Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 861444
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/861444 1/3
The Van Eycks and Their FollowersAuthor(s): Max J. FriedländerSource: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 41, No. 232 (Jul., 1922), pp. 17-18Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/861444 .
Accessed: 09/10/2014 21:18
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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.
http://www.jstor.org
8/10/2019 861444
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/861444 2/3
8/10/2019 861444
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/861444 3/3
-not
even from the
chaos
of the nameless
and
the
jungle
of
the
painters
known as the
Ant-
werp
Mannerists.
Netherlandish
painting
is
comparable
to
a
tree,
which rises
from
the
ground
big
and
simple,
and then is
split up
in
boughs
and branches.
The
researches
and
discoveries
of the last
decade-which
in
1902
received
a
powerful
im-
petus
from
the
great
Loan Exhibition
at
Bruges
-are to be found in many Belgian, French,
English
and
German
periodicals, mostly
in the
forms
of
reviews of
exhibitions,
short
notes,
and
ascriptions rapidly
thrown
off,
reports
and
hypotheses.
Only
a
few
early
Netherlandish
masters
have
been
dealt
with
in
comprehensive
monographs
in book
form.
Sir
Martin
Conway
has
mastered
the
gigantic
material
of
attribu-
tions,
suggestions
and
re-valuations,
and
has
done this
extraordinarily
exacting
work
with-
out
pedantry,
indeed
with
great
temperamental
freshness.
Not
only
perseverance
but
also dis-
crimination
was
necessary
for such
a
perform-
ance.
More
particularly
the
author's
judgment
shows
itself in a
negative
form,
that
is,
in that
he
has
disposed
of and left aside many mistakes;
for
intance,
the errors
of
Durand
Grdville
and
the
sterile
hyper-criticism
of
Carl
Voll,
which
for
a time had
a
checking
and
injurious
effect
in
Germany.
There
is
great
clearness
in
the
way
in
which
the
whole
material
is
disposed
and set
forth
in
thirty-two
chapters.
First
the
author
deals
at
praiseworthy
length
with
the
preparatory
stage
of
the
Van
Eycks,
the
Netherlandish
book-illu-
mination;
then
follow
several
chapters
on
the
Van
Eycks;
further,
all
the chief
masters,
like
Roger,
Memling,
David,
each
in one
chapter,
while
the
lesser
masters are
lucidly
treated
of
in
small groups. The
illustrations
(twenty-four
plates,
each
with four
smaller
but
fairly
clear
ones)
gives
well-chosen
examples,
many
of
them
unfamiliar
and
hitherto
unpublished
pictures.
With
the
keenest
interest
do
we
read
Sir Mar-
tin
Conway's
considerations
on
the Van
Eycks,
in
particular
his
reply
to
the
burning question
as to
the
relation
between
the brothers.
The
Ghent
Altarpiece
mentions
in
its
celebrated
in-
scription
both
names,
and
that
in
a
manner
which
attributes
to
the elder
brother,
Hubert,
UNPUBLISHED
CASSONE
PA
BY
TANCRED
BORENIUS
S Df
~N
Umbro-Sienese artist of some in-
terest to
the student
of Cassone
panels
is Matteo
Balducci.
A
few
facts
referring
to
his life
were
strung
together
already
by
Crowe
and
Cavalcaselle1;
a
contact
with
Pinturicchio,
-not
even from the
chaos
of the nameless
and
the
jungle
of
the
painters
known as the
Ant-
werp
Mannerists.
Netherlandish
painting
is
comparable
to
a
tree,
which rises
from
the
ground
big
and
simple,
and then is
split up
in
boughs
and branches.
The
researches
and
discoveries
of the last
decade-which
in
1902
received
a
powerful
im-
petus
from
the
great
Loan Exhibition
at
Bruges
-are to be found in many Belgian, French,
English
and
German
periodicals, mostly
in the
forms
of
reviews of
exhibitions,
short
notes,
and
ascriptions rapidly
thrown
off,
reports
and
hypotheses.
Only
a
few
early
Netherlandish
masters
have
been
dealt
with
in
comprehensive
monographs
in book
form.
