Anthony van Dyck

Anthony van Dyck (Antwerp, 1599–London, 1641)¹ was born into a family with a very different social and intellectual background to that of Rubens. Van Dyck’s grandfather, also named Anthony van Dyck, was initially a painter, but later earned his living selling silk and writing materials. His son Franchois, Anthony’s father, became a prosperous merchant and married Maria Comperis in 1587. Together with his mother, Cornelia Pruystinck, and a brother-in-law, he established himself as a merchant of textiles, such as silk, ribbon, and wool. His business flourished, with deliveries recorded to cities as far afield as Amsterdam, Paris and London. Maria Comperis died in childbirth two years after her marriage. In 1590, Franchois remarried, this time to Maria Cuypers. She bore him twelve children, the seventh of whom was Anthony van Dyck, who was baptised on 23 March 1599. His mother died when he was eight years old. Shortly before her death, the couple had bought a spacious house named “De Stadt van Ghendt” (The City of Ghent). At the age of ten, he became an apprentice to Hendrick van Balen, who was the dean of the Saint Luke’s guild at the time and an exceptional painter of decorative cabinet pictures (start of his “First Antwerp Period”). More importantly, he was an avid collector of not only paintings, but also books. His library contained over a thousand titles relating to religion (Bibles), antique and modern literature (Pliny the Elder; Livy; Ovid; Petrarch; Otto van Veen), chronicles, histories, 16th-century books on proportion (Dürer) and architecture (Vitruvius; Serlio), as well as “Trachtenbücher” (Georg Straub), written in various languages². For the son of merchants, Van Balen’s house and studio must have opened up a whole new world. Unfortunately, nothing concrete is known about Van Dyck’s apprenticeship with Van Balen. It is not documented whether he studied for two, three or four years under his guidance. Even if he stayed for the usual four years, he left Van Balen’s studio around 1614–1615. The earliest painting we know by his hand is the monogrammed Portrait of a Seventy Years Old Man (Brussels, Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium), dated 1613.

Not only did Anthony suffer from the absence of his mother as a boy, he also faced serious familial difficulties. In 1610, for unclear reasons, Anthony’s father was threatened by a woman named Jacobmyne de Kueck. She had written a slanderous song about the Van Dyck family, and had come to the house several times at night to smash the windows and threaten to kill his father. As a result, she was banished from the city. The reason for this hostile behaviour is unknown, but it is possible that she had been in service to Anthony’s father, as she was familiar with his household. This was only the beginning of a series of incidents that must have had a significant impact on the teenager’s life.

By 1615, Franchois was experiencing financial difficulties. On 17 July of that year, his sons-in-law Adriaen Diericx and Lancelot Lancelots (the husbands of his two eldest daughters, Catharina and Maria) brought a lawsuit against him, referring to the “disgrace” that had befallen him. The case concerned an inheritance from Catharina (Lynken) Cuypers – Conincx and Cornelia Pruystinck, Anthony’s grandmothers,italian which was supposed to be paid to the latter’s underage children. However, it was now under threat from Franchois’s creditors. Van Dyck did not trust the matter, and, “out of brotherly affection”, he took legal action against his brothers-in-law on 3 December 1616 and 13 September 1617, attempting to have a commissioner appointed to protect the interests of his younger siblings and himself. In the summer of 1617, some of Franchois’s possessions were auctioned at the Vrijdagmarkt (Friday Market). On 30 May 1620, “De Stadt van Ghendt”, the beautiful, elderly house, was put up for sale, and all the remaining furniture and ‘all paintings, without exception’, were auctioned at the same market. His family situation in the period 1613-1616 can be described, without exaggeration, as turbulent.

He was certainly active as a talented trainee painter, but the key question is what the circumstances were. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he continued to work in Van Balen’s studio after 1613/1614. Furthermore, several sources suggest that Anthony van Dyck ran his own studio in the house known as “Den Dom van Ceulen” (Cathedral of Cologne), situated in the Lange Minderbroedersstraat (now Mutsaertstraat), near the Franciscan convent, between about 1614 and 1618. The “studio of teenagers” theory has often been criticised, but no viable alternative explanation has ever been put forward³. Furthermore, testimonies from two eyewitnesses — the painter Jan Bruegel the Younger, son of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and the art dealer Guilliam Verhagen — dated 5 September 1660 corroborate this assumption. The first person declared that he knew the late Anthony van Dyck intimately, having been educated and befriended by him throughout his life. He confirmed that he was present when Van Dyck painted a series of Christ and the twelve apostles, «before the aforementioned departed for Italy, while he was living in “Den Dom van Ceulen”, near the Franciscan convent». Verhagen declared that he had ordered the series of apostles from Van Dyck «forty-four or forty-five years earlier», which would have been around 1614–1615⁴.

