125 Van der Meeren or Marinus (Gaspard). See Jansen ius Van der Sterre (John Chrysostom), ill Van der Weyden (Roger), P., 9 Van Diepenbecke (Abraham), P., 15, 19, 34 Van Dyck (Anne or Gertrude), 3 Van Dyck (Sir Anthony), P., 1-262; (Anthony), Grandfather of the Artist, 1 ; (Catherine), 3, 240; (Cornelia), 3, 108; (Elizabeth), 3; (Francis), 1, 2, 3, 5, 84; (Isabella), 108,234; (John), 2; (Justin- iana), 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246; (Maria Theresa), 208, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 255; (Peter), 2; (Susanna), 3, 108, 208, 215, 242, 244; (Theodore), 4, 118; (Tuenken or An¬ thony), 2 Van Egmont (Justus), P., 15, 19 Van Ertvelt (Andrew), P., 125 Van Eyck, P., 9 Van Gunst (Peter), Eng., 214, 224, 226, 233 Van Hoeck (John), P., 15 Van Hoost (Dirrick), 241 Van Kessel (John), P., 141* Van Lankeren, 154 Van Leemput (Remi), P., 253 Van Lonius (Theodore), P., 125 Van Merstraeten (Justus), 138, 224 Van Mildert (John), Sc., 126 Van Mol (Peter), P., 15 Vanni, Chevalier, 45 Van Noort (Adam), P,, 7*, 129 Van Obstal (Anthony), P., 125 Van Ophem (Anna), 28; (Isabella), 28, 30; (Martin), 28 Van Orley (Bernard), P., 9 Van Ravesteyn (John), P., 126, 144, 254 Van Severen (Robert), 39 Van Slingelandt Coll., 100 Van Thulden (Diodorus), P., 15, 19, 126, 131* Van Uden (Lucas), P., 15, 125 Van Valckenisse (Philip), 161 Van Voerst (Robert), Eng., 126, 127*, 200, 204, 205, 229 Van Woonsel (Mark), 150, 151, 152, 153 Van Zyl (Gerard Pieterz), P., 255 Velasquez, P., 51 Venice, 56, 57, 60, 68 Venius (Otto), P., 9 Venus, 204; seeking Arms for Aiiteas from Vulcan, 158 Veronese (Paul). P., 15, 57 Verrue (Coll, of Comtesse de), 194 Versailles, 167 Vertue (George), Eng., 212 Vienna (Gallery), 8, 19,68, 110 185, 258. See Albertina, Belvedere Vignon (Claude), P., 233 Vinci (Leonardo da), P., 15, 162, 247 Virgin, 62; surrounded by St. Dominick, St. Catherine of Sienna, and St. Rosalie, 70; adored by Saints, 14, 105; with Pomegranate, 51 ; with the Child fesus, 25, 28, 31, 62, 64, 66, 76, 116, 118. 119, 175* ; at the Foot of the Cross, 109* ; with Donors, 117*, 119; with St. Catherine, 177; (Coronation op), 166; (Head of), 64, 81*, 142. See fesus; Holy Family ; Madonna Vitellius, 184 Vlaminck (M. de), 92 Vleughels (Nicholas), P., 103 Volumnia at the feet of Coriolanus, 51 Vorsterman (Lucas), Eng., 55, 56, 59, 85, 86, 112, 114, «25. '25*. 130, IS'. 211, 250 Vos (Cornelius de), P., 125 Vos (Paul de), P., 125, 129 Vos (Simon de), P., 123’, 125 Vos (William de), P., 125, 129 Vossius, 65 Vouet (Simon), P., 45. 53- 126 Vrancx (Sebastian), P., 125 Waagen, 140, 171, 18S, 215 Wael (Cornelius de), P.,46, 47,50,62,70, 74 Wael (John de), P., 46, 47. 1'5, 129. '37. 252 Wael (Lucas de), P., 46, 47, 58, 62, 70, 74 Wake (Anna), 100 Wake (Isaac), 100 Wake (Lionel), Antwerp Merchant, 100 Wales (Prince of), 66, 188, 189, 256 Wallace (Coll.), 146 Wallenstein (Count), 144 Walpole (Horace), 176, 202. 206, 209, 214, 215, 226, 230, 231, 254, 257, 258 Waltmann (Brother). See Van Dyck (Theodore) Waltr.er (Charles), Etch., 158 Warto (Baron), 192 Warwick (Earl of), 206, 224, 228, 255 Warwick (Coll, of Earl of), 52, 172 Waumans (Conrad), Eng., 156 Waverius. See Van deu Wouver Weber (Herman), 128 Weimar (Gallery), 161* Wellington (Coll, of Duke of), 198 Wentworth House, 172, 191 Wentworth (Lord), 191, 222 Wentworth (Thomas). See Strafford, Earl of Westminster, 199, 259 Weyerman (Campo), 103, 217 Wharton (Coll, of Lord), 214, 224, 226 Wharton (Philadelphia and Elizaoeth), 214, 233 Wharton (Philip, Lord), 226 Whitehall, 83, 158, 182, 197, 229, 231, 232 Wibiral (M. F.), 85, 128 Wildens (John), P., 15, 125 William II. (Coll, of King), 100, 146 William II. (of Orange), 142, 143 William III. (of England), 260 Wilson (Mr. Andrew), 51 Wilton House, 172, 186, 209, 210 Windsor( Coll.),24,27,66,172,184,185,186, 187, 188, 189, 193,197, 200, 203, 204, 208, 209, 212, 214, 217, 224,226, 229, 255, 256 Wit (Jacob de), P. and Eng., 19, 20 Woburn Abbey, 172 Wcestmunster, 3 Wolfaert (Artus), P., 125 Wolfgang William. See Neuburg Worcester (Battle of), 228 Yarborough (Coll, of Duke of), 229 York (Duke of), 66, 186, 191, 256 York (Elizabeth of), 253