Diplomatic World 67

at the same time his personal style, but Rubens’s influence is
always present. For history paintings, the young prodigy makes
numerous preparatory drawings or bozzetti, but not for portraits.
In these, he used the support as experimental field, often work-
2* A VERNACULAR ANTWERP VOCABULARY
CONCERNING AUTHENTICITY, LATE XVITH- XVIITH
CENTURY
by the artist, but not always unique or totally by his hand 26 . Some
multiple versions by Veronese or Titian can now be considered
as ‘second originals and possibly with the involvement of the
master’. 27 Such multiple original versions containing multiple
Justin Davis describes: ‘… the absence of any compositional
studies, bozzetti, modelli or head studies’ and ‘It is convincingly
argued that Van Dyck’s thorough and often complex preparatory
thoughts and ideas were worked out on paper and on canvas’ in
ing out several versions in parallel 6 . This is rarer in his early his-
Issues of originality and authorship in paintings had become
hands complicate the statute of the ‘principael’; even if they
Van Dyck’s first period 36 . Angel Veregara shares this opinion 37 .
tory paintings, but well documented for the many versions of the
legal concerns for Antwerp dealers, collectors, and artists.
maintain a close affiliation to the master’s perceived authorship 28 .
‘Martyr of Saint Sebastian’, worked out with a different degree
The Flemish poet, writer, and painter Lucas de Heere (Ghent
It illustrates a sense of responsibility and a guarantee of quality in
In Rubens’s studio, where the young Van Dyck was active 1617-
of studio assistance for each.
1534-1584) was a pupil of Frans Floris I 17 . In an ‘Ode’ c. 1559, he
a legal and qualitative sense, but not necessarily the sole involve-
1620, different hands were involved in portraiture, resulting in
coined the neologism ‘kopie’ 18 , derived from the French ‘copie’
ment of the master.
different levels of ‘handelinghe’ on the same painting, as a con-
There is a relative consistency in 12 early reference works 7 on
to indicate Michiel Coxcie’s replica of Hubert and Jan van Eyck’s
temporary, Dr Otto Sperling, observed in 1621 38 .
plain-woven linen, establishing idiosyncratic modus for Van
Altarpiece, commissioned by King Philips II of Spain.
Even if in the contract between Rubens and Maria de Medici
Dijck’s first period 1613-21 8 . They represent a sample of high-
concerning the paintings for two Luxembourg galleries it was
This is the case c. 1617/18 in the two ‘Portraits of Jean Charles
quality works, even taking in account the negligent autograph
The growth of large-scale art production for the open market was
written that Rubens had to execute everything by his own hand,
de Cordes (inv.2618) and of his Wife Jacqueline van Caestre’
parts in their ductus.
boosted by artist workshops relying on pupils and professional
it was understood that he did not work alone, but assisted by his
(inv. 2619), panel each 72,2 x 57 cm, in the Brussels Museum 39 ,
assistants. This shift in artistic practice and the widening conno-
studio in the usual way 29 . Arnout Balis observes that this fact is
now sometimes attributed to ‘Rubens and his Studio and Van
These differ often only slightly from the weakness in ductus,
tations of the terms ‘originaal’ and ‘kopie’ gave way to lawsuits.
accepted in the Rubens and Jordaens literature but silenced in
Dijck’, as Balis and Van der Auwera think, or following Hélène
indicating assistant’s work 9 . Replicas are of such a high quality
October 3, 1575, the city council of Antwerp passed legislation
the recent Van Dyck publications, even if Roose, Bode, Rosen-
Dubois and Nora De Poorter by the young Van Dyck with studio
that they only become identifiable as such by comparison with
proscribing forgeries, sanctioning them with a fine of ‘drie pon-
baum, Oldenburg and Glück did mentioned it before 30 .
assistance 40 . Both panels share a plank of the same tree 41 . Balis’s
the ‘principael’.
den Brabantsch’ 19 .
opinion is that in the man’s portrait, the head is by Rubens and
‘Naer t’leven’, asserting a stance towards a source, is in Antwerp
the wife’s head by Van Dyck, the rest of both painting’s by at
He innovates technically through his direct demonstrative touch,
The Antwerp city magistrate relied on painters from the Guild of
in the first quarter of the seventeenth century not only a claim to
least two different assistants.
leaving parts of the canvas empty and covering or not in part the
saint Luke as experts in the matter. Gabriele Druet, an art dealer,
objectivity but also to the artist’s creative approach to his model,
earlier layer or preparation. In most cases multiple hands were
questioned, in a court case on January 7, 1576, the authentic-
as we observe in Van Dyck’s ‘Portrait of Cornelis de Vos and his
Joost Van der Auwera and Arnout Balis share this opinion and
also involved in these experiments. See therefore the München
ity of a signed ‘FF. IN. et F.A.’ ‘Cain killing Abel’ presumably by
Family’, since painting as an ’Ars liberalis’ implicates imagination
remarked both independently that the quality of execution of the
Alte Pinakothek head studies c. 1618/20 realized by a least 3
Frans Floris 20 . Frans Pourbus I and Frans Francken I, both former
(uyt den gheest) in Van Dyck’s pictorial strategy (handelinghe) 31 .
man’s cloth is higher than that of the woman’s dress. Two bigger
hands 10 .
