ND672> V 8.5 N 4 Copj Z STERLING AND FRANCINE CLARK ART INSTITUTE LIBRARY ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK THE GREAT ETCHERS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/etchingsofvandycOOnewb ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK LON DON. GEORGE NEWNES LIMITED SOUTHAMPTON STREET STRAND w.c NEW YORK. CHARLES SCRIBNERS SONS, Thf. Ballantyne Press Tavistock St., London LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LUCAS VORSTERMAN Frontispiece ANTONIUS VAN DYCK (First state) .... ANTONIUS VAN DYCK (Counter-proof) ANTONIUS VAN DYCK (Engraved) .... PHILIPPUS LE ROY (First state) PHILIPPUS LE ROY (Engraved) FRANCISCUS SNYDERS (First state) .... FRANCISCUS SNYDERS (Engraved) • JOANNES DE WAEL (First state) JOANNES DE WAEL (A later state) .... ANTONIUS CORNELISSEN (First state) ANTONIUS CORNELISSEN (Engraved) . PAULUS PONTIUS, OR PAULUS DU PONT (First state) PAULUS PONTIUS, OR PAULUS DU PONT (Finished) PAULUS DE VOS (First state) PAULUS DE VOS (Engraved) JUSTUS SUSTERMANS JOANNES BREUGEL JOOS (OR JUDOCUS) DE MOMPER . FRANCISCUS VRANX ADAM VAN NOORT PETRUS BREUGEL ...•••• GUILIELMUS DE VOS (Etching and Engraving) TITIAN AND HIS MISTRESS (First state) TITIAN AND HIS MISTRESS (Completed) . PLATE I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE ERASMUS (After Holbein) ....... xxv THE REED OFFERED TO CHRIST xxvi JAN SNELLINCX xxvn THE BISHOP OF TRIESTE (Etching and Engraving) . . xxvm JOANNES WAVERIUS (Etching and Engraving) . . . xxix MICHAEL MIREVELT (Entirely engraved by Delff) . . xxx ARTUS WOLFART (Entirely engraved by Galle) . . . xxxi JOANNES BAPTISTA BARBE (Entirely engraved by Bolswert). xxxn COUNT D’AREMBERG (Entirely engraved by Bolswert) . . xxxm THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK BY FRANK NEWBOLT N estimating the position of Van Dyck amongst etchers, the merits of his few copperplates, and the extent of his achievement in this difficult and fascinating branch of art, we ought to -be satisfied with the plates themselves, and the results which they record. Each man must be judged by his work. We can hardly forget, however, that the infinitesimal period of time which, out of his short life, he was able to devote to the needle and the copper, gave him but a limited opportunity of displaying the great qualities, which, notwithstanding these restrictions, compel the attention even of the careless and the ignorant. Every one knows that this distinguished painter was one of the small band of the great ones of the earth who had not reached the meridian of life when, worn out with its success, he was compelled to leave it. He was but forty-two years of age when death closed a career, not of promise, but of fulfilment ; and when we compare him with his greatest rivals, we stand amazed at the rapidity and completeness of his victory, and the comparative brevity of his working time. The number of those who, unassisted by the accident of birth, have secured an unassailable place amongst the immortal geniuses of all time, without reaching middle life, is small indeed. Of these, a fair proportion have naturally been artists. Some, like Wolfe, and, of course, Napoleon, have been soldiers ; some, like Nelson, have been sailors. Scarcely any have been politicians or lawyers. Shelley and Keats readily occur to the mind amongst poets, the elder having closed his stormy and meteoric passage through the firmament at thirty, when, in his own sad words, “ the sea Breathed o’er his dying brain its last monotony.” Schubert was only thirty-one when his music ebbed away into eternal silence, and Schumann and Schiller were scarcely older than Van Dyck when they followed him to the grave. 7 THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK Scheele, whose brilliant and inventive mind was more hampered by the dull difficulties of human life than any of the others, left behind him an enduring name in chemistry at forty-four. Artists, from the nature of their calling, rise more rapidly to public notice than other men, but those who, like Walker and Furze in recent times, have died famous as well as young, have been remarkable rather for their brilliant promise than for a long list of hundreds of masterpieces. Van Dyck lived longer than Paul Potter, who was not thirty when he died, and longer than Van de Velde, who was thirty-five ; he was given the same span of life as Callot, the incomparable miniature designer, whose myriad figures were scattered over 1450 plates, but of all those who in art have risen to the highest in so short a time, he yields only, so far as I remember, to the claims of Raphael. No less than 950 oil paintings are known to have been pro- duced, wholly or in part, by his brush ; and it is well to consider how much fainter would have been the glory of Rembrandt and of Velasquez if they had not been granted an additional score ol precious years in which to work. With such a record, the painter had plainly but little time and little inducement to etch on copper. His paintings were not, indeed, sold for very large sums, but etching was, commercially speaking, not remunerative at all, and it was impossible, even for a man of such exceptional gifts, to become an expert in so laborious and scientific a study. It can be readily admitted that, though he set a fashion in etching portraits which has lasted to our own day, his ideas have been copied by craftsmen who, by reason of their having devoted more time and attention to technical details, have easily surpassed him in those qualities which depend upon assiduous application. But in the particular ability in which his genius excelled he has been scarcely approached, and never surpassed. He was a pioneer ; and just as, when we compare his paintings with those of Rembrandt, Velasquez, and others, we remember how short his time was in comparison with theirs, so in appraising the value of his etchings we must not overlook the fact that he had little in the past to guide him. Because nothing has been done, in nearly three centuries, to improve upon his style by those who have had the advantage of studying his work, he is often regarded vaguely as one of the moderns; whereas, in fact, he was born in 1599, but a few years after Callot, and actually before Claude, Rembrandt, Ostade or Hollar, and he followed in the history of etching only Diirer, and his immediate successors. 