.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This striking, unpublished work on an oak support, prepared in Antwerp, has not gained general acceptance as the work of Van Dyck inspite of the close affinities it has with other depictions of the Apostles which Van Dyck undertook as a young artist of genius. It deserves at the least to be closely associated with him being probably executed in his immediate milieu and very possibly retouched or reworked by him.
Consideration of these series of Apostles, of which De Poorter (S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar, H. Vey, Van Dyck. A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven and London, 2004, pp. 68-9), has identified as many as seven sets, mostly incomplete, takes the student to the heart of many of the problems connected with Van Dyck's early career for which there is very little documentation. These revolve round Van Dyck's close relationship with Rubens - in the second decade of the 17th century at the height of his powers - and the degree to which the younger artist worked independently before his premature admission as a master in the Guild of St. Luke early in 1618. Van Dyck's prolific output at this time was due probably to financial pressures caused by his father's difficulties that resulted in the public sale of the family's house in 1620 (K. van der Stighelen, 'Van Dyck's First Antwerp Period Prologue to a Baroque Life Story' in C. Brown and H. Vlieghe et al., exh. cat., Van Dyck 1599-1641, Antwerp and London, 1999, pp. 35-8).
Van Dyck's Apostle series show the young man's style already to be at a distance from Rubens's contemporary robust manner. But the young artist would have been inspired by Rubens's Apostolado Lerma series, copies of which, executed by pupils, were still in his studio in 1618 (De Poorter, p. 69). Rubens depended on an old Netherlandish tradition when he painted his series, of which Van Dyck could also have been mindful. The execution of twelve nearly half-length figures provided a great opportunity for the artist to show off his skill at delineating different physiognomies with as great a realism and concentration as possible. Only one depiction of Christ, with whom each series would have begun, has survived and this was realised in a noble, idealised form inspired by Titian.
For the Apostles, Van Dyck demonstrated his gift as a portraitist by depicting markedly characterful faces of all ages. One, the model for St. Peter in the Hermitage, has been identified as Abraham Grapheus, the gilder, frame maker and dealer, who was then a servant and popular model in the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke. That associates of Van Dyck served as models for the Apostles is corroborated by evidence given in a lawsuit in Antwerp circa, 1660 concerning the authenticity of an Apostle series. Evidence was given by a number of artists who had known Van Dyck at the time. Historians have not always accepted at face value the evidence of these now elderly men, though it is unlikely that they would have lied and the elderly memory is more reliable long than short term. Two artists, Justus van Egmont and Herman Servaes, attested that they had made copies, which were retouched by Van Dyck (De Poorter, p. 67).
The present painting is not a copy of any extant picture of St. John the Evangelist, of whom De Poorter accepts only one as autograph (at Budapest, her no., I.55); this faces in the opposite direction. The pentiments in the thumb of the right hand, in the lips, and perhaps in the fall of hair show that the present painting could never have been a pedestrian copy, although it would have been made as Van Dyck worked on and altered the prototype.
While the composition is not a copy of an extant Van Dyck, the model is the same as that in the Budapest picture, who, as De Porter points out, appears in other paintings by Van Dyck of these years, most notably, because facing left, in the Dresden Drunken Silenus (De Poorter, no. 1.83), where the hair is shorter. It would thus seem clear that this St. John the Evangelist came from the same studio as that operated by the young Van Dyck as he struggled to secure his financial base and to establish his reputation. Its impact may indeed be due to Van Dyck himself having retouched the painting by introducing the highlights in the flesh and chalice.
Connoisseurship has not as yet distinguished between pictures of apostles wholly by Van Dyck and those only retouched by him. No works by Servaes are known, while Van Egmont was officially a pupil of Kaspar van der Hoecke between 1615 and 1618 when he went to Italy. Van Egmont was to make his name later as a portraitist in France; no early work by him is known and thus whether the present painting was one such in whose execution he participated, must remain at best only a matter of speculation.
Jurgen Wadum's research into Antwerp brand marks allows a dating of the St. John the Evangelist from between 1618 (see J. Wadum, 'The Antwerp Brand on Paintings on Panels', in Looking through Paintings. The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, ed. E. Hermens, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek XI. Baarn and London, 1998, p. 185, fig. 7) and the autumn of 1620, when Van Dyck left for London. The date of Van Egmont's departure for Italy in 1618 has not been ascertained, but even so his hypothetical role in the execution of St. John the Evangelist need not be entirely excluded on that account.
