Portraits by Roger van der WeydenAuthor(s): Charles HolmesSource: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 48, No. 276 (Mar., 1926), pp. 122+126-128Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/862830 .

Accessed: 20/12/2014 18:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

paintings on glass. The invasion by Western architecture is too big a subject to be discussed here. Enough has been said to indicate some of the channels through which Europe disturbed the continuity of native tradition and hastened Chinese asthetics into decay.

The free intercourse by sea between the Far East and the West, which began in the sixteenth century, brought into the cultured life of Europe a profusion of Chinese handicrafts-porcelain, lacquer and textile fabrics, to name the chief. These, together with travellers' and missionaries' writings, often extravagantly eulogistic, re- vealed to our forbears that the Mediterranean was not the sole centre of civilization. Indis- criminate admiration for Chinese notions and things, or those supposedly Chinese, became the vogue. This sinicization of intellectual Europe reached its acme during the eighteenth century, and it has influenced our arts to an extent hard to estimate. Not the least potent agency in fostering the fashion were certain illustrated books claiming to represent Chinese scenes and customs. The earliest important work of the kind was Nieuhof's account of the first Dutch embassy to Peking. It was published at Amsterdam in I665, and within the following twenty years versions in French, German, Latin and English appeared. The famous " China Illustrata " of Kircher came out in 1667. Two

paintings on glass. The invasion by Western architecture is too big a subject to be discussed here. Enough has been said to indicate some of the channels through which Europe disturbed the continuity of native tradition and hastened Chinese asthetics into decay.

The free intercourse by sea between the Far East and the West, which began in the sixteenth century, brought into the cultured life of Europe a profusion of Chinese handicrafts-porcelain, lacquer and textile fabrics, to name the chief. These, together with travellers' and missionaries' writings, often extravagantly eulogistic, re- vealed to our forbears that the Mediterranean was not the sole centre of civilization. Indis- criminate admiration for Chinese notions and things, or those supposedly Chinese, became the vogue. This sinicization of intellectual Europe reached its acme during the eighteenth century, and it has influenced our arts to an extent hard to estimate. Not the least potent agency in fostering the fashion were certain illustrated books claiming to represent Chinese scenes and customs. The earliest important work of the kind was Nieuhof's account of the first Dutch embassy to Peking. It was published at Amsterdam in I665, and within the following twenty years versions in French, German, Latin and English appeared. The famous " China Illustrata " of Kircher came out in 1667. Two

even more fantastic travesties of Chinese life were published in 1670 and I68I, respectively, from the pen of O. Dapper, and these were later surpassed in untruthfulness by Pieter van der Aa's " La Galerie Agreable du Monde." In I924 Herr Otto Pelka published an interesting book7 with many illustrations, copied from the above-mentioned works, in order to demonstrate whence came some of the chinoiseries beloved in the eighteenth century. One striking example is reproduced here [PLATES A, B and c]. Mr.

Orange also draws from Nieuhof and Kircher, but he gives special prominence to a compilation entitled " China," which in 1843 started to come out in monthly parts and ran to four volumes of 128 steel engravings and 292 pages of text. Neither of its authors, Allom and Wright, had been to China, and the publication is a tissue of travesties. What useful purpose is served by copious reproduction of it in 1925 is difficult to understand, especially since the original is no rarity and may be picked up for a few shillings. Had Mr. Orange shown that the fictitious Chinese scenes on its plates gained currency in Western art, there might have been some excuse. At all events, I cannot think of any justification for his frequent quotations from Wright's turgid letterpress.

7 " Ostasiatische Reisebilder im Kunstgewerbe des i8. Jahrhunderts." Leipzig (Hiersemann)

even more fantastic travesties of Chinese life were published in 1670 and I68I, respectively, from the pen of O. Dapper, and these were later surpassed in untruthfulness by Pieter van der Aa's " La Galerie Agreable du Monde." In I924 Herr Otto Pelka published an interesting book7 with many illustrations, copied from the above-mentioned works, in order to demonstrate whence came some of the chinoiseries beloved in the eighteenth century. One striking example is reproduced here [PLATES A, B and c]. Mr.

