The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools. (Reviews).

Lorne Campbell, The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools.

(National Gallery Catalogues.) London: National Gallery Publications, distributed by Yale University Press, 1998. 96 pls. + 464 pp. $77. ISBN: 1-85709-171-X.

This is a work of such incomparable excellence, awesome erudition, and lavish, exhaustive, intelligent presentation that the best any deservedly awed reviewer can state in limited space to those interested in the field is "Buy it." Simply stated, Campbell's catalogue is worthy of what may the world's greatest collection of early Netherlandish painting, 52 works in number. Most of these pictures are of outstanding importance, all reproduced in color, with many valuable details, some of these in color. All illustrations are extremely well printed. Lorne Campbell's publication is among the very best contributions to studies of Early Netherlandish painting since Erwin Panofsky's magisterial lectures of 1952.

No one has packed quite so much crucial, often novel, lucidly presented information in a single, affordable publication as has Campbell. This magnificent publication is a bargain, subsidized by Anthony Speelman in his father's memory, along with the Getty's Grant Program's assistance. Since the author, now the National Gallery's Research Curator, was Reader in the History of Art at the Courtauld Institue of Art, he brings to his work an unusually broad focus. Once again the National Gallery's incomparable Conservation and Scientific staffs provided research materials which may be superior to any ever before published. The clarity of the infra-red reflectograms (See pp. 319 and 349) and x-rays make most other publications' seem relatively illegible. Moreover Campbell's reading of this material is always rational and helpful, never pushing it too far.

The Introduction (18-35) is the most brilliantly comprehensive discussion of Netherlandish painting in the fifteenth century ever published. With three great van Eycks in the collection, this is where the catalogue's major thrust is found (174223). A monumental section is devoted to the so-called Arnolfini Marriage. This profound discussion amounts to a monograph on to the great painting, making all previous studies obsolete. Since there is little or no underdrawing for any of the most supposedly symbolically charged elements in the double portrait, the author (201) rightly discounts Panofsky's more symbolic interpretation of the piece.

The same monographic qualities are found in Campbell's treatment of works by Campin and his circle (72-103), Memling (354-92), and Rogier van der Weyden (392-449). Similarly teeming with contextual information, most other entries are nonetheless miracles of concision.

This great work is appropriately "In memory of Martin Davies (1908-1975)." That Gothic character was Campbell's predecessor as curator and prepared the distinguished Primitifs flamands catalogues (I, 1955, II, 1954) for the National Gallery, London, including many of the same paintings as would Campbell. Unfortunately the Belgian series' inflexible format made for a tiresomely space consuming, repetitive presentation, avoided by the new publication. Yet fortunately Campbell shares Davies's passion for genealogy and heraldry, even making new discoveries in these somewhat arid areas.

Among the author's major findings are a proposed identification of the Bouts male portrait of 1462 as representing Jan van Winckele (946ff.) Another valuable hypothesis is a proposed bringing together as a single commission Gerard David's panel showing Canon Bernardijn Salviati and Three Saints (London) with the same painter's Berlin Crucifixion (122-133). It is to be hoped that future technical studies will confirm this persuasive proposal. Campbell's complex Justus van Ghent discussion. (267-92) is another most important one, to single out just a few of his studies within this rich, often positively provocative publication.

It is tempting to find Campbell infallible, yet the Male Portrait reproduced on p. 438 (Barnes Foundation) as Netherlandish, circa 1480, seems not to be so. It suggests a pastiche of circa 1900, bringing together Memling (then the most popular Netherlandish painter next to Jan van Eyck) and Rogier van der Weyden. Naturally, for an author of such erudition there is occasionally a tendency toward either the excessively cautious or the excessively sweeping statement. The latter is to be found in Campbell's somewhat cavalier discussion of the alleged frequency of double portraits in early Netherlandish art in his discussion of the "Arnolfini Wedding," which, as he shows, may neither depict the Arnolfini nor a wedding.