<iu3

iiif

''^y^Uf'it'

-^.M..

^,.^<^'"

I't^,

/give dieft Booh
fdi- the fouifidiag if a. CoWigt in. Ms Colony"

D

Y^LU'^JMHYEi^sinrY''

1933

Yan Jjijcli : kid Utlc/inal Stchlnad
and hid cJconoataphy

^^\N Dyck. Portrait of the Artist
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

VAN DYCK
HIS ORIGINAL ETCHINGS AND
HIS ICONOGRAPHY

BY
ARTHUE M. HIND
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PRINTS AND DRAWINOa
BRITISH UUSEUM

BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
MDCCCCXV

copyright, 1915, BY^ MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Published November iqi^

CONTENTS

Van Dyck: His Oeiginal Etchings and his Iconography
List of Van Dyck's Original Etchings 

First published in The Print-Collector's Quarterly,
Vol. V, Nos. 1 and 2 (February and April, 1915).
Now issued in revised form.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Portrait of the Artist  Frontispiece
British Museum
Titian and his Mistress  3
British Museum
Frans Snyders  7
British Museum
Frans Snyders  9
British Museum
Jan Brueghel, the Elder  13
British Museum
Desiderius Erasmus (after Holbein)  15
British Museum
The Reed offered to Christ  19
British Museum
Petrus Stevens, by Lucas Vorsterman (or Van Dyck?) . . 21
British Museum
Paul de Vos  25
British Museum
Adam van Noort  27
British Museum
JandeWael  31
British Museum
Erycius Puteanus  33
From the original sepia drawing in the British Museum
Pieter Brueghel, the Younger  37
From the original chalk drawing in the coUection oJ the Duke of
Devonshire, Chatsworlh
Pieter Brueghel, the Younger  39
British Museum

Frans Francken, the Younger 
British Museum
Justus Sustermans  British Museum
Frockas, Count de Feria 
From the original chalk drawing in the collection of the Duke of
Devonshire, Chatsworth
Frockas, Count de Feria 
From the oil grisaille panel in the collection of the Duke of
Buccleuch, Montagu House
Frockas, Count de Feria 
British Museum
Carel de Mallery 
From the painting in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich
Carel de Mallery 
From the original chalk drawing in the collection of the Duke of
Devonshire, Chatsworth
Carel de Mallery 
From the oil grisaille panel in the collection of the Duke of
Buccleuch, Montagu House
Carel de Mallery  British Museum
Paul Pontius  British Museum
Paul Pontius  British Museum
Willem de Vos  British Museum
Antonis Cornelissen 
From the oil grisaille panel ifi the collection of the Duke of
Buccleuch, Montagu House
Antonis Cornelissen, by Van Dyck (or Lucas Vorsterman?)
British Museum
Jodocus de Momper, by Lucas Vorsterman (or Van Dyck?)
British Museum
Jodocus de Momper  British Museum
viii I

Jan Waverius, by Van Dyck (?) and Paul Pontius ....
British Museum
Philippe Le Roy  British Museum
Jan Snellinx  British Museum
Antoine Triest, Bishop of Ghent, by Van Dyck (?) and
Pieter de Jode, the Younger 
British Museum
Lucas Vorsterman  British Museum
Lucas Vorsterman, by Frans van den Wyngaerde ....
British Museum

Yan ^Jyck: kid Utiginal Stchingd
and hid cJconogzaphif

'J." " ¦r'*' '¦'!''"'¦' " y"

Van Dyck. Titian and his Mistress
After the painting by Titian
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

VAN DYCK:
HIS OEIGINAL ETCHINGS AND
HIS ICONOGRAPHY

[ AN DYCK is not so widely known as Rem
brandt in the capacity of original etcher.
Both were most prolific painters, and Rem
brandt almost equally prolific in etching.
But with Van Dyck original etching was only a small
¦phase of his activity, twenty-one etchings at the most
forming his complete work in this field. Two of the
twenty-one are subjects, the Reed offered to Christ, an
original composition of Van Dyck, and Titian mid Ms
Mistress, after Titian. "^ The rest are portraits, and._the
majority among the most masterly plates produced in
the whole history of portrait etching. In fact, in spite
of the limitations of his practice of the art, Van Dyck has
no rival as an etcher of portrait except Rembrandt. And
' The etching may have been based on the picture attributed to
Titian in the collection of Captain Archibald Morrison, at Basildon
Park. See below. List of Van Dyck's Original Etchings. There is a
sketch after this or another version of the picture in Van Dj'ck's
Sketch Book at Chatsworth (see Lionel Cust, A Description of the Sketch
Book by Sir Anthony Van Dyck used by him in Italy 1621-1637, and
preserved in the CoUection of the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., at Chats
worth. London, 1902. 4°).

on the basis of the purest style and safest conventions
of the art Van Dyck may even claim the precedence. I
do not thereby mean that he was the greater master. He
was a genius of wonderful brilliance, but never showed
the same depth of inspiration as Rembrandt. Rem
brandt's was unquestionably the deeper insight into
human character. But the very power of his vision may
in the end have militated against his success in portrait.
In his later portrait etchings, such as that of the Old
Haaring, we feel that Rembrandt renders the complexi
ties of human nature with the greatest subtlety of
expression, and to attain his end he used a method of
close shading almost too subtle for the medium of etch
ing. He may have seen even more in his sitters than
their own friends realized, and perhaps failed to con
centrate on the more striking external characteristics
which would constitute the whole man to the world of
his acquaintance. Moreover he was capable of thinking
less of immediate faithfulness to the lineaments of his
model than of some more strictly artistic aim, just as in
his later pictures portraiture pure and simple becomes
subservient to the development of his ideas of chiar
oscuro. It was thus that his famous Night Watch heralded
the decline of his popularity with the fashionable world
of sitters who wished first of all to be admired, or at least
recognized. We cannot imagine Van Dyck falling into these errors,
or rising to these heights of disdain for the popular de
mand, as one may prefer to interpret Rembrandt's atti
tude. In his etching he was incisive, convincingly direct,
and never obscure in his means of expression. He never
sought to express too much, was faultless in adjudging
the proper emphasis to the outstanding features of his

FrAJXCISCVS SNYDES^S P/c it,^

inht^iuf iinui TtycJcJikU-

Van Dtck. Frans Snyders
Etching. From an impression of the first state, with MS. lettering, in
the British Museum

Fraistciscvs Sis^ydi:rs

/ENATIOXVM.FERARVM, FR.VCTVVM,XT OLERVM PICTOR ANTVEKPIvt.

