EASTLAKE’S HISTORY OF OIL-PAINTING 277

of delicate imitation common to the Flemish pictures militated against the acceptance of their method:-

“The specimens of Van Eyck, Hugo van der Goes, Memling, and others, which the Florentines had seen, may have appeared, in the eyes of some severe judges (for example, those who daily studied the frescoes of Masaccio), to indicate a certain connection between oil painting and minuteness, if not always of size, yet of style. The method, by its very finish and the possible completeness of its gradations, must have seemed well calculated to exhibit numerous objects on a small scale. That this was really the impression produced, at a later period, on one who represented the highest style of design, has been lately proved by means of an interesting document, in which the opinions of Michael Angelo on the character of Flemish pictures are recorded by a contemporary artist.”*

23. It was not, we apprehend, the resemblance to nature, but the abstract power of colour, which inflamed with admiration and jealousy the artists of Italy; it was not the delicate touch nor the precise verity of Van Eyck, but the “vivacita de’ colori” (says Vasari) which at the first glance induced Antonello da Messina to “put aside every other

* “Si je dis tant de mal de la peinture flamande, ce n’est pas qu’elle soit entièrement mauvaise, mais elle veut rendre avec perfection tant de choses, dont une seule suffirait par son importance, qu’elle n’en fait aucune d’une manière satisfaisante.” This opinion of M. Angelo’s is preserved by Francisco de Ollanda, quoted by Comte Raczynski, Les Arts en Portugal, Paris, 1846.¹

¹ [The remarkable dialogues on painting composed by Francisco d’Ollanda, a Portuguese miniature-painter who met Michael Angelo in Rome in 1538, are fully translated into English as an appendix to Sir Charles Holroyd’s Michael Angelo Buonarroti, 1903. The passage here referred to from Michael Angelo’s speech is as follows: “The painting of Flanders will generally satisfy any devout person more than the painting of Italy, which will never cause him to drop a single tear, but that of Flanders will cause him to shed many; this is not owing to the vigour and goodness of the painting, but to the goodness of such devout person; women will like it, especially very old ones or very young ones. It will please likewise friars and nuns, and also some noble persons who have no ear for true harmony. They paint in Flanders, only to deceive the external eye, things that gladden you and of which you cannot speak ill, and saints and prophets. Their painting is of stuffs, bricks and mortar, the grass of the fields, the shadows of trees and bridges and rivers, which they call landscapes, and little figures here and there; and all this, although it may appear good to some eyes, is in truth done without reasonableness or art, without symmetry or proportion, without care in selecting or rejecting, and finally, without any substance or verve, and in spite of all this, painting in some other parts is worse than it is in Flanders. Neither do I speak so badly of Flemish painting because it is all bad, but because it tries to do so many things at once (each of which alone would suffice for a great work) so that it does not do anything really well.”]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]