if not completely to satisfy him in the galleries of the exhibition. If Prince Liechtenstein had not consented to part with his famous three-quarter length Maria Luisa de Tassis,' the Duc d'Arenberg had sent a very similar, and, in point of characterisation, if not in the degree of fascination exercised, hardly less remarkable portrait, the Anne-Marie de Camudio, femme de Ferdinand de Boisschot.' The rendering is not less sumptuous than finely-for Van Dyck unusually-interpretative of the sitter's true individuality. Then we had the Portrait de Malderus, Evêque d'Anvers' from the Antwerp Gallery, the 'Martin Pepyn' from the same place, the 'Portrait d'Alexandre della Faille' from the State Gallery at Brussels, the 'Portrait du R. P. Jean-Charles della Faille,' and other things, not calling for special enumeration here. The Duke of Grafton's 'Portrait of the Organist Liberti' is one of numerous replicas of the well-known picture in the Alte Pinakothek at Munich, another and a finer repetition being that at the Prado.1 The large full-length of Marie de Médicis (Chevalier Decker), painted in 1631, and identified by a view of the Scheldt and Antwerp in the background, is historically in the highest degree interesting. All the same the imposing canvas has suffered so much that it would not be fair to regard it as a typical example of Van Dyck's second Flemish manner.

Thanks in a great measure to the generosity of the English collectors, the final period of our master's practice, during whichwith one important interval in 1634-35—the English King and the English Court completely engrossed him, was splendidly illustrated in the city which had by England been deprived of his great services. If it has been held with some show of justice that this English period is, in a sense, coincident with the weakest and most uncertain phase of Van Dyck's art, this appreciation or depreciation-can certainly only apply to such portion of the work carried out during that time as the overworked painter, careless of the danger to his future fame, caused to be executed by pupils and assistants. It is wholly unnecessary to repeat here the well-worn description of Van Dyck's expeditious method in the building up of the portraits demanded of him by cavaliers and courtly dames. Too many of the private galleries of England bear witness to the unfortunate results of the process, and to the feeble, nerveless character of the paintings thus produced and inevitably classed as the master's own. The clamorous impatience of fashion has ever been harmful to the painter, whether that painter

'The 'Van Dyck in Youth' and the Organist Liberti,' contributed by the Duke of Grafton to the Antwerp Exhibition are described in Evelyn's Diary, under the 16th of October, 1677, as 'two of Van Dyck's, of which one was his own picture at length when young, in a leaning posture, the other an eunuch singing.' The 'Carondelet with his Secretaries,' by Sebastiano del Piombo, which is still in the same collection as a Raphael, is in the same passage of the Diary described as 'that incomparable piece of Raphael's, being a Minister of State dictating to Guicciardini.'

be Raphael, Rubens, Van Dyck, Reynolds, Lawrence, or Millais. When, however, our master was stimulated by his subject, and did his work himself, he painted with a sovereign skill, with a command of all the resources of his art such as he had not at any previous stage of his practice exhibited. In support of this assertion it is but needful to cite such famous examples as the Lord Philip Wharton' of the Hermitage, the 'Henrietta-Maria' of Longford Castle, the Children of Charles I.' of Turin, the Abbé Scaglia' of Dorchester House, the Beatrice de Cusance' of Windsor Castle, the 'Lords John and Bernard Stuart' of Panshanger, and those two halflengths of Henrietta Maria at Windsor Castle-the full-face and the profile-which were destined for, but apparently never sent to, Bernini.

Apart from all the rest stands the well-known Earl of Arundel with one of his Grandsons,' lent by the Duke of Norfolk. This, the undoubted original of more than one repetition, has never looked as magnificent as it did at the recent exhibition. Though, judging from the age of the personage represented, the portrait owned by the great Lord Arundel's descendant must necessarily be included in the English period, it is like nothing else in it. Here we have not an imitation of Titian, but a crossing of swords with him—an emulation of his finest efforts in the same class. And Van Dyck hardly appears inferior here to his prototype-so dignified and yet so faithful is the characterisation, so superb the glow and transparency of the sombre yet jewel-like colour, so admirable the tenue of the whole. The greatest and most discriminating patron of art of his time deserved to be thus honoured by the painter best fitted to depict him. In quite a different style the often-cited 'Lord Philip Wharton,' from the Hermitage, is a masterpiece of the first order. It is generally from the age of the sitter set down as having been executed in 1632, though the execution might lead us to place it a year or two later. This youthful Apollo, in the habit of an English nobleman, unaffectedly faces the spectator, looking out of the canvas with all the freshness, with all the ingenuousness of his nineteen years. He wears, carelessly thrown over a simply fashioned coat of steel-grey velvet, a mantle of orange-tawny, the very original colour-harmony being completed by the rich dark green of a hanging behind the figure. To parallel such a representation as this of aristocratic youth in its bloom, giving the physical beauty, the delicate sensibility of the young cavalier, with the happy suggestion of true virility beneath, one must turn back to Venetian art in the golden moment of its first prime, and call up the portraits left to the world by Giorgione, by Titian in youth, by Sebastiano Luciani in his Giorgionesque phase. Other works of the same class, but of ampler and more magnificent proportions, are the well-known portrait-group, Lord George Digby, Earl of Bristol, and Lord William Russell, Duke of Bedford,' lent by