Van Dyck. Frans Snyders
Etching and line-engraving. From an impression of the third state, elabor
ated in line-engraving by Jacob Neefs, in the British Museum

sitters, and showed unerring taste in rejecting the unes
sential. His system of etching responded perfectly to
his artistic aim. He discarded the subtlety of tonal
expression which is more properly the part of a painter,
and kept to an open system of line, whose simplicity was
all the more convincing on account of its very limita
tions. The system demanded a simplified, and thereby
more forcible, style of portraiture. His method of con
centration was in direct opposition to the greater part of
Rembrandt's later paintings and some also of his etch
ings, where the face was brought into prominence as a
high light in the midst of shadow. Van Dyck merely
indicates the secondary portions of the design with the
fewest lines, the face being the only part at all elabor
ately handled, though never so elaborated as to hide the
linear structure of his etchings. It was a method prac
tised by Rembrandt in his earlier plates, most perfectly
perhaps in the Young Man with Books beside him (B. 268)
and used only occasionally in his later work, e.g. in the
Clement de Jonghe of 1651 (B. 272).
In a few cases Van Dyck left his portraits practically
unfinished except for the head: e.g. the Portrait of
Himself (W. 4), and the Frans Snyders (W. 11), but so
placed on the copper as to lead the imagination to supply
the natural basis of a body. The bad effect of the repro
duction of the Portrait of Himself placed in the centre of
the page in the frontispiece to Wibiral's standard work,
"L'Iconographie d' Antoine Van Dyck" (1877), ^ immedi
ately proves the immense value of proper spacing in the
early states of these prints. Both these plates were later
elaborated in line-engraving in such a way as to destroy
' L'Iconographie d' Antoine Van Dyck. . . . Fr. Wibiral, Leipzig,
1877. i". 11

almost completely the concentration and virtue of the
portrait. What was Van Dyck's attitude to these develop
ments of his work we can best discuss after setting forth
in more concrete detail the artist's aims and accom
plishment in the series of etchings and engravings, which
make up the corpus of portrait prints generally described
as the "Iconography of Van Dyck."
Whether the idea of this series of engraved portraits
was originally Van Dyck's, or the project of a publisher,
cannot be answered with any certainty. Towards the
end of the sixteenth century and in the early seventeenth
such series had apparently been popular and successful
ventures with numerous publishers and engraver-
printsellers. The majority of these series had been essen
tially the works of the publishers, who had included
works by various engravers (e.g., the famous English
"BaziUalogia" ^ of Henry Holland, 1618).
A few similar ventures had been more exclusively the
work of a single man, or at least of a single workshop,
such as J. J. Boissard's Icones viroruyn illustrium (Frank
fort, 1597-99), with engravings by Theodor de Bry, and
the Atrium Heroicum of Dominicus Gustos (Augsburg,
1600). But I can point to no series of portraits before
the Iconography of Van Dyck, which aimed at repro
ducing the paintings of one artist alone.
If Van Dyck was the initiator, he would not have had
to go far for his suggestion. His master, Rubens, had, at
least since 1620, a constant staff of engravers working
under his direction and in his studio, and no doubt car
ried on a thriving trade in the sale of prints after his own
works. With this precedent. Van Dyck is, I think, more
' Recently edited for tho Grolier Cluli by Mr. H. C. Levis.

KAiv^ ."BnsiVG^L.

Van Dtck. Jan Brueghel, the Elder
Etching. From an impression of the first state, with IMS. lettering,
in the British Museum

n

Van Dyck, Desiderius Erasmus
After Holbein
Etching, From an impression of the first state in the British Museum
This plate was ruined from the beginning by foul biting

likely to have formulated his scheme on his own account,
than to have carried out his undertaking at a publisher's
suggestion. Moreover the title-page of the 1645 edition
of the Iconography expressly describes the plates as en
graved at the master's expense.
The original scheme was a corpus of engraved por
traits in three main classes : —
I. Princes and military commanders.
II. Statesmen and philosophers.
III. Artists and amateurs.
The first publisher who printed the series, Martin van
den Enden, issued eighty plates, sixteen belonging to the
first class, twelve to the second, and fifty-two to the
third. The correspondence of watermarks mthin each
class (in the early issue) convinced Wibiral that they
were each issued originally as a limited corpus. If this
had not been so, one would have expected the several
watermarks which occur throughout the first issue of
Martin van den Enden to be found promiscuously
among any of the classes.
But there is no definite evidence to prove that the
complete set of eighty was ever issued as a corpus with
a title-page and Martin van den Enden's imprint. Per
haps the lack of this evidence adds support to the theory
that during his hfe-time Van Dyck was the chief mover
in the enterprise, and Van den Enden little more than
his printer. As to the date at which the work was being
done there are only small pieces of direct evidence. The
enterprise was probably started soon after Van Dyck's
return from Italy to Antwerp in 1626, and it seems that
Van Dyck must have continued the direction of the
engraved plates several years after his settlement in
England in 1632. There is a letter of Van Dyck in the
17

British Museum first quoted by Carpenter,^ in which
the master writes in 1636 to Francis Junius, the Earl
of Arundel's librarian, asking him to suggest a proper
inscription for the engraved portrait of Sir Kenelm
Digby. This portrait comes within the second class, so
that it was probably not till well after this date that the
series had been completed.
Mr. Cust also mentions the date 1628 as occurring in
Van Dyck's original drawing for the engraving of Carlo
Colonna (in the collection of Mr. Claude A. C. Pon-
sonby, in 1900), while 1630 is written in a contemporary
hand on an early state of one of Van Dyck's subject
etchings, the Reed offered to Christ, preserved in the
Albertina, Vienna. Moreover Lucas Vorsterman, who
only returned to Antwerp about 1630-31, after a long
visit to England, was responsible for two of the engrav
ings of the first class, so that this class can only have
been completed in 1631 at the earliest.
The series of eighty plates printed by Martin van den
Enden included three plates whose etching has been
attributed to Van Dyck by various authorities during
the XlXth century, although the inscriptions claim
nothing more than the painting for Van Dyck, i.e., the
portraits of A . CorneKssen (W. S) , Antoine Triest (W. 13),
and Jan Waverius (W. 18). I will recur to this question
in connection with other uncertain attributions to the
master. The fifteen plates bearing Van Dyck's signa
ture as etcher were never published by Martin van den
Enden, and were only included in the " Iconography"
after Van Dyck's death in the edition published by Gillis

' W. H. Carpenter, Pictorial Notices, consisting of a Memoir of Sir
Anthony Van Dyck, with a Descriptive Catalogue of the Etchings. Lon
don, 1844. 18

Van Dtck, The Reed offered to Christ
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

Lucas Vorsterman (or Van Dtck?). Petrus Stevens
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

Hendricx in 1645. Martin van den Enden had included
in his series four of the same portraits as these etchings
(i.e.. Van Dyck, Pontius, Momper, and Snellinx), but
only in engraved versions whose relation to the etchings
we will discuss later. We have even less definite evi
dence as to the date of production of these etchings than
we have in relation to the engraved plates. Hendricx
probably acquired the plates of the original etchings as
well as the eighty plates printed by Martin van den
Enden, after Van Dyck's death. He got various en
gravers to elaborate the less finished of the fifteen etch
ings, to bring them more into line with the rest of the
series, used the etched portrait of Van Dyck in its elab
orated state for his title-page, and added six other en
gravings to make up his series to a hundred plates
exclusive of the title. The title on the pedestal engraved
as a support to the head of himself etched by Van
Dyck runs as follows : Icones \ Principum \ Virorum doc-
torum I Pictorum Chalcographorum j Statuariorum nee
non Amatorum \ Pictoriae artis numero centum \ ah \
Antonio Van Dyck \ Pictare ad vivum expressae | eiusq:
sumptibus aeri incisae \ Antverpiae \ Gillis Hendricx
excudit I A" 1645.
Each plate in this edition bears the initials of the
publisher G. H. in the centre of the lower margin. A
later issue by Gillis Hendricx is mentioned by Wibiral,
in which abouffive plates were added, and the date 1645
omitted from the title-page. But the extreme rarity of
original bound copies and the fact that most bound
copies are made up from different sources renders it
impossible to define the exact contents with certainty.
There were still later issues without the date, but with
the same imprint, in which the G. H. on the separate

