Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

coupled with a rigorous insistence on the difference between good models and bad

ones.

This text-book knowledge, however, is not enough by itself. The eye would need training by the examination of examples of the finest work contrasted with those that are immature and decadent. To secure this the Government would have to turn its attention to supervising the arrangement and administration of our public galleries and museums.

The radical fault of almost all these galleries is imperfect classification. Fine works of art are placed next to worthless ones, and no label tells the spectator which is good and which is less good. Indeed, as bad or mediocre work is enormously in excess of good work, it is a mere chance if the inquirer happens to hit upon anything which really would be of use to him.

The destruction of all the rubbish in our museums would be a meritorious action, but is at present outside the range of practical politics. The existing collections might, however, be rearranged. Inferior or decadent works should be ruthlessly labelled as such; a chronological sequence where possible being preserved, so that the student could see at a glance the three phases through which all arts pass-immaturity, maturity, and degeneracy. This sequence should, where possible, be emphasized by carefully chosen loans of copies and reproductions. It is here that the help of photography is most necessary, and the photographing of fine works of art would be one of the leading features of the reform. Such an organized educational section, if adapted and, perhaps, restricted to the needs of the local manufacturers, need not occupy much space, and the remainder of the museum might still be available for the amusement The Natural of the man in the street.

History Museum at South Kensington is
sufficient evidence that sensible classifica-
tion by no means implies dullness.

Nor would the cost of such a reform be excessive. A single paper on the theory and development of the fine arts would not impose any very great additional strain on the present examining bodies. That would be enough to ensure that no student or would-be teacher completed his course of training without knowing what were the best things which had been conceived by the human brain, and why the rest were less good. As to the museums much could be done by the appointment of a single inspector of museums, of similar standing to the inspectors of schools, whose reports would be backed in responsible quarters.

It is, indeed, rather curious that hitherto no member of the House of Commons who is not a member of the Government would seem to have made a special study of the subject.

It would be utopian to expect that any Act of Parliament could make the British nation artistic. Nevertheless, a sound and systematic programme for putting good and bad art before the public with the prominence they respectively merit might effect a considerable improvement in its powers of discrimination. That improvement is badly needed. The experience of France, Germany, and Italy shows that art is a national asset of enormous value, both directly and indirectly. Yet the efforts to increase the value of that asset can have no permanent effect unless they are consistently backed by an educated public taste. For that reason any attempt to help art and artists must aim at helping the public also, and that can best be done by this very reorganization of our galleries and museums, for these will always be the layman's guide to knowledge. Thus the real importance of the Chantrey Bequest inquiry does not lie in the immediate help which a purchase by the nation affords to a few good painters, but in the lasting support it gives to all good art by setting before the public a proper and definite standard of excellence.

THE HISTORY OF

[ocr errors]

BY C. J. HE purchase for the National Gallery of the

portrait of Albert Dürer the elder is somewhat of an event. Such a definite attempt to fill what was perhaps the most serious gap in our wonderfully complete collection was a courageous action; at the same time the attribution to Dürer has given rise to a good deal of hesitation and hostility in the critical world. The appended summary of the facts relating to the picture is therefore given in the hope that those who have more right to speak of Dürer will take this opportunity of writing definitely upon the questions in dispute. It must not be regarded as reflecting in any way the views of the Consultative Committee of THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, or of any of its members.

The picture belonged to the late Lady Ashburton, and first became famous when it was lent to the Winter Exhibition at Bur

lington House some six months ago. It has now been acquired for the nation, together with the fine Dutch portrait from the same collection variously attributed to Maes, De Keyser, and Van der Helst, for the sum, it is said, of £10,000.

An article by Mr. Campbell Dodgson in The Athenæum for February 6 last gave a summary of the known facts relating to the work and to the three other versions of the subject at Syon House, Munich, and Frankfort. This admirable review, to which I am greatly indebted, appeared before the inscription on the portrait was revealed by reframing, but the tendency of Mr. Dodgson's opinion seemed to be that this picture, like the other three, was a copy of a lost original by Dürer.