8 THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK A mystery hangs over the production of the plates, prints of all of which (with one, or perhaps two, exceptions) are in the British Museum, and are reproduced in this volume. Their origin and motive are obscure, and though the painter may have appreciated them, and looked beyond their slight technical errors, it is certain that his contemporaries and publishers were far from doing so. At the beginning of the seventeenth century etching, like other forms of engraving, was no longer regarded as a mode of original expression, and was neglected as such until Van Dyck and Rembrandt again made it so. It was merely a means of reproduction. Its object was to multiply copies of a picture or design in a cheap, profitable and easily portable form, and the more complete, perfect and picture-like the etching the better. Amongst ordinary people this view of the most original art in the world is still held, and in thousands of houses reproductive etchings and photogravures of popular pictures are annually hung by those who regard some of the world’s masterpieces of painter-etchers’ work as deplorably unfinished, and difficult to understand. This is partly due to the literary instinct and sentimental appreciation of subject, apart altogether from treatment, which distinguishes those who have read much or little, but are wholly ignorant of art. They like illustrations of Tennyson’s “ Idylls,” of incidents of modern life, and particularly of sport. These can be enjoyed without effort. Another cause of the coldness of the public towards original etching lies in the fact that they have been invited and exhorted to admire many worthless plates, etched or begun by artists who have done splendid work elsewhere, and have a high reputation. It is true that a great etching may be the better for being unfinished, but a very incomplete plate by a great master is not necessarily, or probably, a work of art at all, and a bad etching from any hand is worse, if possible, when unfinished, than when finished. Much mental confusion is also caused by the fact that a bad etching, which happens to be rare, often costs a great deal more than a good one by the same artist, which is more easily obtainable. This may be as easily illustrated from the plates in this volume as from those of any other etcher. A classification of them according to their intrinsic merit would bear no relation, except by accident, to their market price, and the same observation would apply to the work of any well-known modern etcher who has issued twenty proofs from one plate, and a hundred trom another. Van Dyck printed very few proofs, and this fact has largely increased their market value, though there was no such intention in the mind of the artist, whose object, like that of every other etcher of 9 THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK that early time, would naturally have been to get as many impressions as possible from a plate, so long as there was a chance of selling them. Van Dyck desired, no doubt, to popularise his work, to extend the reputation of himself and his friends, and so to increase the dignity of his position. Whether when he etched his plates he had already formed the intention of publishing a series of engraved portraits, an idea which afterwards took shape in the “ Iconographie,” I do not know. He had returned from his Italian journey and was about twenty-seven years of age. It has been suggested that the etchings were executed for the purposes of that volume, and half a dozen of them eventually were included in it, but this comes to nothing when we find that their publication was after the painter’s death. Of the eighty-four portraits which had been published at that date, 1641, all were the work of professional engravers. Whether he had the “Iconographie” in his mind or not, it seems likely that Van Dyck etched because he had a genius for the work far in advance of his time, because he was naturally attracted to a fascinating and hazardous experiment, and because he felt that the best man to reproduce on copper the subtle essence of a portrait was the man who had originally created it. He may have discussed this with those who engraved for Rubens, and they may have challenged him to try, offering themselves as models. On the other hand, if this were the true solution of the mystery, we should not find, as we do, that some of the plates are spoilt by the addition of ugly formal backgrounds, even in their early states. If Van Dyck himself thought this an improvement, we should expect to see the whole plate completed by the burin. This can be better understood when we come to look at the different “ states ” in the