plates was erased. In spite of Hendricx's name remain
ing on the title, it is doubtful whether he published any
issue of the plates in this condition. Very probably there
were several re-printings of the plates in this state from
about 1660 until the beginning of the XVIIIth century,
the number of plates included being a variable quan
tity. It is known that 110 of the original plates were
in the hands of the Brussels pubhsher, Frangois Fop-
pens, about 1665. Between about 1640 and 1650 the
Antwerp publisher, Jan Meyssens, had published a
series of similar engravings after Van Dyck, chiefly after
the artist's English pictures. Wibiral catalogues thirty-
four of these, but there is nothing to prove that Meys
sens ever published them as a corpus. Some of them are
occasionally found in the later editions of the " Iconogra
phy ' ' which still bear Hendricx's name on the title-page.
Meyssens had also pubhshed one of the etchings, i.e.,
Paul de Vos (W. 16), before Hendricx's edition of 1645-
It was probably he who completed the etching, and so
maladroitly that it must have been after Van Dyck's
death. It is inconceivable that the master would have
sanctioned its publication in that ruined form.
Then at the beginning of the XVIIIth century an
edition, including a hundred and twenty-four plates ex
clusive of the old frontispiece was published at Antwerp
by H. & C. Verdussen, whose names now replaced
Hendricx's on the old title-page. The 124 were made up
by 81 plates originally issued by Martin van den Enden,
28 by Gillis Hendricx, 5 by Jan Meyssens, 3 by Jacobus
de Man, 1 by Lucas Vorsterman and 6 without address.
But volumes are seldom found with plates correspond
ing to the table of contents.
Wibiral's catalogue includes considerably larger

Van Dtck. Paul de Vos
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

\ '" \^«->, ^ 1

 s

'S

\VV^»

ff.\ Si

\ \

\

li

Van Dtck. Adam van Noort
Etching. From an impression of the second state in the British Museum
In the first state the background is merely indicated with a few light lines

numbers of plates than have ever appeared even in the
latest editions of the "Iconography." But his object was
to include practically all the plates of similar format after
Van Dyck, which at various times have been bound up
with the original recueils.
Of later issues nothing need be said. A large number
of the original copper-plates were sold to the Louvre in
1851 by a Liege dealer. Van Marcke. They are better
reposing in a Museum, as for several years prior to their
purchase fabrications of early states, made by blocldng
out parts of the plate in the printing, had issued from
Liege. Modern impressions have been at various times
printed by the Chalcographie du Louvre, and it is re
markable how well these clearly bitten plates have lasted.
But these modern prints from original plates which have
long lost all their quality, are of even less artistic value
than a good reproduction of a fine impression. The
same may be said of the modern impressions of Piranesi
issued by the Regia Calcografia at Rome. But in the
latter case the original plates are over a century more
recent, and the lines of the architectural designs of such
massive strength that even modern impressions are
effective.

The collector of Van Dyck's iconography will desire
first of all to possess proof impressions, either before
letters, or with lettering incomplete. For the detailed
description of state he cannot do without Wibiral, and
he will find still further detail in Dutuit's Manuel de
I'Amateur d'Estampes. Here we can only describe in
broad outlines the chief distinctions to be remembered.
29

Of lettered impressions (often the earliest knowm in the
case of the engravings) the collector can generally rely
on those with the address of the publisher Martin van
den Enden. The same may be said of those bearing the
initials of the publisher Gillis Hendricx, G. H., in the
centre of the lower margin. Where the plates passed
from Van den Enden to Hendricx, one may often remark
richer printing in the later states. Hendricx printed
with his plate fuller of ink and obtained thereby a
stronger impression. But the thinner and somewhat
less professional printing of Van den Enden possesses
finer quality. Nor must it be forgotten that Hendricx
was the first publisher of the fifteen most important
original etchings, as well as of nineteen of the engrav
ings. Even early impressions after the erasure of G. H.
still retain some quality. But there is not the same limit
to this state. Without further changes on the plate
(except occasional rebiting) the plates went on deteri
orating throughout the centuries. In estimating the
date of an impression in this state we may be helped
by Wibiral's notes on watermarks, but a sense of quality
is a far more important asset to the collector than this
knowledge of secondary detail.
Speaking of the fifteen original etchings first pub
hshed by Hendricx the value in the different states
might be roughly estimated as follows.
Early proof state before lettering or with lettering in
MS. from £60 to several hundreds of pounds: impres
sions with G. H. from £5 to £20: early impressions after
G. H. about £2 or £3. The line-engravings never have
the same value as the original etchings; the earliest proof
states being worth perhaps less than etchings in the
G. H. state; and impressions with the address of Martin
30

Van Dtck. Jan de Wael
Etching. From an impression of the second state,
in the British Museum
There is a unique first state (not described by Wibiral or Dutuit) in the col
lection of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, Paris. It is before the background

Van Dtck. Ertcius Puteanus
From a sepia drawing in the British Museum, a study for the engraving
by Pieter de Jode, the Younger

van den Enden, or G. H. seldom more than good impres
sions of the etchings after the erasure of G. H. But of
course small differences in detail in different subjects
may cause considerable variations from these standard
prices. Van Dyck's attitude towards his own original etch
ings in relation to the ' ' Iconography " is an obscure ques
tion, and extremely difficult of solution. Did he, at the
inception of his great project, intend to lay the founda
tion of each plate by etching with his own hand the face
and perhaps the indication of the figure, leaving the
elaboration of the plate to his assistant engravers? Or
were his original etchings for the most part essays under
taken by the way, with a more purely artistic aim and
with no immediate intention of incorporation in the
"Iconography"? A survey of Van Dyck's method of procedure through
out the "Iconography," and a critical examination of
the etchings by, and attributed to. Van Dyck, may offer
some illumination on this and other points.
The chief stages through which each subject passed
were : —
I. Van Dyck's original sketch.
II. An oil grisaille, which served as the more immedi
ate original in detail for the engraver.
III. The etching or engraving.
In the case of about thirty subjects out of the hundred
published by Hendricx, we can also refer back to some
larger oil-painting which may have been the ultimate
source, though not the immediate original.
When he had already done a picture of his subject
Van Dyck would no doubt have used it in making his
sketch for the "Iconography." In some cases the original
35

pictures were followed fairly closely, those of Antoine
Triest and Jan Waverius (both in Petrograd) and
Carel de Mallery (Munich) , while in others he varied his
subject so as to bring it within the form of his series (tak
ing the figure of Jan de Wael, from, the picture of Jan
de Wael and his Wife in Munich) . In a few instances his
subjects were based on paintings by other artists {Eras
mus, after Holbein, and Gustavus Adolphus, Tilly, and
Wallenstein from some unknown sources).
The first sketches are for the most part in black chalk.
Occasionally the black chalk is washed with Indian ink
{Hubert van den Eynden, in the British Museum, L.B.'
22), and there are other examples in which sepia pre
dominates {Erycius Puteanus in the British Museum,
L.B. 20). They are remarkably vigorous and vivid,
in spite of the fact that a large number could not have
been done from the life. The drawings most likely to
have been done from life are the portraits of con
temporary Netherlandish artists.
The collections to which I can refer as possessing some
of these first sketches are the British Museum {Puteanus,
Rockox, H. van den Eyyiden, Sebastian Vrancx, Hendrik
Liberti, and Orazio Gentileschi) ; Chatsworth (P. Brue
ghel II, H. van Balen, Jan Snellinx, Jan van Mildert,
Gaspar de Grayer, Carel de Mallery, Frockas de Feria);
the Residenz at Weimar {F. Franck II, and S. de Vos) ;
Paris {Theodor van Thulden); The Albertina, Vienna
{Jan van Ravesteyn, Petrus Stevens, Alius Wolfart, G.
Gevartius); Stockholm {C. van der Geest); Frankfort
{Adam de Coster); Amsterdam {Adam van Noort), and
the Teyler Museum, Haarlem (P. Brueghel II).
There are probably a good many copies in existence,
' L. Binjfon, Catalogue of Drawings by British Artists, and Artists of
Foreign Origin working in Great Britain, preserved in the British Museum.