Sir
Martin
Conway
has
mastered
the
gigantic
material
of
attribu-
tions,
suggestions
and
re-valuations,
and
has
done this
extraordinarily
exacting
work
with-
out
pedantry,
indeed
with
great
temperamental
freshness.
Not
only
perseverance
but
also dis-
crimination
was
necessary
for such
a
perform-
ance.
More
particularly
the
author's
judgment
shows
itself in a
negative
form,
that
is,
in that
he
has
disposed
of and left aside many mistakes;
for
intance,
the errors
of
Durand
Grdville
and
the
sterile
hyper-criticism
of
Carl
Voll,
which
for
a time had
a
checking
and
injurious
effect
in
Germany.
There
is
great
clearness
in
the
way
in
which
the
whole
material
is
disposed
and set
forth
in
thirty-two
chapters.
First
the
author
deals
at
praiseworthy
length
with
the
preparatory
stage
of
the
Van
Eycks,
the
Netherlandish
book-illu-
mination;
then
follow
several
chapters
on
the
Van
Eycks;
further,
all
the chief
masters,
like
Roger,
Memling,
David,
each
in one
chapter,
while
the
lesser
masters are
lucidly
treated
of
in
small groups. The
illustrations
(twenty-four
plates,
each
with four
smaller
but
fairly
clear
ones)
gives
well-chosen
examples,
many
of
them
unfamiliar
and
hitherto
unpublished
pictures.
With
the
keenest
interest
do
we
read
Sir Mar-
tin
Conway's
considerations
on
the Van
Eycks,
in
particular
his
reply
to
the
burning question
as to
the
relation
between
the brothers.
The
Ghent
Altarpiece
mentions
in
its
celebrated
in-
scription
both
names,
and
that
in
a
manner
which
attributes
to
the elder
brother,
Hubert,
UNPUBLISHED
CASSONE
PA
BY
TANCRED
BORENIUS
S Df
~N
Umbro-Sienese artist of some in-
terest to
the student
of Cassone
panels
is Matteo
Balducci.
A
few
facts
referring
to
his life
were
strung
together
already
by
Crowe
and
Cavalcaselle1;
a
contact
with
Pinturicchio,
the
main share
in
the
Ghent
Altarpiece,
and in-
directly
also
the main share
in
the
revolutionary
action
which
laid down the
path
which
Nether-
landish
painting
was to
pursue.
But
against
this,
all
other
old sources
make
mention
only
of
Jan,
not
Hubert,
and
we
possess
by Jan
works
authenticated
by
inscriptions,
by
Hubert,
strictly
speaking,
nothing,
as his
share
in the
Ghent
Altarpiece
is
by
no
means
clearly
and
indisputably apprehended.
Sir Martin
Conway
endeavours,
like
many
other critics
of
late
years,
to
put
Hubert
at
the
head of
the
evolution,
in
the sense
of
the
Ghent
inscription,
and
ascribes
to
him all
pictures
of
Eyckian
style,
except
for those
which
he,
on
account
of
their
signatures,
is
obliged
to leave
to
Jan.
Even
the
Rollin Madonna
in
the Louvre
passes
from
Jan
to Hubert.
This
conception
is in
that
sense
not
quite
satisfactory,
that the
personalities
of Hubert
and
Jan
do
not
become
clearly
differentiated
from
one
another.
If
Jan
was
a
pupil
and
imitator
of
Hubert's,
who
owes
everything
to
the elder
brother,
this
uncertainty
of
the border line
might
be explicable. But if you look upon Jan as a
genius,
like his
brother,
then
you
are
bound
to
expect
that his
individuality
becomes
definitely
marked
in
contrast
with his
brother's.
Sir
Martin
Conway
seems
to
feel
this
difficulty.
And this
probably
explains
his
tendency
to
be
noticeably
critical
towards
the
authentic
work
of
Jan.
Every
art
historian
who
has devoted
himself
to
early
Netherlandish
painting
or
to
any
section
of
this
subject,
will
be
able to
trace
omissions
and
mistakes
in
Sir
Martin
Conway's
book.