Orange also draws from Nieuhof and Kircher, but he gives special prominence to a compilation entitled " China," which in 1843 started to come out in monthly parts and ran to four volumes of 128 steel engravings and 292 pages of text. Neither of its authors, Allom and Wright, had been to China, and the publication is a tissue of travesties. What useful purpose is served by copious reproduction of it in 1925 is difficult to understand, especially since the original is no rarity and may be picked up for a few shillings. Had Mr. Orange shown that the fictitious Chinese scenes on its plates gained currency in Western art, there might have been some excuse. At all events, I cannot think of any justification for his frequent quotations from Wright's turgid letterpress.

7 " Ostasiatische Reisebilder im Kunstgewerbe des i8. Jahrhunderts." Leipzig (Hiersemann)

PORTRAITS BY ROGER VAN DER WEYDEN BY SIR CHARLES HOLMES PORTRAITS BY ROGER VAN DER WEYDEN BY SIR CHARLES HOLMES

Y the courtesy of Sir Joseph Duveen I have at last been able to examine the Portrait of a Lady [PLATE A], No. I433, in the National Gallery,

side by side with the very similar portrait which till recently was one of the treasures of the ducal collection at WVorlitz and Dessau [PLATE B]. As it is seldom that such an opportunity occurs of closely comparing works in different public or semi-public galleries, it may perhaps be worth while placing the results on record, even though they relate to what seem minor details. In the case of a painter like Roger van der Weyden, whose definitely authentic works are surrounded, as it were, with a whole nebula of satellites, the relation of those satellites to the parent planet is a matter of some artistic and commercial importance, but much work will still have to be done before that rela- tion can be determined beyond the possibility of dispute.

The Worlitz portrait has always been held superior to the London one. Ours, indeed, was long regarded as a work by Memling, and figured as such in the de Beurnonville Sale of

Y the courtesy of Sir Joseph Duveen I have at last been able to examine the Portrait of a Lady [PLATE A], No. I433, in the National Gallery,

side by side with the very similar portrait which till recently was one of the treasures of the ducal collection at WVorlitz and Dessau [PLATE B]. As it is seldom that such an opportunity occurs of closely comparing works in different public or semi-public galleries, it may perhaps be worth while placing the results on record, even though they relate to what seem minor details. In the case of a painter like Roger van der Weyden, whose definitely authentic works are surrounded, as it were, with a whole nebula of satellites, the relation of those satellites to the parent planet is a matter of some artistic and commercial importance, but much work will still have to be done before that rela- tion can be determined beyond the possibility of dispute.

The Worlitz portrait has always been held superior to the London one. Ours, indeed, was long regarded as a work by Memling, and figured as such in the de Beurnonville Sale of

1881. When bequeathed to the Gallery by Mrs. Lyne Stephens in 1895, it was described less definitely as Early Flemish School, a title re- tained even after the connexion with the Worlitz portrait had been noticed. While opinions here, including that of the late Sir Claude Phillips, generally held that our picture was so clearly derivative as to be a school piece, Dr. Fried- lander and others have steadily maintained that it was an original work by the master himself. The differences now revealed by a juxtaposition of the two panels may be summarized as follows.

The background of both portraits is a very deep greenish-blue. The pigment looks the same, but I have not had the time to establish a positive identity. But the manner of application differs. In the Wo6rlitz panel it is a solid trans- lucent enamel, of considerable substance.1 On our panel the colour was applied more thinly, and appears in many places to have been absorbed by the medium or varnish of the ground. The comparative thickness of sub-

1 Some .excellent judges consider it to be a repaint. If so, it is wonderful that the outline of the white linen should have remained intact.

1881. When bequeathed to the Gallery by Mrs. Lyne Stephens in 1895, it was described less definitely as Early Flemish School, a title re- tained even after the connexion with the Worlitz portrait had been noticed. While opinions here, including that of the late Sir Claude Phillips, generally held that our picture was so clearly derivative as to be a school piece, Dr. Fried- lander and others have steadily maintained that it was an original work by the master himself. The differences now revealed by a juxtaposition of the two panels may be summarized as follows.

The background of both portraits is a very deep greenish-blue. The pigment looks the same, but I have not had the time to establish a positive identity. But the manner of application differs. In the Wo6rlitz panel it is a solid trans- lucent enamel, of considerable substance.1 On our panel the colour was applied more thinly, and appears in many places to have been absorbed by the medium or varnish of the ground. The comparative thickness of sub-

1 Some .excellent judges consider it to be a repaint. If so, it is wonderful that the outline of the white linen should have remained intact.