Van Dyck. Pieter Brueghel, the Younger
From a chalk drawing in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire,
Chatsworth. A study for the etching

I ' 111

-V

PETERV^ BRVdV.l PlCTOiL

inl^tti/tZ i'^jj TiiiJ/ /^<fiJ.

Van Dtck. Pieter Brueghel, the Younger
Etching. From an impression of the first state, with MS. lettering, in
the British Museum

and I would specially refer to one in the British Museum,
from the Malcolm collection, reproduced as Van Dyck in
Mr. Lionel Gust's standard work, which is a copy from
the original Adam de Coster in Frankfort. The compari
son of the two versions is a good test of quality.
The drawing of Peter Brueghel II, in Haarlem, repro
duced by Kleinmann, is one of the few sketches for the
Iconography ' ' in pen and sepia. It is slighter than usual,
but peculiarly interesting as indicating the development
of the subject from the Chatsworth sketch to the etch
ing. Two hands are given in tbe Chatsworth study, and
the simplification and concentration of the subject
gained by the omission of one hand, and other slight
changes carried out in the etching, are shown in the
Haarlem pen sketch.
In the oil grisaille panels, which are of about the same
size as the plates, the subjects are worked out in more
detail, and are nearly always followed closely in the en
gravings. In by far the majority of cases the prints are
in reverse to the drawings and oil grisailles, and there is
practically no doubt the grisaihes formed the immediate
original from which the engravers worked. One would
expect the engraver himself to make a drawing as his
guide, but I have come across no drawing which I could
safely describe as an engraver's drawing. To take the
nearest approach to it to which I can refer : the drawing
of Rockox in the British Museum. This drawing in chalk
and sepia wash is undoubtedly done after the picture in
the Lederer collection, Budapest {Klassiker der Kunst,
1909, p. 165) with the idea of translating it into a form
that might be engraved for the " Iconography " (though
the oval in rectangle is not the usual form of the series) , as
it was actually done by Pontius (W. 115). It certainly

lacks Van Dyck's usually vivid touch, and it might be
the engraver's drawing, but even a master may lose his
vigour in working after a picture, so that even here I
would hesitate to stamp the drawing as the intermediate
work of the engraver.
In his book on Van Dyck, Mr. Lionel Cust classes the
oil grisailles as the works of assistants based on Van
Dyck's sketches or larger paintings. But in a recent
letter to me he writes, " there is nothing to exclude the
possibility of Van Dyck's having done some of these
grisailles himself, or begun to do the whole thing him
self, as he did with the etchings. In view however of his
removal to London, and the general mode of life adopted
by him there, I think it very improbable that he could
have devoted much time to the laborious production of
so many small paintings, as the series demanded. . . ."
Then, in reference to the Buccleuch grisailles, " Some are
exceedingly good, and quite worthy of Van Dyck him
self, but there were quite competent Van Dyckists in
the Rubens school, and I expect that Van Dyck himself
was a keen and critical supervisor of the whole output."
And very modestly at the end for so profound a student
of Van Dyck, "Now all this is mere assumption on my
part and capable of disproof."
This criticism was in answer to a query of my own to
Mr. Cust as to whether he had in any way modified his
attitude towards the grisaille panels since the publica
tion of his book.
As to the panels themselves, the largest collection is
that of the Duke of Buccleuch, at Montagu House. It
contains thirty-eight of the original designs to the plates
in the " Iconography," ^ in addition to a different and
' Described, but with incomplete reference to the engravings, in the
42

\ v

\

X '^^

Van Dtck. Frans Francken, the Younger
Etching. From an impression of the second state in the British Museum

JnUtUiU Vitiii/fle J>yJ^

ii s**''^ wn .^^;^«A¦

Van Dtck. Jnsrns Sustermans
Etching. From an impression of the first state, with MS. lettering,
in the British Museum

second version of the portrait of Rubens, another similar
portrait which I have been unable to identify, and two
later copies of no importance from originals in the same
collection. Smith in his "Catalogue Raisonne" (vol.
Ill, p. 82) states that the whole series belonged to Sir
Peter Lely, and was bought at his sale in 1680 by Ralph
Montagu. The collection was exhibited at the Royal
Academy, Old Masters, in 1900.
Then there are ten similar panels in the Alte Pinako
thek, Munich (Nos. 851-860 in the Catalogue, Ed. 1900), ^
and I hear that there are also a few in the collection of
the Earl of St. Germans, at Port Eliot.^ It is several
years since I examined the panels in Munich, so that I
will confine my criticism entirely to the Montagu House
Montagu House Catalogue of 1898. The portraits are: Cornelissen
(W. 3), Brouwer (21), Lipsius (22), Pepyn (24), Vranx (25), Wolfart
(27), Francken (28), De Coster (31), Colyn de Nole (34), Geneviive
d' Urphie, Comtesse de Croye (39), Van Balen (42), Alvar Bazara (43),
Colonna (45), Crayer (46), Frockas, Comte de Feria (47), Geest (48),
Gevartius (49), Guzman (50), Pontius (59), Ravesteyn (60), Rubens
(62), Stalbcnt (66), S. de Vos (69), Van Dyck (79), Gaston de France
(82), Jode (84), Mallery (86), TV. F. de Peiresc (89),Spinola (92), P.
Stevens (93), Archduke Ferdinand (105), Isabella Clara Eugenia (116),
Frangois de Moncada (117), Wilhelm Wolfgang, Count Palatine (118),
Charles I (119), Pappenheim (127), Frederick Henry of Orange (151),
Emilie de Solms, Princess of Orange (152).
^ AU reproduced by Bruckmann, and five by Hanfstaengl. The
portraits are: Margaret of Lorraine (23), Tilly (30), Wallenstein (40),
Gustavus Adolphus (51), Maria de Medicis (54), John of Nassau (57),
Palamedes Pala-medesz (58), Francois Thomas de Savoy e, Prince de
Carignan (63), Scaglia (64), Lucas van Uden (94).
^ The Countess of St. Germans has kindly sent me a list: — Paul
Pontius (9?), Hendrik van Balen (42), Gaspar de Crayer (46), Cornelis
van der Geest (48), Daniel Mytens (56), A. Stalbent (66), Simon de Vos
(69), Simon Vouet (74), Van Dyck (79), Pieter de Jode (104 or 84?).
It will be noted that certainly six, and possibly eight of these are the
same subjects as the Buccleuch panels. Not having seen the Port
Eliot panels, I can oiier no opinion on their relation to those at Mon
tagu House. But if the Pontius is more closely connected with Van
Dyck's original etching than the engraving (59) it might invalidate one
of my arguments as to the authenticity of the Cornelissen, i.e., the
improbabihty of the master doing a grisaille for his own etchiing.
47