It is hard to define exactly at what stage the young artist came into contact with Rubens and started collaborating with him. It is clear that Van Dyck was active – and valued – as a painter, as evidenced by the important commission he executed for Antwerp’s Dominican order in 1617, before he was registered as a master. This was a monumental Christ Carrying the Cross (panel, 211 x 161.5 cm), which he painted as part of a cycle of fifteen paintings depicting the Mysteries of the Rosary for the church of St Paul (Sint-Pauluskerk) in Antwerp, where they still hang today. Rubens’ contribution, The Flagellation, is inscribed with the date 1617, which is confirmed by other sources. It must have been a great honour for the young painter to be asked to work alongside the best Antwerp masters of the time.

Although the paintings are all more or less the same size, the prices paid for them varied considerably. Hendrik van Balen, Anthony’s former teacher, received 216 guilders. Meanwhile, Pieter Paul Rubens, Jacob Jordaens, and the up-and-coming artist Van Dyck each received 150 guilders. Perhaps one could conclude that Van Balen only received more because he was responsible for contracting out the entire series. In any case, we should be prepared to consider the possibility that Van Dyck was chosen by his former teacher. Because of his young age, it is hard to believe that Anthony did not benefit from a personal recommendation.

An alternative theory is that Rubens recognised Van Dyck’s boasting talent and exceptional technical mastery early on, and saw the advantage of involving him in his activities. According to the eminent biographer and art theorist Giovanni Pietro Bellori (1672), Van Dyck painted the eight large cartoons for the tapestry cycle depicting the life of Decius Mus, which were designed by Rubens (Liechtenstein Collection, Vaduz). The contract for these was signed in Brussels on 9 November 1616 by the Genoese merchant Franco Cattaneo and the tapestry weavers Jan Raes and Frans Sweerts. The cartoons were delivered in May 1618, which indicates that they were executed between November 1616 and Spring 1618, and this is another indication of Rubens’s appreciation of the young painter, who was 22 years his junior.⁵

After obtaining his Master’s title, Van Dyck developed his own distinctive style, drawing inspiration from Rubens’ idiom and applying it to historical pieces and experimental portraits. During his “First Antwerp Period”, he produced an incredible number of around 150 paintings. This demonstrates his passionate dedication and willingness to experiment. Simultaneously, he persisted in his collaborative endeavours with Rubens. On 29 March 1620, for example, Rubens signed a contract with the Jesuits to decorate the ceiling of the Church of St Charles Borromeo in Antwerp with thirty-nine paintings, which were destroyed in 1718. The contract specified that Rubens would design the paintings, which Van Dyck and his assistants would then execute, with Rubens providing the final touches.

Shortly afterwards, in the autumn of 1620, Van Dyck travelled to London. Little is known about his activities. He must have been (indirectly) in contact with King Charles I, who paid him the considerable sum of £100 on 26 February 1621 «by way of reward for speciall service by him performed for His Mag[es]tie». Although the reason for this payment remains unknown, it demonstrates the respect afforded to the young painter. He returned to Antwerp in March 1621 and, following in Rubens’ footsteps, left for Italy in October (“Italian Period”). It is generally accepted that Van Dyck first visited Genoa, the city where Antwerp artists and dealers such as Lucas and Cornelis de Wael were his hosts. They introduced him to the local aristocratic network, families such as the Balbi, Brignole, Doria and Grimaldi of whom he was going to paint sumptuous portraits inspired by examples Rubens had painted during his Genoese stay c. 1605-1606⁶. Between February and August 1622 he resided in Rome where he painted the extraordinary portraits of Sir Robert Shirley, the English-born ambassador to the shah of Persia, and his Circassian wife, Teresia, Lady Shirley (Petworth House, Sussex). While staying in Italy he made sketches of Italian paintings and antiquities (Italian Sketchbook (British Museum) illustrating that his artistic talent was particularly challenged by Venetian art, in particular Titian. He was in Venice for a couple of months and left in early 1623 to return to Genoa for a short time. From March to October he stayed in Rome to depart again for Genoa where he remained until early 1624 to set off for Palermo where he met the elderly painter Sophonisba Anguissola on 12 July and of whom he sketched a portrait in pen and brown ink, noting on the sheet itself that she advised him «not to raise the light too high, so that the shadows in the wrinkles of old age would not grow too large […]» [ [Anthony van Dyck. MS Italian Sketchbook, 1621–1627, fol. 113r (dated «1624»), pen and brown ink, London: British Museum, acc. no. 1957, 1214.207.110.]. Two days later the relicts of St Rosalia were discovered what made become her a popular saint and intercessor in the time the plague had reached the city. Van Dyck painted several versions of the Saint of which the commission of the large altarpiece of The Madonna of the Rosary for the Oratory of the Compagnia del Rosario (22 August 1625) was the most important and most expensive.