122 122

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A- Portrait of a Lady, from Roger van der Weyden's Studio. Panel 35 cm. by 26 cm. (National Gallery)

B Portrait of a Lady, by Roger van der Wevden. Panel, 36.8 cm. by 27.3 cm. (Sir Joseph Duveen)

Portraits by Roger van der Weyden

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

stance in the Worlitz picture would suggest that it is earlier in date than ours, and was executed before the clarification of oils and varnishes had reached the perfection attained in the latter part of the fifteenth century.

The linen wimple over the headdress is drawn with extraordinary refinement in the Worlitz portrait, the curvature of the outer silhouette, and the still more delicate passage where it falls over the forehead and turns round the head, being noted with exquisite precision of form and lighting. In our picture the curves lack this subtlety. The outer silhouette is hard and stiff, the border round the head being tightened with- out much reference to the underlying forms. In the former case we have a scrupulous observ- ance of things actually seen, in the latter the observation is so much less close as to look like a convention.

The head and face point to the same conclu- sion. In the Worlitz picture the head is superbly modelled, the planes of the face being seen and stated with sculpturesque force. The receding plane of the right cheek should be specially noticed and compared with the formless, linear rendering of the same passage in our picture. There, indeed, the shape of the skull is not really felt, and is presented by a smooth conven- tional rounding.

The drawing of the features in the Worlitz picture is at once large and subtle; the superb contours of the right eye, for example, recall the style of Holbein at his very best. In our picture the forms are smaller, stiffer and altogether far more conventional, while the nostril appears to be distorted.

There is also a distinct difference in the techni- cal methods employed. In the Worlitz picture, the flesh tones are very thin and semi-transparent, rather cool and grayish in the lights, a little warmer and browner in the half-tones and shadows. In our picture the treatment is alto- gether more solid, depending largely upon grayish half-tones, with a flush of pink on the cheeks and a spot of white for high light upon the nose tip. The general freshness of the effect does not suggest an extremely early date, though something of the kind may be noticed in our admirable Campin portrait No. 653B, where there is also a similar high light on the tip of the nose.

So far the advantage at all points has lain with the Worlitz picture: but in the painting of the throat the London work is certainly not in- ferior. The roundness of the neck and the deli- cate creases of the skin are quite perfectly ren- dered, a perfection which we could not expect to find in the work of a pupil, unless he were Memling. In a copyist it would be incredible. When we come to the painting of the hands,

the London version once more recedes. The hands are adequate, but a trifle coarse (a defect not uncommon in Roger's accepted works); the rings are carefully done, but are dull, with no true sparkle or metallic character. In the Worlitz picture the hands are absurdly tiny, but are most sensitively drawn, while the rings and the gold- smithery of the buckle are quite miraculous in their rendering of the wrought metal.

Lastly, the dress in the W'orlitz portrait is so finely modelled that the swelling and recession of the forms beneath is admirably suggested; the line of the necklace under the white linen by the throat is no less delicately rendered. Compare this with the stiff insignificant line of the similar necklace in the London picture, where the body forms make merely a flat pattern. And what a fall in quality from the red watered silk girdle of the one (it comes out white in the photograph) to the coarse crimson bodice in the other !

The differences between the two pictures would be more easily comprehensible if 'we could think of them as belonging to widely different periods in Roger's career. The sculp- turesque character of the Worlitz picture, and its really exquisite quality, would then follow naturally upon the monumental character of such things as the great Deposition in the Escorial; allowing for such softening of (Campinesque austerities as Roger's own suave personal tem- perament might produce in the course of a few years. In the same way we could arrange in sequence Roger's whole output from its rude and forcible beginning under Campin's in- fluence. We might regard the traces of that in- fluence as marking a relatively early date, and as yielding in middle life to a style prettier but far less sculpturesque and substantial. This style, in his last years, would merge almost in- sensibly into those displays of feebleness which are so difficult to accept. So the extraordinary technical dissimilarities and inequalities which we find in the work given to Roger van der Weyden could be rationally explained, and so the casual critic is tempted to explain them, on the theory of a gradual aesthetic deterioration,