panels, which I have studied at leisure in comparison
with the prints on two recent occasions. The photo
graphs which the late Duke of Buccleuch allowed me to
have taken for this article, are I believe the first repro
ductions that have been made from any of his series, so
that they are by no means widely known.
Personally I see no reason to doubt Van Dyck's
authorship of the whole series of thirty-eight. They are
brilliant sketches in brown oil colours, the high lights
brought out in white with the sure touch of a master.
They are undoubtedly rapid sketches such as a facile
master like Van Dyck could paint in an hour, or a few
hours at the most. I cannot on that account agree with
Mr. Cust's description of the painting of even so many
of these panels as a laborious production for which the
master would not have found time. Moreover, apart
from their expressive power as portrait, thej^ put the
scheme of light and shade before the engraver with such
conviction, that I am unable to conceive of the good
assistant who could have accomplished the task with
such brilliance as a mere intermediary. One of the
strongest arguments for Van Dyck's authorship is that
they are no whit less brilliant, and sometimes more bril
liant, than the undisputed chalk sketches. I have repro
duced one example, the portrait of Frockas, Count de
Feria, in three stages to illustrate this point. The
Chatsworth chalk drawing, which only gives a slight
indication of the figure, is a most vigorous sketch, but
the Buccleuch panel is so surpassingly brilliant that the
hand of an assistant seems to me out of the question.
Then one feels a slight descent in power and subtlety of
expression to the engraving by Paul Pontius, in spite of
its excellent craftsmanship.

\'\N Dyck. FKocK\.rt, Coi'nt nt: Feri.^
V'roni a ehalk drawing:, in the collection of the Ouke of ne\'onshirc,
Chatswovth. .V studj- for the cn>;ra\"inj; by Taul I'oiitiua

Van Dyck, Fhockas, Count de Feru
From an oil grisaille panel m the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch, Montagu
House, The immediate original used by Paul Pontius in his engraving

Paul Pontius afteh Van Dyck. Fhockas, Count de Feru
Line-engraving. From an impression of the first state, with MS, lettering,
in the British Museum

Van Dtck. Carel de Mallert
From the oil painting in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich
Reproduced, by permission, from a photograph by Franz Hanfstaengl

J

^'AN Dyck. Carel de Mallery
From a chalk drawing in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire,
Chatsworth. A study for the engraving by Vorsterman

Van Dtck. Carel de Mallery
From an oil grisaille panel in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch, Montagu
House. The immediate original used by Vorsterman in his engraving

A.i ... D .;

CAROIV-S DE MAILERY

LucAS Vorsterman after Van Dyck. Carel de Mallery
Line-engraving. From an impression of the second state in the British Mu-
1 seimi. The first state, before all lettering, is also in the British Museum, but in
1 slightly damaged impression

Another portrait, that of Carel de Mallery, is repro
duced in four stages: I, the large picture in Munich; II,
the Chatsworth chalk study; III, the Buccleuch panel;
IV, the engraving by Lucas Vorsterman. If Van Dyck
made his chalk sketch of Mallery after the large picture,
it seems strange that he should have reversed the compo
sition. But perhaps he deliberately used a mirror in his
sketch, so that the engraving should turn out in the same
direction as the Munich picture. Otherwise one is al
most tempted to think that the Munich picture might
have been painted with the aid of the print. Here again
there is no diminuendo in quality from the Chatsworth
sketch to the Buccleuch panel.
Moreover, apart from the question of comparative
quality, we have to meet the inscription Van Dyck pinxit
on the engravings, which can only refer to the grisaille
panels, except in the minority of cases where larger
pictures existed. This in itself is a strong argument for
the authenticity of the grisailles.

63

II
^ E will now approach in more detail the etched
portraits, which involve further questions of
authenticity by no means easy of solution.
First as to the respective development of the
etchings before and in the edition of Gillis Hendricx: —
Five of the etched plates remained practically un
touched in later states except for the addition of a
border line, i.e.: —
Pieter Brueghel, the younger; Jodocus de Momper;
Erasmus; Jan Snellinx; Justus Sustermans.
Five others were unelaborated except for an engraved
background, i.e. : —
Jan Brueghel; Frans Francken; Adam van Noort;
Lucas Vorsterman; Jan de Wael.
In one other {Paul Pontius) a similar dark background
was added with cross-hatched etching, and the face was
heavily and regularly worked over with the graver.
Four, in which the whole subject was lightly indi
cated in etching, were elaborated throughout with the
graver, i.e.: — 64

Ir-' -.'J .--.^i„ ^yi*.'.- 'v-v

Van Dtck. Paul Pontius
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

"^auliu^ diL \Pmr . Caicoijmf:

]»... J?,.ifi..^ :.J,..JW

'fniiaw-p'i^ ¦

ims.

Van Dtck. Paul Pontius
Etching and line-engraving. From an impression of the sixth state in
the British Museum
The chief difference to be noted, apart from the addition of the etched back
ground, is the graver work in the face, which detracts greatly from the ^avid
ness and subtlety of expression

Antonis Cornelissen; Antoine Triest; Jan Waverius;
Willem de Vos.
In the first three of these, the heads were less drasti
cally elaborated than the Pontius, and chiefly in etching.
The Willem de Fos was more regularly retouched with the
graver on the face.
Finally four etchings were of heads alone, i.e. : —
Anthony Van Dyck; Paul de Vos; Frans Snyders;
Philippe, Baron Le Roy.
These had bodies added with the graver, the portrait
of Van Dyck being set on a pedestal and used as the title-
page to the series. The portrait of Le Roy is never found
incorporated in editions of the Iconography.
Now of the elaborations the most defensible case is
where engraved backgrounds alone are added. Even an
artist might reasonably hold that the dark ground added
strength and stability to the subject, and in no wise
detracted from its concentration. Van Dyck himself
was certainly responsible for the etching of a similar
dark ground in the head of Paul de Vos with its patches
of false biting, and he might even be responsible for the
etched background added in the second state of the
Paul Pontius, i.e., before the edition of Gillis Hendricx.
Van Dyck might also in theory have consented to the
addition of a body to the etchings of which he had only
done the head. But in practice he could hardly, I think,
have sanctioned the publication of such an atrociously
bad body as the one added by Jan Meyssens to the Paul
de Vos, and carried further by Schelte a Bolswert for
Gillis Hendricx. The body of the Snyders, engraved by
Jacob Neefs, is a much better piece of work, for all its
damage to the pure effect of the early state, but as the
body was not added before the edition of Hendricx there
69