illustrations. For the present it need only be said that it is difficult to believe that Van Dyck understood the real merits of his etchings, and still more difficult to believe that he did not ; and it is certain that many of them were spoilt by those who tried to improve them. Sometimes he signed a proof, which looks as if he was satisfied with it. He did not always sign his paintings. It will be seen, when we come to examine the illustrations in detail, that the signature is sometimes written in ink, and sometime engraved on the plate, and the words used are not always the same. There is no dispute about the genuineness of those bearing the words fecit , fecit aqua forti, or pinxit et fecit aqua forti , but the substitution of the word pinxit alone at the foot of the “Jan Snellincx ” has been made the foundation of a plausible suggestion that the plate was etched by some one else. 1 o THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK This is supported by the fact that the subject was re-engraved by P. de Jode for the “ Iconographic,” which looks as if the plate had been rejected. But even so, it only shared the fate of “ Sustermans,” and of others of undoubted genuineness. If it is difficult to assign a cause to the indifference of those who saw the proofs when they were freshly pulled, it is not easy to explain their present great reputation to those who have not seen them at all, and in offering a few general words of criticism, I wish it to be understood that no reproductions can do justice to the etchings. With one or two exceptions they are generally regarded as “original ” etchings, and they are original in the sense that they owe nothing to any other artist ; but it is a popular error to suppose that they are “original ” in the sense of being a direct impression of the subject. The immediate foundation of each portrait was not a human model, but a black and white painting or drawing on a small panel, this itself being often, if not always, a reduced sketch, or a repro- duction of a reduced sketch, of an oil painting. It was before the sketch in grisaille that Van Dyck sat, needle in hand, translating his previous brushwork (or possibly that of some one who had copied his drawing) into line upon a plate which had probably been grounded by some one else. The plate was then placed in a bath of acid, which not being effervescent, as some modern acids are, did not disclose the presence of “pits,” or “foul biting,” to his inexperienced eye, until a proof was taken. In 1626 the process was still almost in its infancy, and though Callot, the inventor of the hard ground, and Bosse and others were able to lay a thin coat of wax so as to be impervious to acid, no one who had not served his apprenticeship could do so, or can do so to-day. Any one can lay a thick ground, but to reduce the pro- tective coating to the required tenuity for fine work, without risk of injury to the plate, is a difficult matter. The complete failure of the ground is best seen in the “ Erasmus,” which was etched from Holbein’s painting. In using the needle, Van Dyck contented himself with repro- ducing the heart, soul, and essence of the work which he had already done, and in general designedly abstained from adding what was generally considered necessary for the market, the elaboration and completion of details. Each portrait is a masterly analysis, a rapid, elegant and telling impression of an interesting personality. The etcher selected for his work what could not be done by the most THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK faithful and skilful copyist, and although the aid of the copyist was often afterwards invoked, the early proofs give the observer a chance of seeing the real beauty and intellectual charm of a character-study without the distraction of the accessories. Take, for example, any one of the plates which was afterwards engraved, and see how the effect is dissipated by the very cleverness and perfection of the added detail. The eye wanders over the picture, and the mind is diverted from the higher pleasure to the lower. Look at the “ Franciscus Snyders,” and you will be impressed by the marvellous clearness with which the etcher has seized and expressed, in the fewest possible lines, the character, mental force and physical beauty of the distinguished painter, Venationum ferarum fructuum et olerum. Then turn to the engraving, and observe how you are carried away to admire the textures of silken embroidery, of lace, and of leather, and the “finish” of the hands. Yet it is the same plate, and the “ second state ” contains all Van Dvck’s lines. J The concentrated force of the etching, its selection of vital lines, and its supreme intellectual interest are lost. The painter’s own portrait offers a still more striking example. The presentation of the head approaches perfection, and carries the analytical method to its farthest possible point ; of its kind, there is no finer etching known ; but all its charm and beauty are finally and irretrievably sacrificed by the conversion ot the plate into a “ Frontispiece” ror the “Iconographie,” the series of portraits published from time to time before, and, with this addition, after Van Dyck’s death. The subsequent stages of the plate show the blindness ot the publisher and his advisers to the true merits of the etching. Amongst the illustrations will be found the design for the frontis- piece, which is painted with a brush upon a counter-proof. Another illustration shows the finished plate with its lamentable sacrifice. The