Evening star., 1941-08-10

Wlle is given by the introduction
IN the background of an elaborate
architectural structure, classical in
design, which was erected by Rubens
In the garden adjacent to his house
at Antwerp. But, also, reason for
belief that both portraits are by
Van Dyck is found in the fact that,
in number of his well-authenti-
Gated paintings, the same red cur
tain, column and rather stormy
background appear as in the por-
trait said to be of Susanna Four
ment and daughter. Especially no
table in this group are the single
portraits of Frans Snyders, fellow
pupil of Van Dyck in Rubens
academy, and of his wife, Mar
garetha de Vos, sister of another
artist friend, both by Van Dyck
and now in the Frick collection. In
cidentally, it is interesting to note
resemblance between Margaretha
de Vos Snyders and the Portrait
OF a Flemish Lady" also from the
Mellon collection-both of whom
WCdl oiliilldl COSlulllSS.
That, for the most part, the
brushwork of the portraits of Isa-
bella Brant and Susanna Fourment
differ considerably makes the mat
ter of attribution more difficult.
Certainly, the gowns of the two
women were not painted by the
same hand, but it was quite usual
at that time for artists of high
standing to have student assistants
who did much of the work on their
canvases. subject to retouching by
the master. In fact, Rubens' had
a scale of prices for works done
solely by him and those with the
assistance of apprentices, retouched,
and in his memoranda to patrons
stated this fact. The same was
true of Van Dyck. But the style
OF the master was closely followed,
and it must be admitted that in
both the National Gallery portraits
there is some of the grand manner
which Rubens' work always took on
But 1t must not be forgotten that
Van Dyck was himself a pupil and
assistant of Rubens and if these
canvases were executed in 1921 tbe-
fore Van Dyck went to Italy and
was in very happy mood, eager to
honor his master and his fellow
workers. such as Snyders and De
VoS), they would quite naturally
reflect the Rubens influence.
Superb Work.
After all, it does not matter
whether these paintings were by
Rubens or by Van Dyck-the merit
is no less great, and that for which
they stand in the history of painting
no less significant. They are both
superb works, and the confusion of
attribution only brings master and
pupil into closer relationship.
The other paintings by Van Dyck
in the National Gallery are of the
English period and evidence how
strong an influence he had upon
the English school of the following
century. They are gracious. bril-
liant in rendering, picturesque. but
with all their semblance of aristoc-
racy, less vital and full -blooded than
those done in Antwerp and Genoa.
But what standard both these
artists upheld and how prolific was
their output! Rubens is accredited
with having made over 2,250 paint
ings, as we'll as 484 drawings and
designs for tapestries and book or
namentation, whereas catalogue
of Van Dyck's works, including a
limited number of portrait etchings,
lists nearly 1000. Despite which
works by both of these painters
bring today in the open market
prices in six figures.
Rubens, when in the employ of the
Duke Of Mantua, received salary
of 400 ducattons; later, in Antwerp.
after his marriage, he valued his
time at f10 a day Van Dyck was
paid f200 year by Charles I and
charged others ESQ for a portrait.
Both men were eminently successful
and prosperous. greatly honored in
their own dav. Both also were for
cunate in their marriages and happy
in their work. courtiers and gentle
men, scholars and diplomats. Rubens
died in l640 and Van Dyck the fol-
lowing year. Both were knighted
by England.
Van Dyck, John La Fargo de-
clared, was inexplicable without Ru-
bens, his creation part of Rubens'
glory. But the two, together. finding
the art OF the Netherlands glorious
but national" made it universal"
With them, it died, but, through
them its spirit lives on. With the
addition Of the paintings in the Wild
ener collection, it will be magnif1-
Gently represented in our National