In
view
of
the
gigantic
proportion
of
the
material
which
has been
mastered,
it
is
inevitable
that
gaps
and
misunderstandings
should
occur.
I
should,
however,
on
the
present
occasion
prefer
not
to
give
a
list of
the
points
on
which
I am
of
a different
opinion
from
him,
because
I
do
not
wish
to
lessen
the
expression
of
grateful
recog-
nition
and
admiration
of
the
performance
as
a
whole.
The book
is
like
a
report,
a
balance-
sheet
of
what
has
been
achieved,
it
marks
the
conclusion
of
a
period
of
research,
and
from
this
I
hope
a new
period
of
successful
research
may
begin.
NELS-IV
which is evident from Balducci's art, is con-
firmed
by
his
appearance
as
a
witness
to a
record
of
I509;
in
I517,
he
was
apprenticed
at
Siena
to
Sodoma
for
six
years,
an
influence
of
the
latter's
1
Crowe
and
Cavalcaselle,
History
of
Painting
in
Italy,
2nd ed.
(Murray),
vol.
V,
pp. 420-I.
the
main share
in
the
Ghent
Altarpiece,
and in-
directly
also
the main share
in
the
revolutionary
action
which
laid down the
path
which
Nether-
landish
painting
was to
pursue.
But
against
this,
all
other
old sources
make
mention
only
of
Jan,
not
Hubert,
and
we
possess
by Jan
works
authenticated
by
inscriptions,
by
Hubert,
strictly
speaking,
nothing,
as his
share
in the
Ghent
Altarpiece
is
by
no
means
clearly
and
indisputably apprehended.
Sir Martin
Conway
endeavours,
like
many
other critics
of
late
years,
to
put
Hubert
at
the
head of
the
evolution,
in
the sense
of
the
Ghent
inscription,
and
ascribes
to
him all
pictures
of
Eyckian
style,
except
for those
which
he,
on
account
of
their
signatures,
is
obliged
to leave
to
Jan.
Even
the
Rollin Madonna
in
the Louvre
passes
from
Jan
to Hubert.
This
conception
is in
that
sense
not
quite
satisfactory,
that the
personalities
of Hubert
and
Jan
do
not
become
clearly
differentiated
from
one
another.
If
Jan
was
a
pupil
and
imitator
of
Hubert's,
who
owes
everything
to
the elder
brother,
this
uncertainty
of
the border line
might
be explicable. But if you look upon Jan as a
genius,
like his
brother,
then
you
are
bound
to
expect
that his
individuality
becomes
definitely
marked
in
contrast
with his
brother's.
Sir
Martin
Conway
seems
to
feel
this
difficulty.
And this
probably
explains
his
tendency
to
be
noticeably
critical
towards
the
authentic
work
of
Jan.
Every
art
historian
who
has devoted
himself
to
early
Netherlandish
painting
or
to
any
section
of
this
subject,
will
be
able to
trace
omissions
and
mistakes
in
Sir
Martin
Conway's
book.
In
view
of
the
gigantic
proportion
of
the
material
which
has been
mastered,
it
is
inevitable
that
gaps
and
misunderstandings
should
occur.
I
should,
however,
on
the
present
occasion
prefer
not
to
give
a
list of
the
points
on
which
I am
of
a different
opinion
from
him,
because
I
do
not
wish
to
lessen
the
expression
of
grateful
recog-
nition
and
admiration
of
the
performance
as
a
whole.
The book
is
like
a
report,
a
balance-
sheet
of
what
has
been
achieved,
it
marks
the
conclusion
of
a
period
of
research,
and
from
this
I
hope
a new
period
of
successful
research
may
begin.
NELS-IV
which is evident from Balducci's art, is con-
firmed
by
his
appearance
as
a
witness
to a
record
of
I509;
in
I517,
he
was
apprenticed
at
Siena
to
Sodoma
for
six
years,
an
influence
of
the
latter's
1
Crowe
and
Cavalcaselle,
History
of
Painting
in
Italy,
2nd ed.
(Murray),
vol.
V,
pp. 420-I.
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.93 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 21:18:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