portrait in its final form appears debased to an almost grotesque use, as a mere reproduction of a bust on a pillar engraved by Jacob Neeffs. This was done tor Hendricx, the publisher, after the painter’s death, but the early proof helps to fix the date of the etchings, and offers some evidence in support of the theory that Van Dyck was somewhere about twenty-seven years of age when he used the needle. It is clear that he was considerably older when he painted the portrait of himself which now hangs in the Uffizi Gallery. It seems probable that the “ Iconographie ” was planned about the same time as the etchings, but whether that publication was the cause or effect of the production of the etchings it is impossible 12 THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK to say. A number of portraits by various engravers were issued from time to time by Martin van den Enden, of Antwerp, during the painter’s lifetime, numbering altogether eighty-four, but though Van Dyck’s own plates were available they were not used. The work was transferred to Gillis Hendricx, who published in 1645 a volume of 100, known as the “ Centum leones,” with the frontispiece mentioned above. This set included six other original plates by Van Dyck worked upon by engravers. They will be found amongst the illustrations under their names : “ Philippus le Roy,” “ Snyders,” “ Paulus ” and “ Guilielmus de Vos,” “ Cornelissen,” and “Paulus Pontius.” A second edition contained 108, and a few more were added by another Antwerp publisher, Joan. Meyssens, some years later, and at the beginning of the eighteenth century the volume issued by Verdussen contained 128 plates. The worn coppers passed into the possession of Van Marcke at Liege, and at last were sold to the Louvre. Amongst the engravers employed were Vorsterman, Paul Pontius or du Pont, Pieter de Jode the younger, Bolswert, NeefFs, DelfF, and Galle, whose work is shown here. Illustrations are given to show how the etchings suffered by being completed for publication, and what the difference is between etching and engraving. The most superficial study of them shows how the individuality of the needle differs from the formality of the burin. The etchings represent people, the engravings pictures of people ; and one man’s engraved work is very like another’s. From all the facts known about the “Iconographie” it is very diffi- cult to form a complete and logical theory to account for the treat- ment of Van Dyck’s own etched plates. We can only consider them as we see them. They do not display that complete mastery of the details and refinements of the process which is shown by Rembrandt, Jacquemart, or Meissonier ; but even Rembrandt’s first twenty plates would compare very unfavourably with Van Dyck’s. The greatest of all etchers would have effected very little with only this minimum, less than a twelfth of his actual output. , The most striking quality of the plates before us is their originality. In painting, Van Dyck owes a debt at one time to Rubens, at another to Correggio, Titian, or to Paul Veronese, but in etching he owes nothing to anybody. He invented the freely-etched portrait, and left a tradition which still influences this branch of art. To take a single modern example, we see in Rajon’s portrait of Leighton the clear inspiration of the 13 THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK Flemish etcher. The solid masses are merely indicated by a few lines, and the interest is wholly concentrated in the drawing and pose of the leonine head. A more general view of the work of modern portrait-etchers such as Legros, Strang, and Holroyd, supplies equally pertinent illustrations. The best way to study Van Dyck’s etched work is to go to the fountain-head and examine the original proots, which are open to all. Unlike more prolific etchers, he produced no bad work, not a single plate that is uninteresting. The great test ot an etching is its interest. The power of creating it is a gift which cannot be acquired, and though the illustrations in this volume, which are mere reproductions, cannot convey the charm ot the originals, they are sufficient to show that Van Dyck was one of the greatest etchers who have ever lived, though he died so young, and with so little done. 14 A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK Frontispiece. Lucas Vorsterman d 13 ii w 14 ii The famous engraver of many plates, some being after Van Dyck’s own portraits, is here presented. The proof is signed in ink by the etcher, who has been more successful with his wax ground than usual. Perhaps this encouraged him to complete the design with his own hand, instead of leaving the head isolated, as in “ Paulus de Vos.” The plate is an admir- able example of the best kind of etched portrait, and the style in which the dress is manipulated is in keeping with the whole scheme, but, except in the head, the actual lines are inferior to those of Rembrandt. Van Dyck seems to have used a needle which was not sufficiently sharp, and not carefully rounded. It may be that the head alone is his work. If all the figure below the collar had been merely indicated by a few lines, and the interest more concentrated on the face, the etching would have been even more striking. The plate was not engraved or published. 