But a survey of the subject, such as that which the recent monographs of Dr. Friedlander and Dr. W. Burger provide, shows this hypothesis to be quite untenable. All through Roger's career masterpieces alternate with works which are partially, or entirely, second-rate. The two portraits we have been discussing will illustrate this. Despite their differences and their ine- quality, the fashion of the dress proves them to belong to the same period, c. 1455. That they are almost the same size, and so might be companion pieces, is perhaps an accident. In seeking an explanation for their disparity, and for the similar disparity in other works which

727

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

criticism proves to be of almost or quite the same date, one fact perhaps deserves notice. When Roger paints a great prince, a Lionello d'Este or a Charles the Bold, he produces a master- piece, in the same firm, solid style, right up to the end of his career. The comparative failure of so many less important works could not then have been due to any failing of his natural powers. Must we not rather assume that, owing to his immense fame and popularity, Roger had to make use of assistants for all his ordinary commissions and, like a primitive Van Dyck, only painted the whole of a picture with his own hand when the commission was one of extraordinary importance? If we allow this to be possible-and I can see no other way of ex- plaining the gulf which separates the best work of Roger from the flabby unsubstantial stuff

ENGLISH LANDSCAPE PAINTE BY SIR ROBERT WITT

OLONEL GRANT, who will be remembered by his contemporaries as " Eye Witness " in the South African War, has devoted himself for some twenty years to the com-

pilation of the important book which has just been issued, and which is the most complete and authoritative work on English landscape painting that has yet appeared.1 A work so important, scholarly and learned, and one covering so much untrodden and unknown ground, merits from the reviewer far more than an essay on the subject of landscape painting in general or even in England; and it is due to Colonel Grant's book to convey to those in- terested some idea of its scope and arrangement and of the wide field it covers both as regards criticism and research. The author knows his eighteenth century better than most of us know the times in which we live. He has, of course, drawn freely from Horace Walpole, from Buckeridge (the author of "An Essay towards an English School of Painting "), from Edwards and from Dayes; but he has gone deeper than they, and the fact that none of these authorities ever illustrated the pictures they described so fully and so admiringly, limits seriously their value to us in modern times both as historians and critics.

Colonel Grant's style is eminently readable, not to say breezy. He himself claims to " have attempted to ease the strain of a weighty subject by the adoption of a lighter style of writing than is usually employed upon works of science "; and while it is not always possible

1 ' A Chronological History of the Old English Landscape Painters (in oil) from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth century (describing more than 500 painters)." By Col. M. H. Grant. 2 volumes containing 374 pp., with 585 ills. + 2 col. pi. (Obtainable from Hudson and Kearns.) 12 guineas.

criticism proves to be of almost or quite the same date, one fact perhaps deserves notice. When Roger paints a great prince, a Lionello d'Este or a Charles the Bold, he produces a master- piece, in the same firm, solid style, right up to the end of his career. The comparative failure of so many less important works could not then have been due to any failing of his natural powers. Must we not rather assume that, owing to his immense fame and popularity, Roger had to make use of assistants for all his ordinary commissions and, like a primitive Van Dyck, only painted the whole of a picture with his own hand when the commission was one of extraordinary importance? If we allow this to be possible-and I can see no other way of ex- plaining the gulf which separates the best work of Roger from the flabby unsubstantial stuff

ENGLISH LANDSCAPE PAINTE BY SIR ROBERT WITT

OLONEL GRANT, who will be remembered by his contemporaries as " Eye Witness " in the South African War, has devoted himself for some twenty years to the com-

pilation of the important book which has just been issued, and which is the most complete and authoritative work on English landscape painting that has yet appeared.1 A work so important, scholarly and learned, and one covering so much untrodden and unknown ground, merits from the reviewer far more than an essay on the subject of landscape painting in general or even in England; and it is due to Colonel Grant's book to convey to those in- terested some idea of its scope and arrangement and of the wide field it covers both as regards criticism and research. The author knows his eighteenth century better than most of us know the times in which we live. He has, of course, drawn freely from Horace Walpole, from Buckeridge (the author of "An Essay towards an English School of Painting "), from Edwards and from Dayes; but he has gone deeper than they, and the fact that none of these authorities ever illustrated the pictures they described so fully and so admiringly, limits seriously their value to us in modern times both as historians and critics.

Colonel Grant's style is eminently readable, not to say breezy. He himself claims to " have attempted to ease the strain of a weighty subject by the adoption of a lighter style of writing than is usually employed upon works of science "; and while it is not always possible

1 ' A Chronological History of the Old English Landscape Painters (in oil) from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth century (describing more than 500 painters)." By Col. M. H. Grant. 2 volumes containing 374 pp., with 585 ills. + 2 col. pi. (Obtainable from Hudson and Kearns.) 12 guineas.

which is generally connected with his name- our problem is simplified at once.