This original picture was one of two works by Dürer presented to Charles I by the City of Nuremberg. At the sale of the king's collection these two paintings

OUR NEW DÜRER

HOLMES

[ocr errors]

fetched £100. One of them, a portrait of Dürer, dated 1498, is now among the many treasures of the Prado; the other disappeared. This lost picture had been described in Van der Doort's inventory of 1637 as No. 26... the like fellow piece (ie., to the Prado picture) being Albert Dürer his father in a black antique old Hungarian fashioned black (sic) cap, in a dark yellow gowne, wherin his hands are hidden in the wide sleeves. Painted upon a reddish all cracked board in the like aforesaid frame (ie., like the wooden frame of the Prado picture), 1 ft. 8 in. length, I ft. 4 in. breadth.'

The picture in the National Gallery would here seem to have been described sufficiently well, and the measurements correspond exactly. Objection, however, is taken to its identity with that described by Van der Doort on the following grounds:

1. That the work does not agree absolutely with the words of the inventory.1

2. That the painting itself is unworthy of Dürer, or at any rate not characteristic

[graphic]

of him.

3. That the wording and execution of the inscription are not Dürer's work.2

In the first place the number in red paint at the foot of the picture is 208 and not 26. That is not a matter of importance, since the picture may have been catalogued twice. It is argued, too, that the picture is not painted on a board at all, but upon parchment, or perhaps some thicker skin, mounted on board.3 Now, as will be

1 As the Director of the National Gallery points out, Van der Doort was a Dutchman with a very imperfect knowledge of English, which, coupled with the terseness of his descriptions, might easily lead to 'on a reddish board' being used for 'on a panel painted of a reddish colour.'

2 On this point the Director notes that the fact of the picture not being signed proves nothing, as half a dozen other genuine portraits are also unsigned, and that the Roman capitals here used are in his opinion of precisely the same type as those in some other genuine inscriptions, notably that of the Oswolt Krel portrait painted two years later.

3 Since the above was written the Director, who has been able to examine the picture out of its frame, states that the painting is certainly not on parchment, and adds: The priming was put on to the panel after the mouldings which framed the panel were fitted to it, so that the removal of the

mentioned later, there are reasons for supposing this portrait to have been closely framed. If the edges are once hidden it is impossible to tell, even on close inspection, that the picture is not on a panel, and the innumerable cracks in the pigment, which even a considerable amount of retouching cannot hide, explain the epithet 'all cracked' without necessarily implying any larger fracture. Indeed, though the parchment has remained whole, it is quite possible that the wood behind was badly cracked, and this would explain the substitution of the newer panel which we now see. This, in its turn, would account for the absence of the original inventory number.

That the painting is Dürer's in workmanship is a more difficult thing to prove. The single criticism on this head which seems to have appeared was that in the last number of the Repertorium. It runs, 'the socalled Dürer, Portrait of His Father (No. 10, Marquess of Northampton from Lady Ashburton), seems to me an English imitation of about the beginning of the nineteenth century. Years ago I once came across a series of similar pictures, with the same yellowish-brown carnations on a coloured ground, flat and marrowless.' This theory at least needs no discussion.

The actual painting does not appear to me to be like the work of a copyist. The pigment in all the passages of delicate modelling is thin and transparent. This transparency argues swiftness of workmanship, and that is just the point where a copyist comes to grief. The direct perfection of the modelling of the cheek and the loose flesh of the throat have only to be compared with the other versions for the difference to be evident. Again, the precision with which a careful copyist has to work invariably results in a certain loss of the accent and emphasis that characterize an frame has left a narrow edging of bare panel, and the priming The correspondence stands up slightly from the surface.' with the inventory would thus seem to be even more close than originally appeared.

original work. Compare the other versions and see how the angle of the cheek-bone, the incisive marking of the wrinkles and veins about the eye, the summary sketching of the withered fingers and shrivelled nails, even the very folds of the cloak, are fudged or rounded or shirked in the Frankfort,+ Munich, and Syon House 5 variants. The National Gallery portrait on the other hand is sharp and decisive.