Consideration of these series of Apostles, of which De Poorter (S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar, H. Vey, Van Dyck. A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven and London, 2004, pp. 68-9), has identified as many as seven sets, mostly incomplete, takes the student to the heart of many of the problems connected with Van Dyck's early career for which there is very little documentation. These revolve round Van Dyck's close relationship with Rubens - in the second decade of the 17th century at the height of his powers - and the degree to which the younger artist worked independently before his premature admission as a master in the Guild of St. Luke early in 1618. Van Dyck's prolific output at this time was due probably to financial pressures caused by his father's difficulties that resulted in the public sale of the family's house in 1620 (K. van der Stighelen, 'Van Dyck's First Antwerp Period Prologue to a Baroque Life Story' in C. Brown and H. Vlieghe et al., exh. cat., Van Dyck 1599-1641, Antwerp and London, 1999, pp. 35-8).
Van Dyck's Apostle series show the young man's style already to be at a distance from Rubens's contemporary robust manner. But the young artist would have been inspired by Rubens's Apostolado Lerma series, copies of which, executed by pupils, were still in his studio in 1618 (De Poorter, p. 69). Rubens depended on an old Netherlandish tradition when he painted his series, of which Van Dyck could also have been mindful. The execution of twelve nearly half-length figures provided a great opportunity for the artist to show off his skill at delineating different physiognomies with as great a realism and concentration as possible. Only one depiction of Christ, with whom each series would have begun, has survived and this was realised in a noble, idealised form inspired by Titian.
For the Apostles, Van Dyck demonstrated his gift as a portraitist by depicting markedly characterful faces of all ages. One, the model for St. Peter in the Hermitage, has been identified as Abraham Grapheus, the gilder, frame maker and dealer, who was then a servant and popular model in the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke. That associates of Van Dyck served as models for the Apostles is corroborated by evidence given in a lawsuit in Antwerp circa, 1660 concerning the authenticity of an Apostle series. Evidence was given by a number of artists who had known Van Dyck at the time. Historians have not always accepted at face value the evidence of these now elderly men, though it is unlikely that they would have lied and the elderly memory is more reliable long than short term. Two artists, Justus van Egmont and Herman Servaes, attested that they had made copies, which were retouched by Van Dyck (De Poorter, p. 67).
The present painting is not a copy of any extant picture of St. John the Evangelist, of whom De Poorter accepts only one as autograph (at Budapest, her no., I.55); this faces in the opposite direction. The pentiments in the thumb of the right hand, in the lips, and perhaps in the fall of hair show that the present painting could never have been a pedestrian copy, although it would have been made as Van Dyck worked on and altered the prototype.
While the composition is not a copy of an extant Van Dyck, the model is the same as that in the Budapest picture, who, as De Porter points out, appears in other paintings by Van Dyck of these years, most notably, because facing left, in the Dresden Drunken Silenus (De Poorter, no. 1.83), where the hair is shorter. It would thus seem clear that this St. John the Evangelist came from the same studio as that operated by the young Van Dyck as he struggled to secure his financial base and to establish his reputation. Its impact may indeed be due to Van Dyck himself having retouched the painting by introducing the highlights in the flesh and chalice.
Connoisseurship has not as yet distinguished between pictures of apostles wholly by Van Dyck and those only retouched by him. No works by Servaes are known, while Van Egmont was officially a pupil of Kaspar van der Hoecke between 1615 and 1618 when he went to Italy. Van Egmont was to make his name later as a portraitist in France; no early work by him is known and thus whether the present painting was one such in whose execution he participated, must remain at best only a matter of speculation.
Jurgen Wadum's research into Antwerp brand marks allows a dating of the St. John the Evangelist from between 1618 (see J. Wadum, 'The Antwerp Brand on Paintings on Panels', in Looking through Paintings. The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, ed. E. Hermens, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek XI. Baarn and London, 1998, p. 185, fig. 7) and the autumn of 1620, when Van Dyck left for London. The date of Van Egmont's departure for Italy in 1618 has not been ascertained, but even so his hypothetical role in the execution of St. John the Evangelist need not be entirely excluded on that account.