62 VAN D Y C K Antwerp, and both portraits may have been painted there. There is no recorded proof of Van Dyck s return to Ant werp before 6th March 1628. One of his sisters had died in a convent the year before, and he now made a will in favour of Susan and Isabella, two other sisters, also nuns. That Van Dyck was in Antwerp on 18th May is proved by a letter from Lord Carlisle to Buckingham (Sainsbury, CIIL), but it is stated in Bullart s Academic, published in 1682, that he returned again to London in 1629, without, however, attracting the king s attention. It is very likely that Lady Arundel s endeavours to get him back to Eng land were now successful, and that the beautiful portrait of Lord Thomas, at Stafford House, belongs to this period. Great as may have been the strength of Italian re miniscence, from the moment Van Dyck again trod Flemish soil the influence of Rubens became predominant, and we can scarcely doubt that a competition speedily arose be tween master and pupil. At this period churches and convents were numerous and richly endowed ; and the number of pictures, stained glass windows, and elaborate carvings in Belgian churches before the French conquest was enormous. Hardly fifty years had elapsed since these buildings had been stripped of their artistic treasures, and the devout were now eager once more to adorn them with productions of the greatest painters. Hence Van Dyck s share could be very copious without in any degree interfering with the vast undertakings assigned to Rubens. The latter was also absent for many months in 1629 and 1630, so that Van Dyck was for a time the first master in the Netherlands. Among the earliest works after his return to Antwerp we find the Crucifixion, given to the Dominican nuns, in accordance with the wish expressed by the painter s dying father, and now in the Antwerp museum. The figures are life-size, and at the foot of the cross, besides a weeping angel, are St Catherine of Siena and St Dominic. Neither in type nor in general effect does it suggest the master s immediately preceding works. As a new feature we observe a kind of elegance, not entirely free from mannerism, which is often conspicuous with Van Dyck even when the technical excellence com mands our warmest admiration. Inspiration, as Waagen observes, was far more limited with Van Dyck than with Rubens. His truly delicate nature led him to restrain his conceptions within the bounds of an academic evenness, generally more pleasing to the uninitiated than the strength of expression which sometimes imparts a sort of violence to the works of Rubens. To Van Dyck s second more justly speaking third manner belong some of his best religious works. The Crucifixion in the cathedral at Mechlin is termed by Sir Joshua Reynolds one of the finest pictures in the world. Other Crucifixions are in St Michael s at Ghent (sketches in Lord Brownlow s collection and the Brussels museum) and in the church at Termonde. Still finer are the two works painted for the Antwerp Jesuits and now at Vienna, the Blessed Herman Joseph Kneeling before the Virgin and St Rosalia Crowned by the Infant Saviour. To this period likewise belong the cele brated Elevation of the Cross at Courtrai and the St Augustine in Ecstasy, in the church of the Jesuits at Antwerp ; the general effect of this last, it must be ac knowledged with Reynolds, is inferior to the beautiful engraving by De Jode, and also to the earl of North- brook s magnificent sketch. At Dulwich we find the first idea of the composition, with many interesting differences. It may be a matter of individual preference to pronounce Van Dyck s Flemish portraits superior to those of an earlier period ; but nobody can fail to admit that, tech nically speaking, they indicate a further step towards per fection. The darkness of the Genoese portraits has vanished ; broad daylight now freely illuminates the model, and such works as the portraits of Cornelius Van der Geest (National Gallery, London) and Ambrogio Spinola (Rev. W. H. Wayne) are perhaps as close to material ex cellence as any painting could be. The full-length like nesses of Philip Le Roy (1630) and his wife (1631) (at Manchester House) and of Mary Louisa of Tassis (Prince Liechtenstein, Vienna) are not only the finest examples of the master s talent, but deserve to rank among the most beautiful portraits ever painted. The Snyders at Castle Howard is regarded by Waagen as not inferior to the most celebrated Raphaels, Titians, or Holbeins ; and of almost equal excellence are the Wife of Colin de Nole in the Munich gallery, the Lady and her Daughter at the Louvre, and the Lady in Black at Cassel. Rapidly rising to honour and wealth, Van Dyck shared with Rubens the official title of court painter, and his numerous portraits of the Infanta in her monastic garb (Paris, Vienna, Turin, Parma, <tc.) bear testimony to the great favour in which he stood with her. When Mary de Medici, after her flight from France, took up her re sidence in Brussels (1631), she honoured Van Dyck, as well as Rubens, with repeated visits, and several times called upon him to paint her likeness, as well as those of Gaston of Orleans and his wife Margaret of Lorraine, and several of the personages of their court. From Gerbier s letters we learn that Van Dyck at this time was con templating another journey to England, and was very anxious to be commissioned by the infanta and the queen of France to take over their portraits as presents for the king and royal family. He soon travelled to The Hague to paint the prince and princess of Orange and their son. Quite at the beginning of 1632 Constantine Huygens, who was then living at The Hague, inscribes in his diary, " Pingor a Van Dyckio." When, towards the end of March, Van Dyck sailed for England, he took all these portraits with him, as we learn from an account of the 8th of August 1632 (Carpenter s Pictorial Notices). Dutch authors speak of a visit paid by Van Dyck to Frans Hals at Haarlem, and of a portrait of the latter through which the Antwerp master was at once recognized by his Dutch colleague. An engraving of a portrait of Hals after Van Dyck seems to confirm the story. In undertaking this new journey to London, Van Dyck was assured of success, for Gerbier s letters show that the king had personally desired his presence. As early as March 1629 Endymion Porter, one of the gentlemen of the king s bedchamber, had been commissioned to order a picture from Van Dyck, Rinaldo and Armida. The composition is well known through De Balliu s first-rate engraving, and the canvas, now belonging to the duke of Newcastle, may be looked upon as one of the master s finest creations. Rubens was in London at the time the picture arrived, and to him w r e may in a great measure attribute the realization of Van Dyck s plans and the ex ceptional favours bestowed upon him almost from the day of his arrival in London. Besides the title of painter in ordinary, and the grant of an annual pension of 200, he received the honour of knighthood after a residence of less than three months at court (5th July 1632). Van Dyck rapidly achieved popularity among the higher classes, and, as Walpole says, his works are so frequent in England that to most Englishmen it is difficult to avoid thinking of him as their countryman. His refined nature is strikingly illustrated in his ad mirable interpretation of English beauty and style. And, if Van Dyck be compared to My tens and Cornelius Janssen, the most distinguished painters employed by the English court immediately before him, few artists, whether in Eng land or elsewhere, have more richly endowed their models
with distinction of feature and elegance in bearing. To