1. Antonius Van Dyck (first state) d 3 1 w 4 1 This is one, and perhaps the best, or the seven portraits upon which the fame of the etcher must ultimately rest. The others are Nos. 4, 6, 9, 16, 17, and 18. That it is incomparably well drawn, and without one unnecessary stroke, or even dot, is obvious to every one. The ground was well laid, allowing a fine line to be drawn without an opening for the acid to penetrate anywhere injuriously. The dots, which so admi- rably mould the contours of the face, are put in after sucesssive bitings in the acid ; but on the nose a careful examination shows the mark ot stopping out varnish. The unintentional scratch across the end of the moustache was only partly removed afterwards, and can still be seen in No. 3. The real beauty and interest of this sketch is not fully appre- ciated until it is lost. The plate was handed over to the engraver in order that it might be completed as a frontispiece for the “ Centum leones,” and the result is shown in No. 3. 2 . Antonius Van Dyck (counter-proof) w 4 1 A counter-proof touched with a brush, and converted into the foundation for the engraving. The paper was cut through in the middle, so that several suggestions could be successively made for its design without the necessity of making more than one counter-proof. When a wet, freshly printed proof is passed again through the press, together with a piece of clean paper, the latter takes and retains a very fair impression in reverse of the proof, which it thus robs of half its ink. The reversed print is called a counter-proof. With this before him, added to or altered in any way desired, the etcher, or, as in this case, the engraver, can execute further work on the plate without the use of a mirror. A portion of the shading and modelling has disappeared, and many of the lines compare very unfavourably with the corresponding lines in No. 1. Note the suggestions for strenghtening the shadows, and how these are carried out, in No. 3. *5 A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK 3. Antonius Van Dyck (engraved) w 4 ii This is the frontispiece forthe “ Iconographie” as it was published after Van Dyck’s death by Hendricx or Antwerp in 1646. The actual copper- plate etched by the painter is used, but the value of the etching is destroyed for ever. The design is ruthlessly vulgarised, and becomes merely a transcript of a commonplace bust upon an ugly pedestal. It is signed on the plate in the right-hand bottom corner, Jac Neejfs sculpsit. 4. Philippus le Roy (first state) w p. 69 ci Except for the blot over the shoulder, which is due to an imperfection in the ground, and was easily removed by scraping the copper, this etching may be described as perfect in every detail, and finer even than the fine completed engraving which comes next, though it is doubtful if Van Dyck intended it to remain in such an incomplete state. What strikes us most about it is the ease and certainty with which the etcher has fixed the pensive expression of his aristocratic sitter, the size and position or the head, and the astonishing technical skill shown. It seems to be a reproduction of part of a beautiful full-length portrait of “ Philippe le Roy, Seigneur de Ravels,” which now hangs in the Wallace Collection at Hertford House. The proof is signed by the etcher, as if he had singled it out for special approbation. The writer of the official catalogue of the Wallace Collection states that the picture is in the painter’s second Flemish manner, and is one of the masterpieces of that phase of Van Dyck’s art, but, in alluding to the etching, he seems to be mistaken in saying that it was “not elaborated into an engraving,” as the next repro- duction from the specimen in the British Museum shows. Another writer describes the etching as “doubtful,” but I do not know upon what grounds. The engraver evidently did not think so, as he wrote on the plate, A : van Dyck faciem delineavit et fecit aqua forti. This con- temporary evidence, taken with the pen and ink signature on the proof, appears conclusive of its genuineness. Its intrinsic merits supply an additional proof, if any is needed. 5. Philippus le Roy (engraved) w p. 70 evii The work of the engraver has here again injured the beauty ot the original design, but not so disastrously. The figure maintains its quiet dignity. In making the ugly formal background, the engraver has added a large piece of white lace to the left shoulder, and has beaten up and re-engraved part of the shade on the left breast, so as to introduce a cloak chain. This was a favourite ornament with Van Dyck, who painted it into one of his own portraits that is now in the Pinacothek at Munich. Some etched lines were added to the lace collar before the plate was engraved ; and some weak lines on the dress were strengthened, or replaced, by burin lines. 6 . Franciscus Snyders (first state) w ii One of the principal charms of the seven great etchings, which I have classed together, is the physical beauty of the subjects. V an Dyck may have flattered all his sitters, but it is probably as true to say that he was singularly fortunate in some of them, and very careful in selecting from the vast gallery at his disposal those whose faces would make effective etchings. Snyders was himself a famous painter, and no doubt a willing model, as he sat to his friend more than once. The etching, which is A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK “the first state,” is a good illustration of the maxim that etchers are born, and not made. It should be carefully compared with the engraving which follows, and with later examples which are wholly engraved. 