Lord Spencer from Althorp; and that similar piece, Lord John and Lord Bernard Stuart,' from Lord Darnley's collection at Cobham, which hardly yields in attractiveness to the different portrait-group of the same charming youths at Panshanger. Appropriately truculent and self-assertive is the full length from Knole, Edward Sackville, fourth Earl of Dorset.' One of the most superb show portraits of Van Dyck's English time-and something more than this-is the full-length of a splendidly costumed young nobleman, sent by Herr Herzog from Vienna, and catalogued as William Villiers, Viscount Grandison.' The execution is all Van Dyck's own, and a close analysis of the colour, as subtle as it is daring and brilliant, would not be without its use. This Viscount Grandison is a very Osric in the elaboration of his clothes, and the naïve delight he takes in them is discreetly and even humourously indicated. To the Van Dyck exhibition of the Grosvenor Gallery (1887) the Duke of Grafton, under the title George, Viscount Grandison,' contributed either this same work or one precisely similar. It must suffice to recall the fact that those celebrated Van Dycks, ' Charles the First in three Positions,' and Three Children of Charles the First,' went from Windsor to Antwerp, there filling important gaps in the display. The not less familiar Thomas Killigrew and Thomas Carew,' bearing the date 1638, is exceptionally important, not only on account of the rare charm of the rendering, but as affording proof, if any such were wanting, of Van Dyck's unimpaired power, of his unabated artistic sensibility, in a subject chosen and worked out by himself. Belonging to the English period, but painted at Antwerp in 1634, is the magnificent full-length 'Abbé César-Alexandre Scaglia,' sent by Captain Holford from Dorchester House, than which a subtler piece of characterisation or a finer picture was not to be found in the exhibition. The Antwerp gallery had sent its own well-known repetition of this piece, presented by Abbé Scaglia himself to the Récollets of Antwerp, and -on the strength of this provenance, as of an elaborate inscription— sometimes, though not by true connoisseurs of Van Dyck's art, put forward as the original. The committee had the fairness and the good sense, notwithstanding the close connection of some of its members with the municipal Museum, to place the two canvases almost side by side, so that the truth might once for all assert itself. In this juxtaposition the Antwerp version showed as a fairly accurate yet pale and colourless copy of the admirable original from Dorchester House, the claims to supremacy of which can never again be questioned, even by those with whom 'local patriotism' asserts itself above connoisseurship.

It is, unfortunately, impossible to discuss on the present occasion the fine collection of drawings which accompanied the paintings, and in some instances served to explain their genesis. These were contributed from the rich cabinet of the King of Italy at Turin, and

from the noted collections of the Duke of Devonshire, M. Léon Bonnat, Mr. Heseltine, Sir Charles Robinson, and others.

Though Sir Anthony Van Dyck died before he had achieved his forty-third year, and died, too, at the zenith of his powers, if not in the fulness of his physical strength, a careful consideration of his life-work in the very representative section of it brought together at Antwerp, serves to confirm the conviction that when he thus prematurely vanished from the world he had said his last word. Had he been relieved from the stress of his life of work, fashion, and sensuous delight in England, had his shattered health been restored, he would no doubt in the future have continued to paint as exquisitely as he did in his best things, to the very end of his wonderful career. But a new and final development, a supreme efflorescence such as the art of Rubens showed during the last fifteen years of his life, was not to be looked for. This had already come with the climax of the English period, and Van Dyck, though he died at an age which with some men-with a Titian, for instance has coincided with the youth of an artistic career, cannot be said to have carried with him to the grave any undeveloped element of his genius or his art.

CLAUDE PHILLIPS.

THE INTELLECTUAL FUTURE OF

CATHOLICISM

I

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM ON ALL FORMS OF

PROTESTANTISM

CONSIDERABLE interest has been excited during the past few months by a discussion which has taken place in this Review and elsewhere, as to the attitude of the Roman Church towards the knowledge of the modern world. Into the details of the arguments put forward I do not propose to enter. It will be enough to call attention to two points only. One is that the non-Catholic writers, though they may look on modern knowledge as reconcilable with some form of Protestantism,1 assume it to be so obviously and so essentially inconsistent with Catholicism that Catholic apologists can meet it only by ignoring or else by trifling with it. The other point is that the Catholic writers themselves appear to regard their Church as in a position of such great, though temporary, difficulty, that it must reserve its defence for some future period, and forbear even to hint at present what the character of their defence will be. I shall endeavour in this article, so far as space will permit, to show that both sides are equally, and both astonishingly, in the wrong.

I shall endeavour to show that if the Christian religion hold its own at all in the face of secular knowledge, it is the Christian religion as embodied in the Church of Rome, and not in any form of Protestantism, that will survive in the intellectual contest. I shall endeavour to show also, that the outlines of the great Apologia which Rome, as the champion of revelation, will offer to the human intellect, instead of being wrapped in mystery, are, for those who

1 By the word 'Protestantism 'I mean all forms of Christianity, from Methodism to the most advanced Sacerdotalism, which protest against the doctrine of the unique and exclusive infallibility of Rome; and this doctrine I mean by the word Catholicism.' High Churchmen, as we know, dislike being called Protestants, but they can neither object to the name, nor repudiate it, when it is thus rigidly defined.