Back in Antwerp between late 1627 and early 1632 (“Second Antwerp Period”), Van Dyck painted poignant religious scenes while continuing to be a highly respected portraitist for wealthy citizens and aristocrats. Proof of the exceptional appreciation of his artistic endeavours came in December 1628, when Archduchess Isabella Clara Eugenia gifted him a golden chain. It is possible that he returned to Antwerp hoping to become the most important history painter while Rubens was absent from the city, staying at the courts in Madrid and London between 1628 and 1630. Van Dyck’s ambition to emulate Rubens, epitomizing the antique concept of the agon, had become part of his artistic identity, although he developed a new style of intimate religious compositions characterised by a high sense of drama, intense expressions, theatrical gestures and a palette reminiscent of Titian. Another possible incentive for Van Dyck to return to the Netherlands may have been the death of his sister, Cornelia, on 18 September 1627. The painter’s will, dated 6 March 1628, reveals that he was close to his sisters and even expressed the wish to be buried in the choir of the Antwerp Beguine Church. His intention to stay in his native city is also proven by the fact that he became a member of the “Sodaliteit der Ongehuwden” (a Jesuit lay confraternity for unmarried men) in May 1628. In 1630, when he painted the Blessed Herman Joseph for the same congregation, Van Dyck was paid the modest sum of 150 guilders (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna). Although it is unclear who made the decision regarding the prize, it cannot be ruled out that his willingness to accept low payment for his monumental altarpieces was related to his devout inclination. The Brussels Council of Aldermen’s accounts from 1628 show that he was going to be paid an impressive 2,400 guilders for their portrait. No trace of the group portrait has been found, but he received the commission again in 1634–1635. Although this portrait was destroyed in 1695 during the bombardment of Brussels by the French army, an oil sketch provides a partial impression of its final appearance.

In 1631/1632, Van Dyck stayed at the court of Frederik Hendrik, Prince of Orange and Stadholder, in The Hague, where he received important commissions for portraits and secular paintings inspired by ancient and modern literature. By Spring 1632, he was already in London, where he would become the leading portrait artist of King Charles I, Queen Maria Henrietta, and their children (“English Period”). On 5 July, he was knighted at St James’s Palace, becoming ‘Principal Painter in Ordinary to Their Majesties’. Shortly after his arrival, the king provided him with a house in Blackfriars, where he set up his studio. On 20 April 1633, the king presented him with a golden chain valued at 110 pounds. He was favoured by the highest-ranking courtiers and the most discerning collectors, who commissioned flamboyant, flattering portraits from him. In these, the subjects appeared in fashionable or timeless tactile robes consisting of cascading silk and velvet, adorned with veils and jewellery. As a portraitist of the aristocracy, he became extremely popular, eventually changing his working practices by delegating tasks. According to Everhard Jabach, a French banker and collector who was one of van Dyck’s sitters (St Petersburg, Hermitage), he started by making a preliminary sketch, which his assistants then enlarged. He only painted his sitters’ faces from life, adding the finishing touches himself. Without exaggeration, it could be said that he shaped the appearance of the Stuart court, playing a pivotal role in defining its cultural and artistic identity. Van Dyck returned to Antwerp in March 1634. In December of the same year, he is said to have lived in a house called ‘t Paradijs (“The Paradise”) in Brussels. In spring 1635, he was in London again. From then on, he mainly worked as a portraitist at the London court, while also trying in vain to restore his reputation as a history painter. In 1640, following the death of Rubens on 30 May, he returned to Antwerp in the hope of receiving important commissions.

In December 1640, he left Antwerp for Paris, expecting to be commissioned to decorate the Grand Galerie du Louvre. However, this commission was later awarded to Nicolas Poussin. After spending time in London, he travelled back to Antwerp with his wife, Mary Ruthven, whom he had married on 27 February 1640. He left for Paris for the second time in autumn 1641. He returned to London due to serious illness and died there on 9 December, eight days after the birth of his daughter, Justina. During the 1630s, he designed a series of at least fifty portraits of contemporary artists, collectors, scholars, royals, politicians, and military men. This series of etched and engraved portraits, which the artist prepared using drawings and oil sketches, was first published posthumously in Antwerp in 1645 and has become known as the “Iconography”. The importance of this work as a repository of formal portraiture cannot be overstated. His ability to capture human expression, talent for flattery, intuitive understanding of psychology, sensitivity to intimate relationships, integration of subtle adornments and accessories, set the standard for portraiture until the present day, as did his brilliant, vibrant style.