is no definite evidence that it was completed in Van
Dyck's life-time under his direction. But a touched
counterproof of the first state of the Portrait of Himself
in the British Museum certainly proves that the master
directed the elaboration of this plate, no doubt with the
idea of its use as title-page.
Of the four others which were elaborated throughout,
the Willem de Vos, was not so completed until the edi
tion of Gillis Hendricx, so that Van Dyck's culpabihty is
again uncertain. On the other hand the Cornelissen,
Triest, and Waverius were already elaborated in the im
pressions published by Van den Enden, i.e., undoubtedly
during Van Dyck's life-time. Now these are the three
etchings which only bear Van Dyck's name as painter
{Van Dyck pinxit) the other portrait etchings all being
signed fecit aqua forti. And the etched inscriptions fecit
aqua forti were certainly for the most part Van Dyck's,
as they were already on the plate before Hendricx's
edition except in the case of the Portrait of Himself, the
Erasmus and the Willem de Vos.^ Moreover, the differ
entiation of pinxit et fecit aqua forti (in the case of the
Snyders) shows that the artist was careful in his use of
terms. Apart from the discussion of comparative artistic
quality in these three etchings, the natural inference is
to accept the inscription as it stands, and not attribute
' The inscription on the Le Roy (W. p. 69, C) Ant. Van Dyck fadem
delineavit et fecit aqua forti may be posthumous, but its very explicit-
ness would gain it credence. But one also finds the MS. signature
Antonius Van Dyck fecit on an impression of the first state in the British
Museum. The signature on the Reed offered to Christ is certainly
posthumous, but no other engraver's name is given. Titian and his
Mistress is not signed at all, but as the dedication is from Van Dyck,
there is every documentary reason, apart from its quality, to accept
the etching as Van Dyck's. 70

V.

Van Dyck. Willem de Vos
Etching. From an impression of the first state, touched by hand, in
sepia, in the British Museum

Van Dyck. Antonis Cornelisben
From the oil grisaille panel, the immediate original used in the etching,
in the collection ot the Duke of Buccleuch, Montagu House

^., ^vt.t-^I^.-,f 5

Van Dtck (oa Lucas Vorsterman ?). Antonis Cornelissen
Etching. From an impression of the first state, with MS. lettering,
in the British Museum

to the master the etching which he did not claim. The
attribution of these three etchings to Van Dyck does
not in fact go back much more than a century. More
over, in the case of the Cornelissen, the existence of the
painting, i.e., the oil grisaille at Montagu House, sup
ports the literal reading of the inscription. It seems to
me very unlikely that Van Dyck would have prepared
an oil grisaille if he himself were doing the etching, and
carrying it out as far as was done in this example. This
assumption would of course be invalidated if an oil
grisaille were found which was certainly the original of
any of the fifteen etchings signed by Van Dyck as
etcher. One of the grisailles in Montagu House is a
Portrait of Himself. But it is in the complete form, as en
graved for Martin van den Enden's edition by Vorster
man (W. 79) . And so, although the head is in a similar
pose to the etching, the grisaille was not intended for
this, but for the engraving.
Approaching the question of the same three etchings
from the side of comparative quality I have alternate
misgivings and confidence as to their authenticity.
My misgivings in relation to the Cornelissen are sug
gested by a comparison with the etchings of Petrus
Stevens (engraved by Lucas Vorsterman, W. 93), and of
Lucas Vorsterman's version of the Jodocus de Momper
(W. 88) both of which present points of similarity of
style, and both of which have been attributed to Van
Dyck. It is hardly likely that Van Dyck is responsible
for the preliminary etching of the engraved version of
Momper as well as for the much stronger signed etching
of the same subject. On the other hand it must be con
fessed that it differs from the rather heavily dotted
manner generally met in the etching of Vorsterman's
plates, e.g. Carel de Mallery (W. 86), and Delmont
77

(W. 78), both of which have been attributed with much
less reason to Van Dyck. Van Dyck himself, in his
signed etchings, uses more dotted work than in the sec
ond portrait of Momper, but Vorsterman's dotted work
in his finished plates shows a far closer and more
monotonous system than Van Dyck's. And the MS.
note on the British Museum proof of the second
Momper, i.e., questa e la forma et grandezza, looks very
much as if it were a note of the master himself, ^ which
might incline one to accept the etching as his own.
In its general treatment the Stevens is even more like
the Cornelissen, and details such as the indication of the
background and the rather curious outlining of the
hands, are points of similarity. This hand of the Cornelis
sen, lacking as it does the significant drawing and outline
of all the signed etchings, is a distinct temptation to
scepticism. I do not feel that the Stevens, any more than
the second Momper, has the strength that characterizes
all Van Dyck's signed etchings, and we should perhaps
be more justified on the whole to form our estimate
of the style of Vorsterman's preliminary etching from
these examples, than to expect that they would have the
more regular and systematised dotting of the finished
states, the only form in which most of them are known.
Moreover another argument against the acceptance of
the etching of the Stevens as Van Dyck is the existence
of Van Dyck's grisaille for the subject in the series at
Montagu House. I would grant the Cornelissen a greater
vigour of style than either of the others, and a remark
ably close resemblance to the signed Willem de Fos
(W. 15), but would still incline to regard Vorsterman as
the author of both its etching and engraving.
^ Cf. Van Dyck's Italian notes in his Sketch Book at Chatsworth.
78

o^

'/K-/f^

^-?r,

».,¦¦ V.

Lucas Vorsterman (or Van Dyck?). Jodocus de Momper
Etching. From an impression of the first state (Dutuit, first state; Wibiral,
trial proof before the first state) with MS. lettering, in the British Museum..
Signed, in its later states, by Lucas Vorsterman

Van Dyck. Jodocus de Momper
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

Of the Waverius only two proofs of the first state are
known to me, one at Chatsworth, the other in the col
lection of Baron Edmond de Rothschild at Paris. In the
second state, reproduced, there are already touches of
the burin on the face, which are without doubt from the
hand of Paul Pontius, who completed the subject in
engraving. The etching, seen in its purity only in the
first state, is remarkably near Van Dyck in style. Yet
there is a certain timidity in its manner which fosters
one's doubts. In general Pontius's plates show a much
purer system of line-engraving than Vorsterman's, and
I cannot refer to another preliminary etching of any of
his plates in this style.
It is curious that Vorsterman himself engraved and
signed with his monogram the preliminary stages of one
of the plates of Philippe Le Roy (W. 185), which was
completed by Pontius. But the etching of the Waverius
is more delicate than anything by or attributed to
Vorsterman, and I would sooner regard the whole work
of the Waverius as by Pontius, than suggest so complex
a solution. In any case, as far as preUminary etching
goes, Paul Pontius is a somewhat unknown quantity, so
that if one does not regard the Waverius etching as
worthy of Van Dyck, the most natural resource is to
accept it as by Pontius.
The Antoine Triest seems to me a distinctly stronger
etching than the Waverius, and I incline to doubt its
authenticity less than either the Waverius or Cornelissen.
But the second plate of Jan Snellinx (W. 37) shows one
how nearly Pieter de Jode approached Van Dyck's
style of etching, so that even in the case of the Triest,
elaborated by the same engraver, I cannot entirely
avoid scepticism, or at the most would keep an open
83