The W6rlitz lady was a personage upon whom, by choice or necessity, Roger lavished his own utmost skill-and a marvellous thing he has made of her. Our lady was less important. So she was drawn less carefully, and was painted in the studio, with assistants' help. Yet I be- lieve that no one but a veritable master could have drawn that throat, and so perhaps we may be justified in calling the picture by Roger's name. Yet, if we do so, it seems to follow that we must consider whether the much-discussed Exhumation of S. Hubert (783), in virtue of the two well-painted figures on the extreme right, is not more nearly connected with Roger's own studio than its other weaknesses and dispropor- tions would suggest.

RS

to share his asthetic enthusiasm for some of the works he describes, it is at least easy to appreciate the humour and wit with which he submits his case and the sallies with which he embellishes his argument. In his esthetic criticism he is nothing if not unorthodox. With " critical cant " he will have nothing to do. Landscape art for him is based upon its power of recalling nature; the painter is a memorizer: he can teach us nothing but to remember what we have seen, in spite of.John Ruskin, "one of the most inartistic of recorded beings." In so far as early English landscape painting was originally based upon topography, and per- sisted on these lines until the latter part of the eighteenth century he is on firm ground, though he does something less than justice to Turner and the imaginative painters of the school. But throughout his introduction he lays about him with energy: painters and critics alike are treated with more vigour than respect, and he trails his coat like an Irishman. No "Progress in Art " for him. His book, though a history, is " no Pilgrim's Progress of British painting." Art is as unexpected, as arbitrary, as incalculable as the weather.

The arrangement of the book is simplicity itself, in that generally speaking it is based on chronology, the artists being arranged approxi- mately by date of birth. To each the author devotes such space as the importance and records justify, and each is illustrated where possible by one oil-painting, often a signed or dated example. Thus, beginning in the sixteenth century, the series concludes with painters like F. W. Watts, J. B. Pyne, James Holland and Cattermole, all born in I8oo.

which is generally connected with his name- our problem is simplified at once.

The W6rlitz lady was a personage upon whom, by choice or necessity, Roger lavished his own utmost skill-and a marvellous thing he has made of her. Our lady was less important. So she was drawn less carefully, and was painted in the studio, with assistants' help. Yet I be- lieve that no one but a veritable master could have drawn that throat, and so perhaps we may be justified in calling the picture by Roger's name. Yet, if we do so, it seems to follow that we must consider whether the much-discussed Exhumation of S. Hubert (783), in virtue of the two well-painted figures on the extreme right, is not more nearly connected with Roger's own studio than its other weaknesses and dispropor- tions would suggest.

RS

to share his asthetic enthusiasm for some of the works he describes, it is at least easy to appreciate the humour and wit with which he submits his case and the sallies with which he embellishes his argument. In his esthetic criticism he is nothing if not unorthodox. With " critical cant " he will have nothing to do. Landscape art for him is based upon its power of recalling nature; the painter is a memorizer: he can teach us nothing but to remember what we have seen, in spite of.John Ruskin, "one of the most inartistic of recorded beings." In so far as early English landscape painting was originally based upon topography, and per- sisted on these lines until the latter part of the eighteenth century he is on firm ground, though he does something less than justice to Turner and the imaginative painters of the school. But throughout his introduction he lays about him with energy: painters and critics alike are treated with more vigour than respect, and he trails his coat like an Irishman. No "Progress in Art " for him. His book, though a history, is " no Pilgrim's Progress of British painting." Art is as unexpected, as arbitrary, as incalculable as the weather.

The arrangement of the book is simplicity itself, in that generally speaking it is based on chronology, the artists being arranged approxi- mately by date of birth. To each the author devotes such space as the importance and records justify, and each is illustrated where possible by one oil-painting, often a signed or dated example. Thus, beginning in the sixteenth century, the series concludes with painters like F. W. Watts, J. B. Pyne, James Holland and Cattermole, all born in I8oo. Where he diverges it is to group master and pupil, originator and copyist and the little band Where he diverges it is to group master and pupil, originator and copyist and the little band

28 28

I u I - I u I -

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions