Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/813

 EYOK

733

EYCK

purpose of ascribing all the honour of having con- ceived this painting to the elder of the brothers. As an assumption, however, it is altogether gratuitous. There is not one of the scenes that can be attributed to Hubert with any degree of certainty; and no work the brothers Van Eyck have left us (with the exception of the "Fount of Salvation" in the Prado Museum, Madrid, and this is the work of a school) shows a similar dogmatic and theological character, a like power of design and richness of thought that this " Lamb ' ' does. Taken as a whole the work of the Van Eycks has a totally different tendency. It is frankly naturalistic in fact, as well as in intention. So that when Hubert is labelled a thinker, it is for no other reason than the wish to differentiate him, and to separate him from Jan. How futile this distinction is, is made clear if we look into the results obtained by applying it as a criterion to the work of the two broth- ers. On not a single disputed painting has agreement been reached ; and every painting that has been attrib- uted to Hubert by one connoisseur, has been adjudged by others for efjually good reasons to Jan.

The catalogue of their work has been reconstructed more than twenty times. The altar-piece of the "Lamb" has been divided in a hundred different ways, and each in turn has been given to first one brother and then to the other over and over again. Each year sees a new theory proposed. After Waagen came James Weale; after Hymans, Dvorak, and after Stoerck, Wurzbach ; and we are as far from the solution as ever. The masterpiece keeps its secret, and will probably never give it up. In any case, seeing that the whole painting was retouched at least twice during the sixteenth century, all evidence of individual tech- nic must have been buried beneath these restora- tions; and in all likelihood the little points and pecu- liarities attributed to Hubert or to Jan, are really the work of Michael Coxie. But there is a larger and a wider tjuestion at issue than such idle wranglings that can never be settled, the question as to the effect and the nature of the artistic revolution to which the brothers Van Eyck have given their name.

What constitutes the altar-piece of the " Lamb " a unique monument in the history of art, and gives it its supreme interest in our eyes, is the fact that it unites in itself the styles and the genius of two opposing epochs. Whereas its general plan belongs to the Middle Ages, its execution, its manner of seeing things and putting them on canvas, are truly modern. The masterpiece has a double nature, so to speak. The genius of the Renaissance for what was concrete and realistic is wedded to the majesty of the Gothic and its love of the abstract. It shows us the wondrous blending of two principles that would seem necessarily to exclude each other, like the past and the future, and that we never meet with again save in opposition. It is this that constitutes the supreme interest of the work, that it contains the noblest expre.ssion of the old mystical genius together with the most powerful example of mo<lern naturalism. In the sincerity, breadth, and daring of their naturalism, no one at any time nor of any school has excelled the Van Eycks. Nature, which, prior to their day, men had looked at as through a veil of formula; and symbols, they seem suddenly to have unveiled. They invented, so to speak, the world of realities. The happenings of all sorts in the world of nature, the sijlva rerum, with which they have en- dowed the art of painting, are always true to life. Landscapes, atmosphere, types, physiognomies, a wealth of studies and sketches of all sorts, rich mate- rials, cloths, ciniars (robes), copes, brilliancy of pre- cious stones and works of the goldsmith's art; all are copied to perfection, and the deftness of the work is beyond compare. The masterpiece inaujjuratcs a new era in pamting. If the object of the pamter'sart is to depict the visible world, if his aim ought to be not so much the expression of a thought as to hold up the

mirror to life, then for the first time in its history painting entered into its birthright in this altar-piece, and gave proof of its legitimacy in this first attempt. Life under all its sensible forms and aspects sweeps through this mighty scene like a motif, life with all its myriad changes and variety of moods, brushing aside the dry as dust ideograms and crumbling hieroglyphics of the Middle Ages.

The absolute is abandoned, and the relative brought into fashion. The eye is turned away from the vision of the ideal, but the feet are more firmly planted on the real. The word nature undergoes a change of meaning. Once it had been a vague Pla- tonic idea, a something like the nominals and univer- sal of the schools, which are imderstood by the in- telligence rather than perceived by the senses. In that lofty plane of thought in which art in the thir- teenth century loved to move, the universe existed really in the intellect. Henceforth, however, nature changes her aspect for the painter; he refrains from expressing any opinion as to the essence of things, but delights in all their accidental qualities. The actual, the fact, whether it be positive, complex, capri- cious, or odd, becomes of more importance than the abstract and immutable law. The absolute cause of all things is neglected in favour of the rich and glowing vegetation of nature; principles have less value than their consequences, less importance is given to types than individuals. The vast harvest of phenomena from the ever teeming field of reality and experience is henceforth open to art. A painting becomes what the painter has actually seen; what he has found in na- ture; the story of his feelings in the midst of things. In this a new kind of idealism replaces the old. And art, thus freed from the academism of the Gothic tradi- tion, was not to slavishly copy nature, but to serve as a vehicle for the expression of the painter's personality, and to act as the safest confidante of his emotional ex- periences.

The altar-piece at Ghent marks the triumph of this basic artistic revolution from which all modern art has sprung. Never was a richer shrine of nature and of life got together by a painter. In two hundred figures of every size, .sex, race, and costume we behold a r^ sum6 of the human race. We see before us all the beauty of the physical world, the woods, the fields, the rocks, the desert jilaces, a geography of earth with its climates and its flora, palms, cacti, and aloes (which foolishly has led some to believe that Hubert must have travelled in the East). And the world of art is not forgotten; styles of architecture, towers, cupo- las, statues, bas-reliefs, are all brought in. In a word, life out-of-doors and within doors, with all its social activities and moral colouring, is portrayed. There are interiors, such as the room of the Blessed Virgin, a young Flemish maiden, with its prie-Dieu, its nicely tiled floor, its washstand and basin, and its open win- dow looking out on to the pointed roofs of a row of brick houses. There are portraits of a marvellous realism, such as those of the donor and his wife; epic figures, such as God tlie Father under the guise of Charlemagne crowned with a triple tiara, type of the pontiff-king; and there are figures full of charm and poetry, such as the singing angels (Berlin mu.seum), symbolizing the harmonies of paradise, under the form of entrancing minstrelsy, or of the chanting of choir boys. Other figures are fearful in their naturalism, such as the figures of our first parents (Brussels mu- seum) which would suffice alone to immortalize their creator, because of their audacious nudity, their stiff and awkward manner, and their el<Knient" ugliness.

Such a transformation, of course, exceeds tiie powers of any one man, or even of two brothers. And like all great works, the altar-piece of Ghent is but the result of the labours of more than one generation. It was not a local movement; its influences were at work up and down throughout Christendom.