7. Franciscus Snyders (engraved) d 11 iv w 11 iv Here we see the blank part of Van Dyck's etched plate entirely covered with engraved lines by Neeffs, who, besides his own name, wrote on the plate, Ant. van Dyck pinxit et fecit aqua forti. When thus completed, the plate was published in the “ Iconographie,” but as this was after V an Dyck’s death, it is doubtful if the etching was originally intended for publication in this form, or not. This observation applies to all the other six which were eventually so published, viz. : His own portrait, “ Paulus de Vos,” “ Antonius Cornelissen,” “ Paulus Pontius,” “ Guilielmus de Vos,” and “ Philippus le Roy.” The background is ugly, but on the whole the engraving is successful. It does not, however, improve upon the etching, as the accessories are distracting, and the intellectual interest of the face is weakened. The width of the shoulders also detracts from the massive dignity of the head. 8. Joannes de Wael (first state) w 17 This portrait was not included in the “Iconographie ”at all, although the heavy, engraved background was added before the etching was finished, which shows that the etcher intended it to be completed by an engraver. The coarse mechanical lines are not in keeping with the delicate finesse of the needle, but the pose and modelling of the head make it one of the best of the series. It is not, of course, the “first state,” which could have no background. It is impossible to say why the publishers denied it a place beside the “Snyders,” but it was evidently rejected along with “ Sustermans,” “ Vorsterman,” “Snellincx,” and “Joannes Breugel.” The mystery of this choice will probably never be solved. 9. Joannes de Wael (a later state) d 16 iii w 17 v This proof is a much better specimen than the last, and is also of interest as showing the difference between one “ state ” and another, and the addition of etched work after engraving. The arm has been completed, and the dress worked upon. The white patch under the ruff, which had evidently been stopped out by varnish when the last example was printed, has not been etched over, but engraved, the regular sharp-pointed strokes of the burin being plainly visible, but the neighbouring new lines are etched in acid, and there are some small signs of foul biting. The engraver’s name does not appear, but he has marked the plate Ant. van Dyck fecit aqua forti. 10. Antonius Cornelissen (first state) w 3 This etching will be thought by most people to be inferior to the engrav- ing which appears next. It has obvious defects : the lines are in many places weakly bitten, and nothing except the face is presentable ; but it is only a trial-proof, and was not meant to be shown at all. If the background had been cleaned off, the shoulder and hand touched up, and a few vigorous lines added, the result would have been far superior to the correct, respectable and picture-like reproduction of the burin. But perhaps this is merely a matter of taste. Van Dyck himself may have preferred the engraving, if he ever saw it, and the fact that the etched portion was weak and incomplete may have made it more suitable as a b 1 7 A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK foundation for the engraver. It is certain that it was not rejected as its betters were, and in the capable hands of Vorsterman it became a very fine engraving. The proof is unsigned, and after completing the plate, the engraver did not acknowledge that any part of it had been etched. He wrote Ant. van Dyck pinxcit , Forster man sculp. , thus claiming the whole plate. Cornelissen was a connoisseur, Pictoria artis amator. The portraits, which afterwards became the “ Centum leones,” were issued in three sets, which may be roughly described as (i) princes, soldiers, See. ; (2) statesmen and scholars ; (3) artists, amateurs, Sec . ; this example being one of the third set. 11. Antonios Cornelissen (engraved) d 17 v w 3 iv Van Dyck’s portrait of Vorsterman, who engraved this plate, is the frontis- piece to this book. Every parr of the plate, including the etched lines even on the face and hair, has been gone over and worked upon by the burin. Scarcely a line of the original has been left untouched. A minute comparison of the present with the last proof creates a suspicion that Vorsterman engraved an entirely new plate : and this is only removed by some slight marks on the hand and collar. Even the shading on the bridge of the nose has been removed and replaced, or partly removed and reinforced. 12. Paulus Pontius, or Paulus du Pont (first state) W9 This rough trial-proof must not be criticised as if it were put forward as a finished work of art. It is simply a “ pull ” to show the state of the plate, although there appears written upon it in ink, Paulus du Pont Colcographus Antverp'ue , and Ant. Van Dyck aq. forti , showing possibly that the painter considered his individual work completed. The blemishes which are caused by some slight accidental scratches on the wax having been attacked by the acid, could be removed, and the next illustration shows that they were entirely removed from the face, but not from the dress, where many of them can still be seen. 13. Paulus Pontius, or Paulus du Pont (finished) d 9 vi a W9va In this illustration it will be noticed that the lines of the background and those which complete the costume are very different from those on the face which resemble the sharp, regular and mechanical lines of the “ Antonius Cornelissen.” The latter are engraved lines, put in by the burin, a tool which removes small shavings of copper as it cuts into the plate : the former are etched, that is, eaten out by acid. The face has been remodelled, which is not the case with any other