mind. Both the Waverius and the Triest follow large
pictures by Van Dyck (both at Petrograd) more closely
than most of the subjects in the Iconography which
were ultimately based on larger paintings, but that
can hardly be regarded as seriously impugning the
possibility of Van Dyck starting the plates with his
own etching.
I have brought forward no clinching arguments
against the authenticity of any of these three plates
{Cornelissen, Triest, and Waverius) on the basis of qual
ity. But the number of small misgivings may amount
to more when added to the earlier argument from the
documentary side of signatures alone. On the other
hand the Italian MS. note on the British Museum im
pression of the etching of Vorsterman's Momper (W.
88) is a pivot round which the argument might easily
swing the other way.
There only remain two other etchings attributed to
Van Dyck which we have not already discussed, i.e. the
copy of the head of Philippe Le Roy (W. p. 69, C. I.
copy), and the version of Jan Snellinx engraved by
Pieter de Jode (W. 37).
The Le Roy is a good copy in reverse from the first
state of Van Dyck's etching, with plenty of vigour, but
entirely without the subtlety of the original. It has been
suggested that Van Dyck repeated the subject after an
unsatisfactory essay. But this would not, I am sure,
account for the complete difference in quality between
the two. There is none of the significant force of the
undisputed etching, in the outline of the face in the
other version, and I could not for a moment regard
the latter as other than a copy.
The etching of Pieter de Jode's version of Jan Snellinx
84

jm

Van Dyck (?) and Paul Pontius. Jan Waverius
Etching and line-engraving. From an impression of the second state,
touched by hand, in light sepia, Indian ink and body colour, in
the British Museum
There are already touches of the graver, on the face, in this state, which are,
without doubt, by the hand of Paul Pontius, who completed the subject in en
graving. The first state, in pure etching, is only known in two impressions, in
the collections of the Duke of Devonshire, and Baron Edmond de Rothschild

PHILIPPV5 LE ROY EQyH^

^(/>W h^lyvrk J^

Van Dyck. Philippe Le Roy
Etching. From an impression of the first state with MS. lettering,
in the British Museum

(W. 87) is remarkably good, and very closely resembles
Van Dyck in its method. But it lacks the real vigour of
the master's touch, and as such would need the strong
est document to support the attribution. It is well to
leave the engravers of the Rubens school some virtue in
etching in addition to their unrivalled skill in the use
of the burin.
In speaking of Pieter de Jode's version of Jan Snellinx
(W. 37), and Vorsterman's Jodocus de Momper (W. 88),
I have carefully avoided using the term copy. They are
generally described as copies of Van Dyck's etchings,
but as there is very little linear correspondence in either
pair, and considerable differences in the background in
the Snellinx, it appears to me far more probable that
they were based on oil grisailles no longer known. That
is definitely the case with Vorsterman's version of the
Van Dyck (W. 79), which is directly based on the
Bu'ccleuch grisaille, its head being similar but in no
wise copied from the master's original etching. A
fourth engraving of one of the subjects of Van Dyck's
etching, the plate of Paul Pontius by the engraver him
self (W. 59), represents the sitter in an entirely different
pose to the etching, and is again immediately based on
another grisaille panel at Montagu House.
Now this distinction between "copy" and "different
version" has a direct bearing on one of the general
questions we had already broached, i.e., Van Dyck's
attitude towards his original etchings in relation to the
Iconography. If the etchings had been done before the
engravings (which the use of the word "copy" in regard
to the latter would of course imply), then we should
almost have to assume that either Van Dyck or his
editor had preferred to publish the engravings rather
89

than the etchings, as these are the four subjects pub
lished in Martin van den Enden's series which also exist
in original etchings. But, as it stands, Van Dyck might
quite well have etched his plates after his engravers had
reproduced the grisailles, and as Professor Singer has
suggested,^ might have done his etchings "as a sort of
protest against the engravings of the Iconography."
There is certainly no strong reason for believing that
Van Dyck started the Iconography with the idea of
doing the prehminary etching to all the plates, leaving
the elaboration to his engraver, and that he only gave
up this idea on experiencing its labour or its unaccept-
ability. If he had started with this intention we should
expect to find original etchings among the portraits of
the first class, including Princes and Military Com
manders, with which the series commenced. But this
is not the case. By far the greater number of his original
etchings are portraits of artists, which, if Martin van
den Enden had ever issued them, would have belonged
to the third class. This point cannot however be
pressed to a definite conclusion as the engraving of the
subjects in the three different classes need not have been
chronological, even if, according to Wibiral's argument,
the three classes were published as separate series in the
order that we have given above.
Granting for the moment that our argument has
inclined to the rejection of the Cornelissen, Triest, and
Waverius, the only generally accepted Van Dyck etch
ings issued by Martin van den Enden, we are somewhat
less directly driven to the conclusion that Van Dyck ap-
1 Etchings of Van Dyck, London (Hodder & Stoughton), 1905. The
volume is the more valuable for the reproduction of several rare early
proofs from private collections. 90

Van Dyck. Jan Snellinx
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

HLRJU- KT RF. DNV5 D. ANTONJJVS TRIKST FPI.SCOPVS GaNDaX-I^JSIS
TOPAIRHA DO."Mmy, s" BAVONTS COMES KVE.RGHEKIEN5I5 H RF.GI-C M.\"
i. , A C£>N.SU_i;i STATVS ETC.
^ie.>^Ji>LLKaAK-XM.^,^t>rf>:a  ,,  ,.,,.,.^.,...,.^— ......,..^-...«J.»..-i^...^,...j...  .^...u^, 

Van Dyck (?) and Pieter de Jode, the Younger
Antoine Triest, Bishop of Ghent
Etching and line-engraving. From an impression of the second state in
the British Museum
The first state, in pure etching, is only known in the counterproof in
the collection of the Duke of Devonshire^ Chatsworth

proved of the elaboration of his original etchings by the
engravers. He may have been more ready to touch the
early etched states of these three portraits, with a view
to their obscuration beneath heavy line-engraving, if
they were done from the outset by other engravers than
himself simply with the idea of reproducing a painting
or oil grisaille. The touched proof of his Portrait of
Himself in the British Museum shows that he certainly
sanctioned elaboration in this case, but it was of course
an exceptional instance, where his own portrait was
required to embellish a title-page. We have already
discussed the probabilities of Van Dyck's part in the
engraving of four of the fifteen signed etchings of Hen
dricx's edition of the Iconography, but considering that
ten of the fifteen suffered no drastic elaborations at all,
we may infer that Van Dyck's feeling was on the whole
in favour of the unadulterated style of these examples.
If he sanctioned some elaborations on the basis of his
original etching, it may have been partly owing to the
pressure of his publisher, or the outlook of the purchas
ing public, who desired finished plates in the conven
tional manner. Happily this pressure did not overwhelm
the more purely artistic attitude. Martin van den
Enden may have failed to persuade Van Dyck to submit
the majority to the engravers' embellishments, and
consequently may not have wished to include them with
the uniform series. And Van Dyck may himself have
been convinced of the artistic superiority of the style of
his portrait etching over the finished engravings de
manded by the public taste, and may have done them
from the inception more for their own sake than with
any desire of issuing large editions with the rest of the
engravings. Certainly during his lifetime such was the
9S

case, and he must have remained in possession of the
original plates, pulling occasional impressions, the rare
proofs before publisher's address, sometimes before all
etched letters, and occasionally with his own autograph
signature, for the rare appreciators of these finest flowers
of his genius.
If Van Dyck sinned, even in these most perfect of
his works, it was through his irrepressible inclination to
wards the embellishment of his subjects, a fault into
which he fell chiefly in the days of his popularity at the
English court. Even in his etchings of Flemish artists,
his Antwerp friends and contemporaries, we already feel
this tendency towards idealization. Comparison of his
etching of the engraver Lucas Vorsterman, with its digni
fied countenance and swagger bearing, with the some
what wizened features of the same engraver as drawn
by Lievens and etched by Frans van den Wyngaerde,
will at once disclose Van Dyck's rosy vision of his
sitters, that incomparable key to success. But none of
the etchings shows the mannerisms, e.g. in detail such
as the hands, which developed more insistently after
Van Dyck's settlement in England, leading one to ex
pect that they were for the most part the product of his
activity in Antwerp between 1626 and 1632. Apart
from this temptation to flattery. Van Dyck's etchings
are faultless both as portrait or prints, and full of com
pelling inspiration. They are as modern in their style
to-day as they were at the time of their production, and
have remained the standard and commanded the emu
lation of all that is greatest among recent portrait
I etching.

Van Dyck. Lucas Vorsterman
Etching. From an impression of the first state in the British Museum

LVCA^ VOwSTERMANi

Frans van den Wyngaerde. Lucas Vorsterman
Etched by Frans van den Wyngaerde, after a drawing by Lievens. Repro
duced as a contrast to Van Dyck's etching of the same subject, to throw into
greater rehef the dignity with which Van Dyck adorns his sitters
From an impression in the British Museum

LIST OF VAN DYCK'S ORIGINAL ETCHINGS
(The authenticity of those marked with an obelus (f) is
called in question: the references are to Wibiral, and Dutuit.)
Jan Brueghel, the elder  W. 1.; D. 1.
The only elaboration in later state was the addition of an
engraved background. Signed Antonius van Dyck fecit aqua
forti (before Hendricx's edition).
Pieter Brueghel, the younger  W. 2. ; D. 2.
Not elaborated by an engraver. Signed Ant. van Dyck
fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's edition).
t Antonis Cornelissen  W. 3. ; D. 17.
Elaborated in etching and engraving by Lucas Vorster
man. Signed ^-1 nt. van Dyck pinxit (Martin van den Enden's
edition, i.e., before Hendricx.) On an impression before
letters in the British Museum (D. 17, ii) the MS. inscrip
tion is Ant. van Dyck pinxit. L. Vorsterman sculp.
Sir Anthony Van Dyck  W. 4.; D. 3.
Head only. The composition elaborated in engraving by
Jacob Neefs. The head was placed on a pedestal, and the
front of the pedestal used for the title of the 'Iconography.'
Signed Ant. van Dyck fecit aqua forti (in Hendricx's edition).
Desiderius Erasmus. After Holbein  W. 5. ; D. 4.
Not elaborated by an engraver. Signed Ant. van Dyck
fecit aqua forti (Hendricx's edition).
Frans Francken, the younger  W. 6. ; D. 5.
The only elaboration in later state was the addition of
an architectural cornice and an engraved background.
Signed Ant. van Dyck fecit aq-ua forti (before Hendricx's
edition) .
Jodocus de Momper  W. 7. ; D. 7.
Not elaborated by an engraver. Signed Anton van Dyck
fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's edition).
Adam van Noort  W. S. ; D. 8.
The only elaboration in later state was the addition of
the dark corner of a piece of architecture. Signed Ant. van
Dyck fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's edition).
101

Paul Pontius  W. 9.; D. 9.
The only elaborations in later state were the addition of
a regularly etched background, and graver work on the face.
Signed Ant. van Dyck fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's
edition) .
Jan Snellinx  W. 10.; D. 10.
Not elaborated by an engraver. Signed Ant. van Dyck
fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's edition).
Frans Snyders  W. 11.; D. 11.
Head only. The figure completed and the plate otherwise
elaborated in engraving by Jacob Neefs. Signed Ant. van
Dyck pinxit et fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's edition),
Justus Sustehiians  W. 12. ; D. 12.
Not elaborated by an engraver. Signed Ant. van Dyck
fecit aqua forti (before Hendricx's edition).
fANTOiNE Triest, Bishop of Ghent  W. 13.; D. 22.
Elaborated in engraving by Pieter de Jode, the younger.
Signed Ant. van Dyck pinxit (Martin van den Enden's edi
tion, i.e. before Hendricx).
Lucas Vorsterman  W. 14. ; D. 13.
The only elaboration in later state was the addition of
an engraved background. Signed Ant. van Dyck fecit aqua
forti (before Hendricx's edition).
Willem de Vos  W. 15.; D. 14.
Elaborated in engraving by Schelte k Bolswert. Signed
A7it. van Dyck fecit aqua forti (in Hendricx's edition).
PauldeVos  W. 16.;D. 15.
Head and part of background only. Body added, and
plate otherwise elaborated in etching, probably by Jan
Meyssens, and in engraving in certain details by Schelte h,
Bolswert. Signed Anton van Dyck fecit (edition of Jan
Meyssens, before Hendricx).
Jan de Wael  W. 17. ; D. 16.
The only elaboration was the addition of an engraved
background (in State ii). Signed .¦l;!^ van Dyck fecit aqua
forti (before Hendi'icx's edition).
tJAN Waverius  W. IS. ; D. 23.
Elaborated in engraving by Paul Pontius. Signed Aiit.
van Dyck pinxit (Martin van den Enden's edition, i.e. be
fore Hendi'icx). 102

Philippe Lb Roy  W. p. 69, C. ; D. 6.
Head only. The body added and the plate otherwise
elaborated in engraving by some anonymous artist. Signed
(posthumously?) in a later state Ant. van Dyck faciem
delineavit et fecit aqua forti. But first state in British Mu
seum has MS. signature Antonius van Dyck fecit. Does
not occur in any edition of the Iconography.
The Reed offered to Christ  W. p. 68, A. ; D. B.
Elaborated in mixed etching and engraving by some
anonymous artist (possibly L. Vorsterman). Signed (post
humously) in a later state Anton, van Dyck invenit et fecit
aqua forti.
Titian and his Mistress. After Titian. .W. p. 69, B.; D. A.
Elaborated in mixed etching and engraving by an anony
mous artist (but certainly the same hand as the preceding).
With dedication by Van Dyck to Lucas van Uffel. No other
signature. Unless a further original is lost, the etching may
have been based on the picture attributed to Titian in the
collection of Captain Archibald Morrison, at Basildon Park
(Third National Loan Exhibition, Grosvenor Gallery, 1914-
15, No. 32; Crowe & Cavalcaselle, Titian, London, 1877,
Vol. II, pp. 138, 139; Gronau, Titian, London, 1904, p.
231). I have kept to the usual title applied to the etching,
but the subject has also been called Titian and his Daughter,
possibly in allegorical reference to Lavinia's early death.

103

THE PRELIMINARY ETCHING OF THE FOLLOWING EN
GRAVINGS HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO VAN DYCK, BUT
ON LITTLE FOUNDATION
Philippe Lb Roy  W. p. 69. C. i (copy).
The second plate, showing the head alone.
Jan Snellinx  W. 37.
Signed by Pieter de Jode. The same subject as Van
Dyck's etching (W. 10).
Deodatus Delmont  W. 78.
Signed by Lucas Vorsterman.
Carel de Mallery  W. 86.
Signed by Lucas Vorsterman.
Jodocus de Momper  W. 88.
Signed by Lucas Vorsterman. The same subject as Van
Dyck's etching (W. 7).
Pbtrus Stevens  W. 93.
Signed by Lucas Vorsterman.

104

THIS EDITION
CONSISTS OF POUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY COPIES
OP WHICH FOUR HUNDRED ARE FOR
SALE
THIS IS NUMBER
xjy