The thing, too, was evidently done rapidly and forcibly. If it be examined at Trafalgar Square on a bright day it will be seen that the folds of the cloak were drawn so swiftly that the surface of the ground is actually scraped as a pen scrapes paper when pressed hard upon it. This is specially noticeable in the folds of the left sleeve at the elbow. To this combination of accuracy and velocity the portrait owes its power. If one looks at it for a while, and then turns to the German pictures near it, even Holbein, with all his delicacy, seems just a trifle opaque and prosaic, while Baldung, Aldegrever, and Cranach appear hardly more than able, mannered, and amusing provincials. No mere copy could surely stand such a test?

Yet although it is so powerful there does not seem to be any other portrait by Dürer which in all respects resembles it in workmanship. On the other hand, it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line as to Dürer's style in painting, since it varies so amazingly from period to period, and even from year to year, according to the influences with which he came in contact. At one time he will rival the delicacy and breadth of Holbein, at another his ideal will be one of metallic hardness and rotundity, while some of his work recalls the glow of Bellini and Antonello da Messina. The Madonna in Sir Frederick Cook's collection and the little portrait at Hampton Court will serve to illustrate this variation in taste, style, and colour. Even • Reproduced on page 435. • Reproduced on page 435.

The History of our New Dürer

his drawing is sometimes meagre and wiry. The single quality in his work that never varies is the workmanship. This is always wonderful, even when carrying out the least pleasing aberrations of his genius.

It seems that no other painting on parchment by him is known to exist, and the use of parchment as a ground for painting appears to be extremely rare." This use of an uncommon material in itself is surely more like the experiment of a great master than the mistake of a copyist, who would naturally employ a ground like that of the original, especially if it was in everyday use, as prepared panels then were. If an original picture were an elaborate piece of painting, as all Dürer portraits are, it is hard to imagine that any copyist would run the risk of wasting a large amount of time and labour by experimenting with unusual materials, when those used by the original painter were ready to his hand.

If, however, the treatment of the head be compared with that of a Dürer drawing" in the British Museum (supposed to have been done some four years later), there can be little doubt as to the identity of their authorship. It is only necessary to point out the tremulous suggestion of the wrinkles and veins round the eyes, the drawing of the eye sockets, the treatment of the nose, and the emphatic statement of the furrowed flesh about the jaw in both works.

The details of the cloak can be studied only at Trafalgar Square, for the photogravure gives no idea of the transparency and lightness of the picture. Attention has already been called to the force and impetuosity of the treatment of the left sleeve. The right sleeve is equally inter

6 Mr. Herbert Horne informs me that there is no known instance of an Italian panel picture on a parchment ground earlier than 1550. Mrs. Herringham (who considers that there may be a thin gesso ground under the Dürer picture) is equally definite on this point.

7 Reproduced on page 437.

esting, for if examined closely it will be seen to have an underpainting in monochrome, done with rapid and accurate brush strokes in the exact manner of Dürer. This should be compared with the sleeves in the Uffizi portrait (1490) and in that of Oswolt Krel at Munich (1499). The treatment of the hand should be compared with the right hand of Imhof in the Prado. The prominence at the root of the fingernails (as Mr. Charles Ricketts pointed out to me) is repeated in Dürer's portrait of himself once in the Felix collection at Leipzig.

The remaining objections to the work are based on the inscription. It must be at once admitted that this may not be from Dürer's hand, as the style of lettering differs slightly from that on the Oswolt Krel (where Dürer for once uses Roman capitals), and there is no warrant for the spelling Thurer.' For this reason Mr. Dodgson, following Dr. Friedländer, points out that the inscription on the Munich picture has a more genuine ring about its wording, and corresponds absolutely in style with that of the Prado portrait. He recognizes that the Munich picture is a bad copy, but suggests that its lettering represents that on Dürer's original.