etching ; the chin is more pointed on both sides, the right-hand cheekbone remoulded, thus altering the most important outline of the face, the neck rounded, and the moustache increased. The nose also is straightened and improved, and a more pleasing expression given to the whole face, in fact more alteration is made in this portrait than in the “ Cornelissen,” but notwithstanding this the plate is marked Ant. van Dyck fecit aqua forti y and no engraver’s name is shown. At a proper distance the illumination of the whole picture is extremely fine. 14. Paulus de Vos (first state) w 16 The characterisation and expression in this etching are as good as in the others, but the disagreeable background, the ugly dark patches by the face, and the white spots made by stopping out varnish on weak places, detract 18 A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK from its charm. The whole of the background should have been removed, but the plate was probably laid aside as a technical failure until after the painter’s death. 15. Paulus de Vos (engraved) d 15 iii w 16 iii This shows the etching completed by Joan. Meysens for the “Iconographie.” It is curious that the engraver does not very clearly acknowledge the etching ; he inscribes on the plate only Anton, van Dyck fecit — not indeed pinxit , but not fecit aqua forti — though Van Dyck was sometimes con- tent with the first word. No engraver of eminence would have published as his own work a plate so marred as this is by the heavy black blot next the cheek, which could not be removed without also taking away some important etched lines. The plate seems to have been completed almost entirely with the needle, but some lines of the burin may be seen on the cloak. (Compare the work with that seen in No. 11, which shows how brilliancy of surface is obtained by the burin at the expense of freedom of line). The figure is rich and effective, showing in the attitude of the right arm, and the position of the hands, strong characteristics of Van Dyck. If only the background had been cross-hatched to blackness, or taken out altogether, this etching would rank very high. 16. Justus Sustermans w 12 This portrait of a brother painter needs no encomium, as there is no finer etching known. It is impossible to suggest any reason for not placing it above the “ Paulus de Vos,” which was so laboriously etched over. It is not injured by a bad background, and the trifling evidence of foul biting could have been easily removed, and no remodelling was required, as in “Paulus du Pont.” That Van Dyck approved of it is shown by the ink signature. Its treatment must therefore remain a mystery, like that of “Joannes Breugel.” They have both served as models to a vast army of students. 17. Joannes Breugel d i v w i v This is a portrait of another painter, and has an engraved background and engraved title. The initials “G. H.” are those of Gillis Hendricx, the publisher, but he did not include the plate in the “ Iconographie.” From a technical standpoint it has no defects at all, and it has had as great an influence on the art of etching as any example by Diirer or Rembrandt. Its principal merit lies in the economy of line, and the perfection of the drawing. It is a superb demonstration of selective power. 18. Joos (or Judocus) de Momper w 7 iv The mountains in the background indicate that the subject of this portrait was pictor montium. It was re-engraved by Vorsterman, and though con- sidered doubtful by a modern writer, perhaps on this account, it is marked Ant. van Dyck fecit aqua forti. The initials “ G. H.” are again those of the publisher, who, however, substituted the engraving for it. 19. Franciscus Vranx d 5 iv w 6 iv This portrait appears complete, except for the white mark on the top of the hair, made by stopping out varnish. It is stamped “ G. H.,” but was not published in the series. 20. Adam van Noort d 8 vi w 8 vi This has no publisher’s initials, and was not included in the series for which it seems evidently to have been intended. 19 A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK 21. Petrus Breugel d 2 i The proof is signed in ink, and is an example only inferior to the “Joannes Breugel.” The slight cast in the eyes is unfortunate. More lines are used for the face, and fewer dots than in some of the others. The plate was not engraved for the “ Iconographie.” 22. Guilielmus de Vos d 14 iv w In this engraving for the “ Iconographie,” by Bolswert, we do not see how much is due to the etcher, as both kinds of work are completely blended together, and there is no proof of the etching in the British Museum. The engraver has, however, noted on the plate that its foundation was an etching by Van Dyck. It is one of the half dozen published, but will generally be considered slightly inferior in brilliancy to Vorsterman’s “ Cornelissen,” No. n. 23. Titian and his Mistress (first state) This is specially interesting as a reproduction by Van Dyck, like his “Erasmus,” of a painting by another hand. It is plainly not a very early state, as much work has been done on it by the burin, and that it was not the last is shown by No. 24. It is said to have been produced about 1630. 24. Titian and his Mistress (completed) w p 69 The plate is supposed to have been completed by Vorsterman, and a careful comparison of the two illustrations shows how the finishing- touches were added. The skull is heavily worked over, the lady’s bodice, and the old man’s head, neck, and shoulders elaborately touched up, and a long inscription added. The result is that a velvety richness is added to the whole of the picture. 25. Erasmus An etching of Holbein’s portrait, and evidently a very early attempt, before Van Dyck had mastered the difficulty of laying a good ground. The acid attacks the most exposed part of the plate, which in this instance was not that uncovered by the needle, except in the shadows on the cheek. The plate would form a useful illustration to a lecture on the process of etching. 26. The Reed Offered to Christ w p 68 In this rough sketch some of the lines are over-bitten, and therefore at present out of key, but the composition is strikingly effective, and the pose of the central figure reminds us that Van Dyck was not always a portrait painter. Technically the plate is poor, and poorly printed. It is said to have been afterwards worked upon by Vorsterman, and a later “ state ” may be seen at the Museum. 27. Jan Snellincx This plate is one of those which have been considered by some writers to be of doubtful authenticity. The proof is signed in ink Ant. van Dyck pinxit (not fecit), and the subject was completely re-engraved for the “ Iconographie ” by P. de Jode. In ordinary circumstances this would be strong evidence, but the circumstances surrounding the publication of Van Dyck’s etchings are so mysterious that little importance can be attached to it, and the etching has great intrinsic merits. The dots, however, on the face are not exactly like the dots on the undoubted etchings. 20 W 2 i 15 iv B iii w 5 A II W 10 A LIST OF THE ETCHINGS OF VAN DYCK 28. The Bishop of Trieste w 13 11 This is a fine specimen of P. de Jode’s engraving, after the portrait by Van Dyck. The head, however, appears to have been etched, and may have been etched by Van Dyck himself, although the inscription is pinxit only, followed by the words P. de Jode , sc., in ink. This suggestion is strongly supported by the facts known about the next plate. 29. Joannes Waverius d 23 iii w 18 iii From internal evidence this, like the last, appears to be an engraving after a picture by Van Dyck, but with an etched, or partly etched head. The name of the engraver, Paulus Pontius (or du Pont) is written in ink under Ant. van Dyck pinxit , and no early state showing etched work alone is to be found in the British Museum. There is one, however, in a private collection in Paris, which no one doubts to be a genuine Van Dyck, and this shows that the inscription is misleading. If so, the same inscription on the last plate may be equally wrong, and a comparison of the two heads certainly suggests that they are by the same hand. Most critics will be inclined to say that no one but Van Dyck could have etched either. 30. Michael Mirevelt d 32 iv w 26 ii This illustration is added from the “ Iconographie ” to show the work of a different engraver, Wilhelm Jacobs Delphius, or Delff, and to demonstrate the difference in an engraved portrait between an etched head, as in the last two, and an engraved head. 31. Artus Wolfart d 33 ii w 27 i This shows the work of another engraver, Cornelis Galle. 32. Joannes Baptista Barbe d 26 iii w 20 i Another engraving by Bolswert of a picture of a brother engraver. This should be compared with No. 22, in which Bolswert’s burin work is superimposed upon an etching by Van Dyck. 33. Count d’Aremberg w 19 iv This engraving by Bolswert, after Van Dyck, is a good specimen of burin work to compare with the etchings. The lines on the face should be noticed, especially in relation to the comments made above on Nos. 28 and 29. 21 ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE I ANTONIUS VAN DYCK (First State) PLATE II ANTONIES VAN DYCK (Counter-proof) . * PLATE III ANTONIUS VAN DYCK (Engraved) PLATE IV PHILIPPVS LE ROY EQVES / * \lti(*AUU )/JLHiXyc£ j&tl PHILIPPUS LE ROY (First State) PLATE V PHILIPPUS LE ROY (Engraved) PLATE VI Fra NCI2CVS SNYDER.S PicHr)^ Jrnshnhi j pa* fyc/ c JifcU- FRANCISCUS SNYDERS (First State PLATE VII r R A"NCISCV S oNYDERS .■NTATIO^VM.FERARVM, FRVCTVVM.ET OLERVM PICTOR ANT VERPJJE FRANCISCUS SNYDERS (Engraved) PLATE VIII JOANNES DE WAEL (First State) * . - ■ PLATE IX Joannes de WAEL ANTVERPI JfL PICTOR HVMAMRVM FIGVRARVM. / _ {rzt : 'an Dy.k tffjt sujua fortt, _ . — JOANNES DE WAEL (A Later State) lUllililllllUllJ PLATE X * ANTONIUS CORNELISSEN (First State) PLATE XI ANTONIVS CORN ELIS SEN A Zorft. PICTORIAL ARTIS AM AT OR ANTVERPIyt. Dyck vtruKCtb. ’ CumjruuUyut ■nt . v^n lJyck jjtn.x.ct x f J p ANTONIES CORNELISSEN (Engraved) PLATE XIII PAULUS PONTIUS, or PAULUS DU PONT (Finished) PLATE XIV PAULUS DE VOS (First State) PLATE XV PAVLV5 BE VOS PICTOR Mc\fens excndi s ittiai . win PAULUS DE VOS (Engraved) PLATE XVI * Io Dt> CVS C r T ER M AM ' fuo ceaicato il vero ritratto del vnico Titiano Ant. vaa rerce yiimc ~i — 1 “ Jicema . mafioiie van Dvck. TITIAN AND HIS MISTRESS (Completed) PLATE XXV mi "A— - - - i&.r'Sg- baa ERASMUS (After Holbein) PLATE XXVI THE REED OFFERED TO CHRIST p* ■ - ^ 4 ~ ■ Mg •\ i liu **-«■ - .-AV-^ BK\ v ^«»\ Vi\> r TsiLk-Si JK/i- PI ATF JAN SNELLINCX KiUft fcctlr y/? d/yyor S- a ra f?/t * a 2 - . J P * JASi* L . v tmdn TLndm cjarudil; C tun j/rmdrjio ■ JOANNES BAPTISTA BARBE (Entirely Engraved by Bolswert) PLATE XXX III ■ALBERTVS . PRINCEPS . COM. AREMBERG . PR INC . BAR BAN SON . COM AIGREMONTAN. ET RVP. IN ARDEN N. VICECOM . DAVENS . PAR. HANNON. ET CIVIT LEOD. ET MONTI. IN HANNON. ADVOCAT. ' • PERPET. AVR.VE7/L FjO. ETC. 5SE 3L7" COUNT D’ARSMBERG (Entirely engraved by Bolswert) GETTY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3 3125 01203 8770 S'* -•nutfc . -ijsJ- ■ eH** 0 ”*