Floris pupils, gave an eyewitness testimony.
The young van Dyck started, in the present author’s opinion,
size versions of the same sitters in the Lazienski Palace, belong-
in many cases more than one original to be able to experiment
ing to the Warsaw National Museum (panel 105,5 x 76,2 cm, inv.
The most extensive primary source for Van Dyck’s early career
Frans Francken the Elder admitted he was asked and direct-
thoroughly his ‘handelinghe’ in a sequential approach on more
LKr 840), are recently cleaned. The discussion if they could be
is a trial held from 1660 to 1662 11 . Three of Van Dyck’s former
ed by Floris to paint it ‘doen conterfeiten’, which means as a
than one canvas.
accepted as original is still open.
associates gave testimony regarding the authenticity of a set of
faithful replica considered as an original, and that he has seen
apostle portraits that were attributed to Van Dyck. Jan Breughel
the Younger testified that he had visited Van Dyck in his workshop
in the house the Dom van Ceulen (probably early 1618 until
March 16, 1620).
Floris himself involved in painting it 11 years before, when he
resided with Floris. This reveals a nuanced vocabulary relating
to a replica in which the master was involved. Therefore, it was
considered as an ‘origineel’, it originated directly from the mas-
3* VAN DYCK’S EARLY STUDIO PRACTICE
1617-1620
The difficulty of authentication is also illustrated by the changing
attributions of a portrait of Van Dyck in the Antwerp Rubenshuis,
now by most scholars accepted as by Rubens 42 .
ter’s invention without being totally made by his hand. It was not
It was common practice to start more than one version at one
These examples demonstrate that multiple anonymous hands
Justus van Egmont and Herman Servaes (1598/1601-1674/75)
made to deceive 21 .
time 32 , as we observe in both canvasses c. 1623/25: the ‘Allegory
were implicated in the ‘handelinghe’ of an original portrait in
declared that they had worked as Van Dyck’s assistants there at
of Fruitfulness’ (201,1 x 229,5 cm, Wallace collection London,
Rubens’s studio at that time the young Van Dyck had a super-
the beginning of Van Dyck’s career, contributing themselves to
A ‘weerga’ indicates a faithful reiteration of a painting, of an ob-
inv. P 120) and the ‘Allegory of Fertility’ (180 x 241 cm, MFA
vising function there and when he was allowed there a certain
these original Van Dyck paintings 12 . Scholars dispute the exact
ject, or of a person’s physiognomy, as in a portrait ‘naer t’leven’,
Brussels inv. 119) by Jacques Jordaens. Under the Wallace
degree of economic and creative freedom.
dates for the Dom van Ceulen workshop and the extent to which
a ‘nabeeld’ or ‘afbeeld’. This indicates a sequential relationship
collection painting, an earlier complete version of the Brussels
it was an independent studio or merely a flexible outgrowth of
with a model, in nature or in art. It does not implicate a difference
painting was discovered by X-ray examination. The artist re-
Technical analysis of different versions can shed some light in
Rubens’s atelier.
in quality of execution as there is in the production of unnamed
worked many times the ‘principael’ in the Wallace collection
this matter of complicated connoisseurship concerning Rubens,
studio assistants. Floris’s workshop may have had 120 assistants
London 33 , upgrading it over time at the evolution of style, and this
van Dyck and Jordaens, in which my longstanding friend Arnout
Justus van Egmont (1601-1674) 13 was recorded shortly after
over the years, trained to work ‘naer’(after) the master 23 .
over some decades.
Balis was the ‘primus inter pares’.
1618 as an assistant to Van Dyck, as well as to Rubens. He
made also copies retouched by van Dyck. In 1617/18 Van Dyck
The verbal taxonomy was precise. Karel van Mander referred
Therefore, as Van der Auwera writes: ‘The current periodization
accommodated on Rubens’s property.
to van Eyck’s original as ‘de principaele tafel’ and to Coxcie’s
of his oeuvre and the dating of several works need more nuance
copie as ‘dese geconterfeyte tafel 24 ’. The ‘principael’ (primacy)
and adjustment’ 34 . The ’principael’ remained in the studio as an
Rubens names someone ‘il meglio mio discepolo’ 14 , we suppose
represented the first and best artistic expression of a the several
asset to be copied. Other original versions were initiated simul-
he refers to Van Dyck, but this is not certain. He assists Rubens
iterations of a composition by the master in a large hierarchical
taneously, as we see in Jan Breughel the Younger’s workshop
on the Decius Mus tapestry series and on the ceilings of the
workshop. Assistants were often tasked to copy it, sometimes
register 35 . This was also the case in Rubens, Van Dyck and other
Jesuit church 15 . Rubens often directs clients for portraits to Van
with a certain limited degree of creativity, under (or not) the
Antwerp studios.
Dyck and Cornelis de Vos 16 .
supervision of the master 25 . It was generally regarded as painted
110 111