Yet if this original were so lettered, why did Greenbury, the reputed painter of the Syon House copy, give an entirely different and far less convincing wording, and why did the German painter who painted the older copy at Frankfort do just the same? If the original picture had borne Dürer's monogram and an interesting gothic inscription, it is incredible that these two painters, working at different times and in different countries, should have omitted it, and agreed in substituting another and less obvious one.

The original work must thus have borne an inscription practically identical with that

8 Even this objection, however, now seems to be groundless. Mr. Dodgson has recently sent me an extract from a letter of Pirkheimer to Conrad Celtis dated March 14, 1504.-' Turer te salutat.'

mentioned later, there are reasons for supposing this portrait to have been closely framed. If the edges are once hidden it is impossible to tell, even on close inspection, that the picture is not on a panel, and the innumerable cracks in the pigment, which even a considerable amount of retouching cannot hide, explain the epithet 'all cracked' without necessarily implying any larger fracture. Indeed, though the parchment has remained whole, it is quite possible that the wood behind was badly cracked, and this would explain the substitution of the newer panel which we now see. This, in its turn, would account for the absence of the original inventory number.

That the painting is Dürer's in workmanship is a more difficult thing to prove. The single criticism on this head which seems to have appeared was that in the last number of the Repertorium. It runs, 'the socalled Dürer, Portrait of His Father (No. 10, Marquess of Northampton from Lady Ashburton), seems to me an English imitation of about the beginning of the nineteenth century. Years ago I once came across a series of similar pictures, with the same yellowish-brown carnations on a coloured ground, flat and marrowless.' This theory at least needs no discussion.

The actual painting does not appear to me to be like the work of a copyist. The pigment in all the passages of delicate modelling is thin and transparent. This transparency argues swiftness of workmanship, and that is just the point where a copyist comes to grief. The direct perfection of the modelling of the cheek and the loose flesh of the throat have only to be compared with the other versions for the difference to be evident. Again, the precision with which a careful copyist has to work invariably results in a certain loss of the accent and emphasis that characterize an frame has left a narrow edging of bare panel, and the priming stands up slightly from the surface.' The correspondence with the inventory would thus seem to be even more close than originally appeared.

original work. Compare the other versions and see how the angle of the cheek-bone, the incisive marking of the wrinkles and veins about the eye, the summary sketching of the withered fingers and shrivelled nails, even the very folds of the cloak, are fudged or rounded or shirked in the Frankfort,+ Munich, and Syon House 5 variants. The National Gallery portrait on the other hand is sharp and decisive.

The thing, too, was evidently done rapidly and forcibly. If it be examined at Trafalgar Square on a bright day it will be seen that the folds of the cloak were drawn so swiftly that the surface of the ground is actually scraped as a pen scrapes paper when pressed hard upon it. it. This is specially noticeable in the folds of the left sleeve at the elbow. To this combination of accuracy and velocity the portrait owes its power. If one looks at it for a while, and then turns to the German pictures near it, even Holbein, with all his delicacy, seems just a trifle opaque and prosaic, while Baldung, Aldegrever, and Cranach appear hardly more than able, mannered, and amusing provincials. No mere copy could surely stand

such a test?

Yet although it is so powerful there does not seem to be any other portrait by Dürer which in all respects resembles it in workmanship. On the other hand, it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line as to Dürer's style in painting, since it varies so amazingly from period to period, and even from year to year, according to the influences with which he came in contact. At one time he will rival the delicacy and breadth of Holbein, at another his ideal will be one of metallic hardness and rotundity, while some of his work recalls the glow of Bellini and Antonello da Messina. The Madonna in Sir Frederick Cook's collection and the little portrait at Hampton Court will serve to illustrate this variation in taste, style, and colour. Even • Reproduced on page 435. • Reproduced on page 435.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »