Rubens &
Brueghel
Rubens
Brueghel
Anne T. Woollett
Ariane van Suchtelen
with contributions by
Tiarna Doherty, Mark Leonard,
and j0rgen Wadum
A Working Friendship
The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague
in association with
Waanders Publishers, Zwolle, The Netherlands
Rubens and Brueghel: A Working Friendship has been organized by
the J. Paul Getty M u s e u m and the R o y a l Picture Gallery M a u r i t s h u i s .
T h e e x h i b i t i o n i n T h e H a g u e is sponsored by
ING
T h i s v o l u m e is published to accompany the exhibition Rubens and
Brueghel: A Working Friendship, held at the J. Paul Getty M u s e u m ,
L o s Angeles, and the R o y a l Picture Gallery M a u r i t s h u i s , T h e H a g u e .
T h e e x h i b i t i o n is o n view in L o s Angeles from July 5 to September 24,
2006, and i n T h e H a g u e f r o m O c t o b e r 21, 2006, to January 28, 2007.
© 2006 J. Paul Getty Trust
D u t c h translation © 2006 R o y a l Picture Gallery M a u r i t s h u i s , T h e H a g u e ,
and Waanders Publishers, Z w o l l e , T h e Netherlands
A l l photographs are copyrighted by the issuing institution, unless
otherwise noted.
Getty Publications
1200 Getty Center D r i v e , Suite 500
L o s Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a 90049-1682
www.getty.edu
M a r k Greenberg, Editor in Chief
A n n L u c k e , Managing Editor
C y n t h i a N e w m a n B o h n , Editor
Jeffrey C o h e n , Designer
Suzanne W a t s o n , Production Coordinator
D i a n e W e b b , Translator
Typesetting by D i a n e Franco
C o l o r separations by Professional Graphics, Inc., R o c k f o r d , Illinois
P r i n t e d by Waanders Publishers, Z w o l l e , T h e Netherlands
On the cover and page 214: Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the
Elder, detail o f The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2)
Frontispiece: Peter Paul Rubens, The Family of Jan Brueghel the Elder,
ca. 1612-13. O i l o n panel, 125.1 x 95.2 c m (49V4 x 371/2 in.). L o n d o n ,
T h e Samuel C o u r t a u l d Trust, Courtauld. Institute o f A r t Gallery,
inv. p.1978.PG.362.
Rages iv-v: Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens,
detail o f The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (cat. no. 4)
Rage viii: Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens,
detail of Allegory of'Taste (cat. no. 8)
Rage xiv: Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder,
detail o f The Feast of Achelous (cat. no. 3)
Rage 42: Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the E l d e r ,
detail o f Ran and Syrinx (cat. no. 5)
Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a
Woollett, A n n e T.
Rubens and Brueghel : a w o r k i n g friendship / A n n e T. W o o l l e t t , A r i a n e
van Suchtelen ; w i t h contributions by Tiarna Doherty, M a r k L e o n a r d ,
and Jorgen W a d u m .
p. c m .
"Published to accompany the exhibition 'Rubens and Brueghel:
a w o r k i n g friendship,5
held at the J. Paul Getty M u s e u m , L o s Angeles,
and the R o y a l Picture Gallery M a u r i t s h u i s , T h e H a g u e . T h e exhibition
w i l l be o n v i e w i n L o s Angeles from July 5 to September 24, 2006, and
in T h e H a g u e from O c t o b e r 21, 2006, to January 28, 2 0 0 7 " — T . p . verso.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-89236-847-1 (hardcover)
ISBN-IO: 0-89236-847-0 (hardcover)
ISBN-13: 978-0-89236-848-8 (pbk.)
ISBN-IO: 0-89236-848-9 (pbk.)
1. Rubens, Peter Paul, Sir, 1 5 7 7 - 1 6 4 0 — E x h i b i t i o n s . 2. Brueghel, Jan,
1568-1625—Exhibitions. 3. A r t i s t i c c o l l a b o r a t i o n — B e l g i u m — A n t w e r p —
E x h i b i t i o n s . I. Suchtelen, A r i a n e van. II. Rubens, Peter Paul, Sir,
1577-1640. III. Brueghel, Jan, 1568-1625. IV. J. Paul Getty M u s e u m .
V. M a u r i t s h u i s ( H a g u e , Netherlands). V I . Title. V I I . Title: Rubens
and Brueghel.
ND673.R9A4 2006
759-94 93—dc22
2006003124
T h e authors o f the catalogue entries are identified by their initials:
A r i a n e van Suchtelen (AvS) and A n n e T W o o l l e t t ( A T W ) .
Contents
ix Foreword
M I C H A E L B R A N D A N D F R E D E R I K J . D U P A R C
xi Acknowledgments
xiii Lenders to the Exhibition
i Two Celebrated Painters: The Collaborative Ventures
of Rubens and Brueghel, ca. 1598-1625
A N N E T. W O O L L E T T
43 Catalogue
A R I A N E V A N S U C H T E L E N
A N N E T. W O O L L E T T
44 Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens / CAT. NOS. 1-13
128 Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hans Rottenhammer / CAT. NOS. 14-15
136 Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick de Clerck / CAT. NO. 16
140 Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen / CAT. NOS. 17-21
166 Peter Paul Rubens and Frans Snyders / CAT. NOS. 22-24
186 Jan Brueghel the Elder / CAT. NOS. 25-28
208 Peter Paul Rubens / CAT. NO. 29
215 Brueghel and Rubens at Work:
Technique and the Practice of Collaboration
T I A R N A D O H E R T Y , M A R K L E O N A R D , A N D J 0 R G E N W A D U M
252 Literature
267 Index
273 Photography Credits
274 About the Authors
Foreword
P
E T E R P A U L R U B E N S A N D J A N B R U E G H E L T H E E L D E R
were the two most famous painters in Antwerp at the
beginning of the seventeenth century. A prolific landscape
and still-life painter, Jan "Velvet" Brueghel was the
senior of the two by nine years and renowned for his remarkably
meticulous and jewel-like paintings. Rubens was an
ambitious painter of altarpieces and erudite mythological and
historical subjects in which he recast antique and Renaissance
sources. Both painters served the regents of the Southern
Netherlands, Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella.
More personally, they were also close friends. Together, the
two artists produced beautiful and richly allusive compositions,
uniting their distinctive brushwork and individual
visual modes in highly sought-after paintings. In an era when
it was common for artists to specialize and for more than
one painter to contribute to the execution of a work, the
conceptual partnership of Rubens and Brueghel—which
joined artists of equal status, who were united by friendship
and respect—was rare and redefined the widespread practice
of collaboration.
Rubens and Brueghel: A Working friendship is the first
international loan exhibition devoted to the collaborative
works of Rubens and Brueghel and their working method.
Assembled here are the most important works of their partnership,
from the early war themes, to mythological landscapes
and allegories, to the iconic paintings of the Madonna
and Child in a flower garland. Also included are a select
group of works that Rubens and Brueghel executed together
with other collaborators, notably Hans Rottenhammer,
Hendrick de Clerck, Hendrick van Balen, and Frans Snyders.
They highlight the development of significant compositions
in the distinctive oeuvres of both artists and reveal the
dynamic roles each played in other partnerships. Together,
these paintings provide a rare opportunity to examine
the process by which artists in the Netherlands worked
collaboratively.
The genesis of the exhibition lies in the concurrent interests
of the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Royal Picture
Gallery Mauritshuis. The Getty Museum's purchase in 2000
of a previously unknown painting, The Return from War:
Mars Disarmed by Venus, in which Rubens revised his colleague's
work, coincided with the completion of a thorough
restoration and technical investigation of the Mauritshuis's
renowned Garden of Eden with the Fall ofMan, in which
the order of work between the two artists was quite different.
Subsequent discussions between our institutions centered
on the fundamental questions addressed in this catalogue:
In which studio did their joint compositions originate?
Was their approach consistent throughout the period of their
collaboration? How did they work together on these panels
and for whom were they painted? What emerges is a complex,
reciprocal relationship in which a painting could originate
with either artist, one in which Jan Brueghel, contrary to
conventional belief, was often the generating force.
The exhibition and catalogue likewise represent a fruitful
collaboration between our institutions and among their
respective curatorial, conservation, and scientific departments.
Scott Schaefer, curator of paintings, and Anne Woollett,
associate curator, at the J. Paul Getty Museum, devised the
concept and selected the exhibition together with Peter van
der Ploeg, chief curator, and Ariane van Suchtelen, curator,
of the Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis. Anne Woollett
contributed the essay exploring the artistic partnership of
Rubens and Brueghel and its context and a number of
the catalogue entries, the majority of which were written by
Ariane van Suchtelen. Tiarna Doherty, associate conservator,
ix
and Mark Leonard, head, Department of Paintings Conservation,
at the J. Paul Getty Museum, and Jorgen Wadum,
formerly chief conservator at the Mauritshuis and now chief
conservator at the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen,
are the authors of an essay about both the individual and
joint working methods of Brueghel and Rubens. The production
of the English-language and Dutch-language
catalogues was overseen, respectively, by Anne Woollett and
Ariane van Suchtelen.
We are immensely grateful to the generous lenders who
were willing to send some of the most popular works in
their collections to both institutions. Our debt extends to
the many colleagues who enthusiastically embarked on
the journey of discovery and granted special access for technical
study. Without the remarkable generosity of Miguel
Zugaza Miranda of the Museo Nacional del Prado, one
of the greatest repositories of collaborative works by Rubens
and Brueghel, an exhibition of this scale and importance
would not have been possible. In addition, we are deeply
appreciative of the munificent support of I N G Nederland,
the exclusive sponsor of Rubens and Brueghel: A Working
Friendship in The Hague.
It is with great pleasure that we welcome visitors to
this remarkable exhibition, which celebrates the long-lasting
friendship and artistic partnership of two great artists. We
hope that the breathtakingly beautiful and technically extraordinary
works of Rubens and Brueghel will intrigue and
captivate our viewers, bringing the eloquence of art and
friendship of seventeenth-century Antwerp into the present.
M I C H A E L B R A N D F R E D E R I K J . D U P A R C
Director Director
J. Paul Getty Museum Picture Gallery Mauritshuis
x
Acknowledgments
n
m
s,
??????
H E E X P L O R A T I O N O F T H E R E M A R K A B L E A R T I S T I C
partnership of Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel
the Elder has been our pleasurable pursuit for the last
four years. It is our privilege to thank those who have made
the exhibition and the catalogue possible. In Los Angeles,
we are indebted to Michael Brand, director of the J. Paul
Getty Museum, for his support, and to William Griswold,
former acting director, and Deborah Gribbon, former
director, who were instrumental in supporting the exhibitio
during the early stages of its organization. From the inception
of the project, Frederik J. Duparc, director of the Royal
Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, has been a keen advocate and
made key contributions to its scope. This exhibition would
not have come to fruition without the vision and enthusias
of Scott Schaefer, curator of paintings at the Getty Museum.
We also thank Peter van der Pioeg, chief curator of the
Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, for his tireless efforts on
behalf of Rubens and Brueghel: A Working Friendship.
The very nature of this exhibition, which involved an
alliance of art historical research and technical examination,
has made it a particularly collaborative enterprise between
the curatorial and conservation departments at both institutions.
We thank our colleagues for the generosity with
which they shared their findings. Conservator Mark Leonard
and associate conservator Tiarna Doherty at the Getty, and
Jorgen Wadum, formerly chief conservator at the Mauritshui
now chief conservator, Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen,
have made invaluable contributions to the understanding
of paintings by Rubens and Brueghel and to collaborative
undertakings in general. Tiarna Doherty traveled
to study nearly every painting in the exhibition, as well as
a number of key works that could not be lent, with infrared
reflectography. The initial technical study of paintings was
made possible by a substantial grant from the American
Friends of the Mauritshuis, with the assistance of Otto
Naumann and Sandra Canning.
We also thank Yvonne Szafran, Gene Karraker, and former
associate conservator Elisabeth Mention, in the Department
of Paintings Conservation at the Getty Museum; and
Karen Trentelman, senior scientist, and Anna Schoenemann
and Narayan Khandekar, both former senior scientists,
at the Getty Conservation Institute. In The Hague, we thank
conservator Sabrina Meloni for her help with the technical
investigations. A number of extremely generous colleagues
at other institutions carried out close examinations of
these remarkable paintings and shared their results with us.
We thank, in particular, Alexander Vergara, curator, and
Ana Gonzalez Mozo and Jaime Garcia Maiquez, from the
Gabinete de Documentacion Tecnica of the Museo National
del Prado; Jan Schmidt, Doerner Institute, Munich;
Robert Wenley and Polly Smith, Glasgow Art Museums;
and Wolfgang Savelsberg, Kulturstiftung DessauWorlitz.
Collaboration in Netherlandish painting was a common
practice that took many forms and, due to its complex
nature, awaits a comprehensive investigation. The present
study, while offering a new approach that incorporates
technical information and close firsthand study, is indebted
to the observations and insights of colleagues working on
both the broader genre of collaboration and the joint oeuvre
of Rubens and Brueghel. Both Christine Van Mulders and
Elizabeth Honig shared their insights and material from
prepublication manuscripts. We have acknowledged, where
appropriate, the important contributions of Maryan
Ainsworth, David Freedberg, Susan Merriam, Peter Sutton,
and Dorien Tamis.
xi
The staffs of both our museums have made tremendous
contributions to this project, responding to its unique
challenges with great resourcefulness and good humor. At
the Getty Museum, we thank Quincy Houghton, assistant
director, Amber Keller, senior exhibitions coordinator,
and Paige-Marie Ketner and Sophia Allison, Exhibitions
and Public Programs Department. The coordination of
loan logistics was expertly handled by Sally Hibbard, chief
registrar, and Amy Linker, assistant registrar. For their
forbearance, practical advice, and vital contributions to the
preparation of the exhibition and the catalogue, we thank
the current and former colleagues in our respective departments,
notably Preston Bautista, Virginia Brilliant, Lillian
Hsu, Jean Linn, Mary Morton, Anita Morris, Tanya Paul,
Audrey Sands, Jon Seydl, Carol O'Connor, and Marilyn
Brundson. The exhibition was superbly designed in Los
Angeles by Merritt Price, Patrick Fredrickson, and Davina
Henderson and expertly installed by Bruce Metro and his
adroit team of preparators. Its interpretation benefited from
the insights of Mari-Tere Alvarez and Ben Garcia, Department
of Education. At the Mauritshuis, we especially thank
Frederik van Koetsveld, deputy director, Theo Haarsma,
the coordinator of this exhibition, and Andre Jordaan,
registrar. We would also like to thank Simone Hollen, Karen
de Moor, Pom Verhoeff, Marthe de Vet, and Antia Wiersma
of the Department of Communication, Arjan Rijnsburger,
and Caroline Walta. Henk Douna and Boy van den Hoorn
were responsible for the temporary pavilion on the Hofrijver^
which the Mauritshuis needs for exhibitions of this size.
For a project such as this one, which required wideranging
resources, from artistic treatises to scientific encyclopedias
revealing the origins of the Cavia porcellus, we have
relied on the outstanding resources of the Getty Research
Institute, where we acknowledge the assistance of Jay Gam,
Ross Garcia, Aimee Lind, Joyce Ludmer, Louis Marchesano,
and Tracey Schuster, as well as the staff of the Rijksbureau
voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie.
We are grateful to Mark Greenberg, editor in chief,
Getty Publications, for the realization of this book, and thank
Cynthia Newman Bohn for her fortitude and care as the
editor of the manuscript. Patrick Pardo was indispensable in
managing the earliest stages of the project and the didactic
texts for the installation. Karen Schmidt, production manager,
and Suzanne Watson, senior production coordinator, skillfully
and meticulously oversaw the production of the catalogue.
In addition, we thank other colleagues in Publications who
provided significant support and encouragement throughout
the process: Cecily Gardner, Anne Chamberlain,
Kara Kirk, Ann Lucke, and Deenie Yudell. Jeffrey Cohen is
responsible for the splendid design of the catalogue, which
captures the spirit of the artistic partnership it explores.
Diane Webb ably translated the Dutch text into English, and
Dorine Duyster skillfully translated the English text into
Dutch. Waanders Publishers in Zwolle printed the catalogue,
and we thank Marloes Waanders in particular for guiding
its production.
We received help and advice from many individuals,
in addition to those already named. We would like to express
particular appreciation to Denise Allen, Claude d'Anthenaise,
Gerd Bartoschek, Reinhold Baumstark, David Bomford,
Antonia Bostrom, Charissa Bremer-David, Lome Campbell,
Mark Carlisle, Marcus Dekiert, Lloyd De Witt, Hartmut
Dorgerloh, Burton Fredericksen, Carmen Garrido, Burckhardt
Gores, Anne d'Harnoncourt, Lee Hendrix, Nico Van Hout,
Dirk Imhoff, David Jaffe, Patricia Jaspers, Arianne Faber
Kolb, Anne-Marie Logan, Hans-Martin Kaulbach, Thomas
Kren, Walter Liedtke, Andrea De Marchi, Harald Marx,
Elizabeth McGrath, Philippe de Montebello, Elizabeth
Morrison, Uta Neidhardt, Lynn Orr, Michiel Plomp, MarieChristine
Prestat, Wolfgang Prohaska, Konrad Renger,
Catherine Reynolds, Joseph Rishel, Martin Roth, Ashok
Roy, Gregory Rubinstein, Axel Riiger, Wolfgang Savelsberg,
Stephanie Schrader, Karl Schiitz, Wilfried Seipel, the late
Hubert von Sonnenburg, Renate Trnek, Mark Tucker, Ernst
Veen, Gregor Weber, Thomas Weiss, Barbara Welzel, and
Bettina Werche.
Finally, our greatest debt is to the lending institutions
(listed on the following page) and to the anonymous private
collector, who were willing to part for a time with some of
the most absorbing and delightful works in their collections.
A N N E T. W O O L L E T T A R I A N E V A N S U C H T E L E N
xii
Lenders to the Exhibition
Akademie der Bildenden Kiinste, Vienna
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, M u n i c h
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Staatsgalerie, Neuburg an der Donau
Galleria Doria Pamphilj, Rome
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles
Kulturstiftung DessauWorlitz, Dessau
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemaldegalerie, Vienna
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, N e w York
Musee de la Chasse et de la Nature, Paris
Museo Nacional del Prado, M a d r i d
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Private Collection
Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague
Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden
Staatliche Museen, Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, Kassel
Stiftung Preufiische Schlofier und Garten Berlin-Brandenburg,
Schlofi Sanssouci Bildergalerie, Potsdam
xiii
Two Celebrated
Painters
The Collaborative Ventures of
Rubens and Brueghel, ca. 1598-1625
A N N E T. W O O L L E T T
1
DD U R I N G F I R S T T W O D E C A D E S O F T H E S E V E N T E E N T H C E N T U R Y , J A N B R U E G H E L
the Elder' ; A 8-1625) and Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) were the most eminent
painters/' :..Ai twerp, a splendid but economically diminished metropolis w h i c h remained
taK^stic stic center. They represented the two major artistic traditions i n the city:
Q ^ n t V s exel's< exceptionally meticulous and graphic brushwork deftly described multitudes
o f people seen from a high vantage and the details o f the natural w o r l d , while Rubens
captured emotion and corporeal energy w i t h vigorous brushwork i n large-scale history
paintings. B o t h had the honor and distinction o f serving as court painters to the governors
o f the Southern Netherlands, Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella Clara
Eugenia, and both artists oversaw productive workshops, although little is k n o w n o f
Brueghel's studio arrangements, while Rubens's enterprise operated o n a grand and elaborate
scale.1
Their status and reputation was vividly described by an observant y o u n g
nobleman, D u k e Johann Ernst o f Saxony, w h o visited A n t w e r p i n early 1614. H e noted
in the account o f his travels, under the heading "Peter Paul Rybent [Rubens] and
Brugel two celebrated painters" that he and his companions " t h e n . . . saw w i t h the t w o
admirable painters Peter Paul Rybent and Brugel many splendid paintings and works o f
art. Rybent mostly paints large pieces and everything naturally great, very artistic and
after life. H e can make 1 0 0 gulden a week, excellent pieces by h i m he can sell for 2, 3, 4 ,
and 5 0 0 rijksgulden. Brugel paints small panels and landscapes, but all very subtle
and artistic, that one regards them w i t h wonder."2
A l t h o u g h he doesn't mention meeting
the artists, it is tantalizing to think Johann Ernst may have encountered Brueghel i n
Rubens's studio (or Rubens i n Brueghel's studio) during his visit.
Antwerp's leading painters were also frequent collaborators, executing approximately
t w o dozen works together over the course o f twenty-five years, from about 1598
to 1625.3
Their partnership began w i t h a war theme, The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1),
but other subjects that resulted from their w o r k i n g relationship are more famous,
including depictions o f the M a d o n n a and C h i l d i n a flower garland (fig. 1), mythological
themes, and the allegorical series devoted to the Five Senses. A number o f their joint
works, such as The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (cat. no. 4 ) and the Five Senses
series (cat. no. 8), were celebrated by their contemporaries, while the existence o f The
2 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 1
Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) and
Jan Brueghel the E l d e r (1568-1625),
Madonna in a Flower Garland,
ca. 1616-18. O i l o n panel,
185 x 209.8 c m (72% x 825
/s in.).
M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, in v. 331
Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2) was unknown to scholars until
it was acquired by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 2000. Rubens and Brueghel: A Working
Friendship brings together for the first time many of the most important collaborations
with the goal of considering the artists' unique artistic partnership and working
methods. Also included is a small selection of collaborative works that Brueghel and
Rubens undertook with significant contemporaries such as Hans Rottenhammer
(1564/65-1625), Hendrick de Clerck (i57o?-i63o), Hendrick van Balen (1574/75-1632),
and Frans Snyders (1579-1657).
Collaboration, the process by which two or more artists work together to produce
a single work of art, is virtually synonymous with painting in the Low Countries in
the years before 1700. The tradition of painters specializing in particular genres—figures,
still life (game, fruit, vegetables), landscape, to name but a few—and contributing a
share to a painting, was already quite well established by the time Rubens and Brueghel
began their artistic partnership with The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1) in about 1598.4
Frequently, the principal artist would plan the composition, executing the most important
areas himself, and engage the services of a second painter for the figures or details.
Collaboration of this sort offered a highly practical approach to producing paintings
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 3
quickly for the open market. This practice was so common, and had so many different
modes, that there was no middle-Dutch word for what today falls under the general
umbrella of "collaboration." Extraordinarily, artists of equal stature contributed to
the genesis of a composition and shared in its execution. In such conceptual collaborations,
individual contributions were integrated yet distinct and, as in the joint works
of Rubens and Brueghel, accorded equal visual value.
In examining the process of collaboration between Rubens and Brueghel, we are
considering joint authorship of the rarest sort, not only between artists of equal status,
but between painters with established styles who specialized in particular areas—figures
and erudite history scenes in the case of Rubens and atmospheric settings, including
landscapes and still life, in the case of Brueghel. Their joint works were, it seems, the
result of mutual desire. Brueghel and Rubens's fond friendship stands out among the
leading painters of Europe and within the city's close-knit artistic community. The two men
were dear friends who assisted each other outside the studio. Rubens famously penned
letters in Italian to his friend's leading patron in Milan, Cardinal Federico Borromeo,
and Brueghel affectionately referred to Rubens as "my secretary Rubens" (mio secretario
Rubens) in communications with the same patron.5
Brueghel and Rubens shared a formidable
creative energy, and their artistic alliance was an intellectual exchange in which
the concept for a composition could originate with either painter. It was also a responsive
alliance, in which the artists adjusted existing work by the partner. Sometimes these
changes were substantial, as in The Return from War, in others, more nuanced, as in the
Madonna and Child in a Garland of Fruit and Flowers (cat. no. 12). However, the individuality
of their respective styles was maintained in their joint works, which amounted to
an amiably competitive arena in which they carried out visual jousting. The evident
delight and wit that pervade many of their paintings underscore the extraordinary
status of their collaborations, which doubtless were perceived as exclusive commodities,
not least by the astute Rubens and Brueghel. The extraordinary artistic products that
resulted from their collaboration were sought after by collectors throughout Europe.
While it has often been assumed that Rubens played the dominant role in all his
partnerships, it is clear from the works assembled here that Brueghel played the largest
part in developing and executing their joint works, particularly during the second
half of the 1610s when their working method had become more streamlined and included
Rubens's workshop. A highly productive artist, Brueghel devised innovative compositions
and reused them with great effect. His detailed and impressive settings are often
related to earlier, sixteenth-century types and to the allegorical language of the preceding
century; In this respect, his contribution to the partnership was as rich and as important
as that of Rubens, whose pictorial language derived from antiquity and Renaissance
Italy as well as northern predecessors.
Rubens and Brueghel's oeuvre reflects the taste and values of the court of
Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella (figs. 2 and 3), joint rulers of the Southern
Netherlands from 1599,6
who sought to convey the continuity of their reign with earlier
Burgundian and Habsburg rulers. Following the religious strife of the late sixteenth
century, during which the Protestant Northern provinces broke away from Spanish
Habsburg rule to form the independent United Provinces, and Antwerp surrendered to
4 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 2
Frans Francken the Y o u n g e r
(1581-1642) and w o r k s h o p , w i t h
Jan Brueghel the Y o u n g e r
(1601-1678), The Archduke Albert
and the Archduchess Isabella
in a Collector's Cabinet, ca. 1626.
O i l o n panel, 94 x 123.3 c m
(37 x 48 V2 in.). B a l t i m o r e , T h e
Walters A r t M u s e u m , inv. 37.2010
F I G U R E 3
O t t o van V e e n (ca. 1556-1629),
Portrait of Albert and Isabella
Clara Eugenia, 1615. O i l o n panel,
160 x 81 c m (63 x 31^8 in.).
Gloucestershire, E n g l a n d ,
T h e E a r l o f Wemyss and
M a r c h K . T .
the forces of Philip II in 1585 to become a Catholic bastion of the Habsburg Southern
Netherlands, Albert and Isabella were seen to bring stability to the region, which
roughly corresponds to modern-day Belgium. They continued to try to subdue the
Dutch rebels through military force, until the signing of the Twelve Years' Truce in 1609,
which effectively recognized the independence of the Northern provinces.7
Deeply pious,
they strove to promote the ideals of the revitalized Catholic Church. The partnership
of Rubens and Brueghel thus spanned the first phase of the archdukes' reign, which
ended with Albert's death in 1621, at which time Isabella was appointed governess
general. The archdukes' dual leadership, which represented the goals of piety and regality,
thus was reflected in joint artistic expression of their two favorite painters. While
mindful of themes traditionally favored in courtly circles, such as the hunt, the two
artists also devised new iconography and genres that captured the devoutness and splendor
of the archducal court.
T H E L I V E S A N D C A R E E R S O F B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
At the time of Brueghel and Rubens's earliest collaboration in the late 1590s, Jan
Brueghel (fig. 4) was the older and more established of the pair, and a seasoned collaborator.
Born in Brussels in 1568, he was the second son of Pieter Bruegel the Elder
(ca. 1525/30-1569).8
Jan's older brother, Pieter Brueghel the Younger (1564/65-1637/38),
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 5
F I G U R E 4
A n t h o n y van D y c k (1599-1641),
Portrait of Jan Brueghel the Elder,
ca. 1630. E t c h i n g , first state,
249 x 158 m m (9V4 x 6 V 4 in.).
L o n d o n , B r i t i s h M u s e u m ,
D e p a r t m e n t o f Prints and
D r a w i n g s , inv. 1 8 4 9 - 2 - 1 0 - 2 2 8
©Trustees o f the B r i t i s h M u s e u m
enjoyed a successful career painting versions o f the highly popular peasant subjects o f his
father.9
Jan, according to the painter and biographer Karel van M a n d e r ( 1 5 4 8 - 1 6 0 6 ) ,
first learned to paint i n watercolor from his maternal grandmother, M a y e k e n Verhulst
Bessemers, a miniaturist, and later trained as an o i l painter w i t h the landscape specialist
Pieter G o e t k i n t (d. 1583).1 0
L i k e his father, Jan traveled to Italy i n 1589, a trip w h i c h was by this time almost
obligatory for ambitious N o r t h e r n artists; he stopped first i n C o l o g n e and probably also
i n V e n i c e . 1 1
T h e few drawings that document his stay i n Naples after June 1590 reveal
his interest i n landscape vistas and monumental architecture.1 2
W h i l e i n R o m e (1592-94),
Brueghel befriended Paul B r i l (ca. 1554-1626), an A n t w e r p landscape specialist w h o ,
along w i t h his brother Matthijs (1550-1583), painted atmospheric landscapes for many
R o m a n interiors, often i n fresco, and contributed to the taste among collectors for this
especially N o r t h e r n genre.1 3
Bril's o w n style was strongly influenced by the dramatic
landscape forms o f Joachim Patinir (ca. 1 4 8 0 - 1 5 2 4 ) (see, for example, fig. 21) and the
forest landscapes o f Pieter Bruegel the Elder. D u r i n g the mid-i590S, Bril's lively drawings
and his small-scale, delicately painted landscapes had a decisive impact o n B r u e g h e l . 1 4
Brueghel continued to develop his o w n repertoire o f inventive, minutely rendered subjects
traditionally associated w i t h the N o r t h , some characterized by flickering nocturnal
effects and grotesque monsters (fig. 5) reminiscent o f H i e r o n y m u s B o s c h (ca. 1450-1516).
T o w a r d the end o f his R o m a n stay, he developed an early f o r m o f the paradise landscape
(see fig. 75), perhaps as a result o f his encounters w i t h Venetian landscapes and the
R o m a n works o f Jacopo Z u c c h i (ca. 1 5 4 0 - 1 5 9 6 ) . 1 5
Paul BriPs works were avidly collected, and his contacts w i t h leading cognoscenti
and the Accademia d i San L u c a helped to bring Brueghel to the attention o f patrons.
While i n R o m e , Brueghel enjoyed the protection o f Cardinal Ascanio C o l o n n a , w h o
also employed Rubens's older brother P h i l i p . 1 6
I n about 1593, he met the Post-Tridentine
reformer Cardinal Federico B o r r o m e o , a discerning and enthusiastic collector, w h o
became a lifelong friend and patron. Their spirited correspondence provides insight into
Brueghel's w o r k i n g methods and the cardinal's affinity for the artist's style. Brueghel
resided w i t h B o r r o m e o i n the Palazzo Vercelli, and w h e n B o r r o m e o became archbishop
o f M i l a n i n June 1595, Brueghel received a place i n his h o u s e h o l d . 1 7
D u r i n g his R o m a n
stay, Brueghel also became acquainted w i t h a G e r m a n painter o f small-scale refined
nudes, H a n s Rottenhammer. I n a letter to the cardinal, Brueghel praised Rottenhammer,
saying "nothing i n H o l l a n d and Flanders is as beautiful as the w o r k o f a certain G e r m a n
i n Italy, and I beg y o u to h o l d his works i n high, h i g h esteem."1 8
Borromeo's collection
included a series o f small landscapes, individually executed by Brueghel and B r i l and
displayed together, as well as collaborative works by Brueghel and Rottenhammer.1 9
T h e well-matched techniques o f Brueghel and Rottenhammer (see cat. nos. 14 and 15)
attest to a convivial w o r k i n g relationship.
I n addition to the exchange o f ideas among N o r t h e r n painters i n R o m e for the
imagined scenery o f forest landscapes to w h i c h he was an important contributor,
Brueghel was absorbed i n rendering the i m p o s i n g remains o f antiquity i n and around
the city. I n contrast to the documentary approach taken by other N o r t h e r n artists in
their sketchbooks, Brueghel captured the monumental remains o f the classical past i n
6 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 5
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Orpheus
Singing before Pluto and Proserpina,
1594. O i l o n copper, 27 x 36 c m
(io5
/8 x 141/8 in.). Florence,
Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina,
inv. 1298
delicately hued watercolor drawings. A number of drawings of rocky hills and cascades
attest to Brueghel's visit to Tivoli.2 0
The rugged landscape and soaring vaults of the
Baths of Diocletian or the Cluvius Scauri (fig. 6), and particularly the interior of the
Colosseum (fig. 7), reveal his response to the dramatic effect of the vaulted interiors.
These arched forms were important not only for his later architectural interiors but for
his development of landscape forms that suggest corridors. Brueghel explored the
intricacies of the play of light and deep shade over the broken forms of the Colosseum,
placing the viewer in the shadow, silhouetting the rough edges of the wall against the
bright sunlight through the far arch, the massiveness of the structure emphasized by the
small figure at the right.2 1
He was particularly fascinated by the dynamic visual "pull" of
the receding arched corridor, and he reused this theatrical feature in allegorical scenes
after his return to Antwerp (see cat. nos. 17 and 18).
Brueghel was not: alone in his fascination for these crumbling forms, and he was
receptive to the fantastic renderings of landscapes animated by ruins and ruinous interiors
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 7
F I G U R E 6
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The Baths
of Diocletian or the Cluvius Scauri,
1594. Pen and b r o w n wash,
26.2 x 20.4 c m (io3
/8 x 8 in.).
Paris, F o n d a t i o n C u s t o d i a ,
C o l l e c t i o n R L u g t , Institut
Neerlandais, inv. 7879
F I G U R E 7
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, View of the
Interior of the Colosseum, ca. 1595.
Pen and b r o w n wash, 26.2 x 21 c m
( i o 3
/ 8 x 8V4 in.). B e r l i n , Staatliche
M u s e e n , Kupferstichkabinett,
S a m m l u n g e n der Z e i c h n u n g e n u n d
D r u c k g r a p h i k , inv. K D Z 26327
by contemporaries, such as Lodewijk Toeput (ca. 1550-ca. 1605), whose Interior of the
Colosseum (fig. 8) is remarkable for its damp atmosphere. Brueghel's friendship w i t h
the latter, w h o m he may have met i n Treviso before arriving i n R o m e , is documented by
an inscription o n the back o f a drawing by Toeput.2 2
I n one o f the first o f his works
acquired by Federico B o r r o m e o , Brueghel infused the landscape o f arched ruins, one
o f a six-part series o f contemplative monks (fig. 9 ) , w i t h greater intricacy and m o n u m e n tality
than the print that served as its source.2 3
The arched interiors used to such effect
in later works (see cat. nos. 2 , 17, and 18), however, have a c o m m o n source i n the elaborate
Forge of Vulcan by Paolo F i a m m i n g o (1540-1596), a Flemish artist active i n Venice
(see fig. 78). M a n y o f these motifs, particularly the vaulted corridor, fueled the imaginative
settings o f later allegorical subjects.
8 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 8
L o d e w i j k Toeput (ca. 1550ca.
1605), The Interior of the
Colosseum, 15 81. Pen and b r o w n ink,
b r o w n and olive wash, 34.7 x
25.5 c m (135
/8 x 10 in.). V i e n n a ,
Graphische S a m m l u n g A l b e r t i n a ,
inv. 24650
F I G U R E 9
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Landscape
with Ruins and a Hermit, 1596.
O i l o n copper, 26 x 36.5 c m
(10 V4 x 14V8 in.). M i l a n ,
Pinacoteca A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 75
Brueghel spent only a year i n M i l a n before returning to the Netherlands, where
he settled i n A n t w e r p by October 1596.2 4
The following year, at age twenty-nine, he
joined the G u i l d o f Saint Luke as a "master's son" (his father had entered the guild i n
1551) and later served as co-dean and dean i n 1601 and 1 6 0 2 . 2 5
In 1599 he was accepted
into the elite confraternity o f Romanists (Confratrum Collegij R o m a n o r u m apud
Antuerpienses), whose members had visited R o m e and paid homage at the tombs o f the
apostles Peter and P a u l . 2 6
In the late sixteenth century, few artists were members o f the
Romanists, but Brueghel joined two other leading artists w i t h ties to the ruling archducal
court, Wenceslas Cobergher (ca. 1560-1632) and Rubens's teacher, O t t o van Veen
(ca. 1556-1629). The last years o f the century were busy ones for V a n Veen, w h o had
been court painter to the former governor o f the Netherlands Alessandro Farnese, as
well as to Archduke Ernst, and was responsible for designing the triumphal arches for
the entry o f the archdukes Albert and Isabella into A n t w e r p i n 1599 following their acces
sion as sovereign rulers o f the Netherlands. Brueghel probably first became acquainted
w i t h Rubens through the G u i l d o f Saint L u k e or possibly during preparation for the tri­
­umphal
entries.2 7 Their earliest k n o w n j o i n t work, The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1)
was executed shortly after Rubens became a master himself in 1598 and before his departure
for Italy i n M a y 1600. A l t h o u g h Brueghel and Rubens adhered to a conventional
division o f labor between landscape and figures, the unusual subject o f The Battle of the
Amazons hints at the ambition and scale o f their future collaborations. Prior to that
project, Brueghel had begun to fashion the meticulous multifigure scenes (for example,
cat. no. 25) for w h i c h he was celebrated. V a n M a n d e r refers to the "small landscapes
and tiny figures i n w h i c h he has an excellently fine manner o f working."2 8
H o w e v e r , the
collaboration w i t h Rubens on a monumental history subject may have spurred Brueghel
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 9
F I G U R E 1 0
Jan Brueghel the Elder, The
Continence ofScipio, 1600.
O i l o n copper, 72.2 x 106.5 c m
(28V8 x 4 1 % in.). M u n i c h , A l t e
Pinakothek, inv. 827
to paint similar themes, such as The Continence ofScipio (fig. 10) with its episodic action,
and to invest his birdVeye-view landscapes with new grandeur. Intriguingly, a later
inventory refers to a painting of Mount Parnassus, specified as a collaboration between
Van Veen, Brueghel, and Rubens, now lost.2 9
Over the course of the first decade of the seventeenth century, Brueghel established
himself as one of the leading painters in the Southern Netherlands. O n January 23,
1599, he married Isabella de Jode, the daughter of the engraver Gerard de Jode, and in
1601 their first child, Jan, was born. Following Isabella's death in 1603, possibly during
the birth of their daughter Paschasia, Brueghel married Catharina van Marienberghe,
with whom he had eight children.3 0
In 1604 Brueghel purchased a large house with
a garden, the "Meerminne" (The Mermaid), no. 107 Lange Nieuwstraat (fig. n), which
must reflect not only his status but also his high level of productivity in these years.3 1
Known as "Velvet Brueghel" for his delicate touch, Jan specialized in still-life and landscape
subjects of remarkably refined execution. His most frequent collaborator in these
years was Hendrick van Balen. Like Brueghel, Van Balen had made the journey to Rome
(1595-1600) and joined the Antwerp Guild of Romanists in 1605.3 2
While Van Balen
10 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 11
Joris H o e f n a g e l (1542i6ox),
Antverpia (bird's-eye
perspective o f A n t w e r p ,
seen from the east), detail.
F r o m G . B r a u n and
F. H o g e n b e r g , Theatrum
Urbium et Civitatum Or bis
Terrarum, v o l . v ( A n t w e r p ,
ca. 1598). A n t w e r p ,
Stedelijk Prentenkabinet
In early seventeenth-century
A n t w e r p , many artists'
residences and studios, particularly
those o f Rubens
and Brueghel, were located
in close p r o x i m i t y to one
another.
J A N B R U E G H E L T H E E L D E R
1 107 L a n g e Nieuwstraat, " D e M e e r m i n n e " (The M e r maid),
a large house w i t h a garden, from D e c e m b e r
1604
2 17 Arenbergstraat, " D e n B o c k " (The Billy G o a t ) ,
a substantial property (formerly t w o houses) w i t h
a garden near the luxury art market (tapissierspand),
purchased M a r c h 1619; one o f several properties
o w n e d by the artist
P E T E R P A U L R U B E N S
3 37 Kloosterstraat. Rubens and his wife reside w i t h
his father-in-law, Jan Brant, ca. 1609-1611
4 I n 1610, Rubens purchased and rebuilt a large house
w i t h a garden o n the W a p p e r (off the M e i r , Antwerp's
most important thoroughfare), and added a t w o story
studio w i t h a sumptuously decorated exterior;
occupied ca. 1617
H E N D R I C K V A N B A L E N
96 Lange Nieuwstraat, a house w i t h a garden;
purchased D e c e m b e r 1604
78 Lange Nieuwstraat, " D e W i l d e m a n " (The W i l d
M a n ) , large house w i t h a gallery, purchased July 1622
F R A N S S N Y D E R S
17 K o r t e Gasthuisstraat (rented house), O c t o b e r
1611-1620
8 Keizerstraat, " D e F o r t u y n e " (Fortune), a large house
w i t h a courtyard o n one o f the city's most exclusive
streets, purchased D e c e m b e r 1620
5
6
7
8
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 11
F I G U R E 12
H e n d r i c k van B a l e n (1574/75-1632)
and A b e l G r i m m e r (ca. 1570-
1618/19), View of Antwerp, 1600.
O i l o n panel, 37 x 4 4 c m
(14V2 x 17 Vs in.). A n t w e r p ,
K o n i n k l i j k M u s e u m v o o r Schone
K u n s t e n , inv. 817
executed monumental altarpieces at the outset of his career and collaborated with
other artists, such as Abel Grimmer (1570-1618/19) (fig. 12), his joint compositions with
Brueghel were small-scale works, usually painted on panel or copper supports that
enhanced their jewel-like qualities. Brueghel's precise brushwork complements
Van Balen's similarly refined technique, while Brueghel's descriptive landscape settings
and sumptuous still-life objects serve to offset Van Balen's smooth figures (see cat.
nos. 17-21).
Brueghel painted some of his most innovative and, indeed, most labor-intensive
works for his patron in Milan, Cardinal Borromeo. Over his lifetime, Borromeo
assembled a large collection of Flemish landscapes and Italian paintings (in 1621, he
owned twenty-one works by Jan Brueghel). The Allegory of Fire (see fig. 76), for
example, was the first of a series of the four elements Brueghel painted for the cardinal
between 1606 and 1621. Brueghel's extensive correspondence with Borromeo and his
agent, Ercole Bianchi, reveal much about his working process and particularly about
the relationship between cleric and painter.3 3
It was for this devoted and rigorous patron
that Brueghel developed some of his most extraordinary and influential images. The
Madonna and Child in a Flower Garland (see fig. 82) is the most remarkable example of
his invention and the truly collaborative relationship that existed between Brueghel
and Borromeo. Brueghel reformulated a traditional devotional element, the garland of
flowers with which holy images were honored, according to the instructions of his
patron and rendered it as a trompe l'oeil masterpiece that appears to be suspended from
a nail on the wall. The Virgin and Child were painted by Van Balen on a separate silver
insert; both the Madonna and Child and the honorific garland were concealed by a
gold cover that served to enhance the image's devotional nature.3 4
The garland painting
was sent in 1607 to Borromeo, who returned it the following year, asking Brueghel
12 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
to add a landscape around the Virgin and Child. Brueghel added the verdant woody
background as well as deer to Van Balen's image and sent it to Milan, where it was
received with rapture. It was Brueghel's practice to send a painting to the cardinal for his
approval, and on more than one occasion the cardinal asked Brueghel to make specific
changes.3 5
The longevity of Brueghel's relationship with Borromeo not only illustrates
his considerable skill as a collaborator but also his effortless ability to fruitfully confer
with such a powerful personality, making his relationship with Rubens all the easier
to comprehend.
For Borromeo, the natural world was evidence of God's presence, and he prized
Brueghel's skillful portrayal of that world, particularly his technical ability to render
all aspects of nature with tremendous specificity. As Borromeo noted in his 1625 treatise
on the Ambrosian collection, Musaeum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae: "He [Brueghel] was
wonderful in his field and knew how to give to those tiny figures so much nobility and
so much life that they leave the onlooker uncertain as to the dimensions of the things
which are painted. It also appears that he even wished with his brush to travel over
all of nature, because he painted, as we shall later demonstrate, seas, mountains, grottos,
subterranean caves, and all these things, which are separated by immense distances,
he confined to a small space, imitating nature itself not only in color, but also in talent,
which is the highest quality of nature and of art. A n d if to someone this praise seems
exaggerated, let him know that one day the fame of this man will be so great that this
praise which I gave him will seem meager."36
Brueghel's interest in the representation of the natural world had been stimulated
by the collection of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II, whose court Brueghel had
visited in 1604. Whether inspired by the floral still lifes of Roelandt Savery (1576-1639)
he saw there, or as a result of his own study of flowers in the gardens of the Brussels
court, Brueghel undertook an ambitious and evidently technically challenging series of
paintings for the cardinal that featured flowers from different seasons, all at their
peak of perfection. Brueghel wrote to Borromeo on more than one occasion about the
magnificent Vase of Flowers with Jewel, Coins and Shells (fig. 13), which was finally sent
to him in August 1606.3 7
Earlier that year, on April 14, Brueghel told his patron, C
T have
begun and destined for Your Illustrious Lordship a bunch of flowers that is found
to be very beautiful, as much as for their naturalness as also for the beauty and rarity
of the various flowers, [of which] a few are unknown and little seen in this area; for that
[reason] I have been to Brussels in order to depict from nature some flowers that are
not found in Antwerp." In August 1606, he informed Borromeo that the "bunch" would
include over one hundred different varieties, all of which would be life-size, adding
proudly, "I believe that so rare and varied flowers never have been finished with similar
diligence; in winter this painting will make a beautiful sight. A few of the colors are
very close to nature."3 8
As Brueghel's reference to the study of flowers in the gardens of the Brussels court
suggests, he was already connected with the archducal court as early as 1606, and other
documents from that year show the archdukes exercising their authority on Jan's behalf
with the Antwerp magistrates.3 9
While Brueghel and Rubens can both be described as
court painters, they occupied different positions within the apparatus of artists who served
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 13
14
F I G U R E 13
Jan Brueghel the Elder, Vase of
Flowers with Jewel, Coins and Shells,
1606. O i l o n copper, 65 x 45 c m
(25V8 x i 7 3
A in.). M i l a n ,
Pinacoteca A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 66
©Biblioteca A m b r o s i a n a A u t h .
F 179-05
F I G U R E 14
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Wedding
Banquet Presided over by the
Archdukes, ca. 1612-13. O i l o n
canvas, 84 x 126 c m (33 V& x
495
/8 in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o
N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1442
Albert and Isabella. W i t h o u t receiving an official appointment, Jan held the position
o f "painter to their Royal Highnesses" (constschilder Harer Hoogheden) by 1608, a designation
he shared w i t h other artists, notably Joos de M o m p e r the Younger (1564-1635)
and H e n d r i c k de Clerck.4 0
H e was thus retained i n the service o f the sovereigns, for
w h i c h he received privileges, such as exemption from excise and taxes and freedom from
serving i n Antwerp's civic guard, and could reside i n Antwerp, rather than at the court i n
Brussels. H e remained, however, a member o f the G u i l d o f Saint Luke. U n l i k e Rubens,
w h o returned to A n t w e r p i n late 1608, Brueghel d i d not receive a stipend, or costly
demonstrations o f esteem from the archdukes. In 161 o he explicitly requested the designation
"peintre domestique" from the archdukes, but received a lukewarm response
when they noted that he was "sometimes occupied w i t h w o r k in their service" (quelques
fois occupe en ouvrages de [leur] service).41
Certain works, such as Brueghel's large canvas
depicting the archdukes at a peasant w e d d i n g (fig. 14) apparently served political ends,
p r o m o t i n g Albert and Isabella's efforts to be perceived as sympathetic rulers w i t h attachments
to the countryside.4 2
Brueghel's tremendous productivity continued through the second decade o f the
century. W i t h the creation o f the mature paradise landscape subject, Brueghel established
his preeminence as a painter and interpreter o f the natural w o r l d w i t h i n the parameters
o f biblical subjects (see cat. nos. 4 and 2 6 ) . Some o f his most complex figure works
also date from this period, such as the Village Landscape with Self-Portrait (fig. 15). H e may
have been assisted i n the studio by his son, Jan Brueghel the Younger (1601-1678),
before his departure for Italy i n 1622.4 3
T w o other students were registered w i t h Brueghel:
Daniel Seghers (1590-1661) and an artist k n o w n only as " M i c h i e l . " 4 4
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 15
F I G U R E 15
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Village
Landscape with Self-Portrait, 1614.
O i l o n panel, 52 x 90.5 c m
(20 V2 x 355
/8 in.). V i e n n a ,
Kunsthistorisches Ipuseum,
inv. 9102 (the artist and his family
appear i n the left foreground)
F I G U R E 16
Joos de M o m p e r the Y o u n g e r
(1564-1635) and Jan Brueghel the
Elder, A Market and Bleaching
Fields, ca. 1620-22. O i l o n canvas,
166 x 194 c m (65V8 x 76V8 in.).
M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del
Prado, inv. 1443
16 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
Brueghel's quick sureness w i t h the brush and adept management o f simultaneous
projects ensured his status as a lead collaborator, and a substantial proportion o f his
activity involved collaborative works w i t h many o f Antwerp's most eminent specialists.
H e continued to w o r k w i t h H e n d r i c k van Balen and w i t h artists o f similarly fine technique,
including Frans Francken the Younger (1581-1642). In his artistic relationship
w i t h the landscape painter Joos de M o m p e r the Younger, it was Brueghel w h o , in
an unusual role reversal, supplied the figures for D e M o m p e r ' s landscapes.4 5
Sometimes
these works were large-scale panoramas, while others such as A Market and Bleaching
Fields (fig. 16) required a closer integration between the setting, by D e M o m p e r , and the
figures, w h i c h are exceptionally large for Brueghel. D e M o m p e r and Brueghel's close
acquaintance is confirmed by Brueghel's reference to h i m as " m y friend M o m p e r " (mio
amico Momper) i n a letter to Ercole Bianchi i n M i l a n . 4 6
Brueghel's seniority and established ability to coordinate projects w i t h other
painters surely account for his oversight o f the prestigious commission from the city o f
Antwerp for the unprecedented collective execution by twelve o f Antwerp's leading
painters o f two paintings representing the Five Senses, today k n o w n from two large canvases
(see figs. 58 and 59), as gifts for Archdukes Albert and Isabella.4 7
Painted about the
same time as Brueghel and Rubens's five-part series o n the same theme (see cat. no. 8),
the richly appointed interiors encapsulate Antwerp's artistic heritage and the munificent
and refined sensibilities o f the archdukes and their enlightened court. The archdukes
also confirmed their collecting interests and ties o f taste w i t h their realm's elite citizens
in archetypal representations o f art collections (fig. 17). These ideal assemblages o f
famous paintings honor the p r o u d tradition o f painting i n Antwerp, and in the allegories
o f the senses often playfully refer to Rubens and Brueghel's o w n achievements and those
o f talented contemporaries such as Frans Snyders.
In 1619 Brueghel purchased " D e n Bock" (The Billy Goat), a sizable house w i t h a
garden o n the west corner o f Arenbergstraat and Sint Martinsstraat, near the tapissiers
pand, a center for the sale o f paintings, tapestries, and other luxury items in A n t w e r p . 4 8
Brueghel continued to develop some o f his earliest, most innovative landscapes, notably
the so-called paradise landscape (see cat. nos. 4, 14, and 26), first developed in the late
1590s, and under the influence o f Rubens's recent innovations, to pursue other landscape
subjects i n a cabinet format, notably the hunt subjects featuring D i a n a and her nymphs
(see cat. nos. 10 and n ) . Cardinal B o r r o m e o remained a key patron, and Brueghel
continued to develop the garland genre. In a series o f letters between September 1621
and July 1622, he refers to a garland i n w h i c h the central image w o u l d be painted
by Rubens.4 9
Tragically, Brueghel's career, and his fruitful partnership w i t h Rubens and
others, was cut short o n January 13, 1625, when he died, along w i t h three o f his children,
Pieter, Elisabeth, and M a r i a , i n an outbreak o f cholera that swept through Antwerp.
H i s son Jan, traveling i n Italy, returned to take over the workshop and continued to
w o r k w i t h Rubens but was never his equal partner.
U n l i k e Jan Brueghel the Elder, w h o had been born into a family o f painters, Peter
Paul Rubens was to take up the brush only after initial preparation for a civic career.5 0
H i s father, Jan Rubens, a Protestant lawyer and alderman, fled A n t w e r p w i t h his family
in 1568 for Cologne. W h i l e serving as secretary to A n n a o f Saxony, princess o f Orange,
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 17
F I G U R E 17
W i l l e m van H a e c h t (1593-1637),
Apelles Painting Campaspe,
ca. 1630. O i l o n panel, 104.9 x
148.7 c m (41L
A x 58 V2 in.).
T h e H a g u e , R o y a l Picture Gallery
M a u r i t s h u i s , inv. 266
he was found guilty o f an adulterous affair w i t h his patron and expelled to Westphalia.
Peter Paul Rubens was born i n Siegen i n 1577. The family returned to Cologne the
following year and later reverted to Catholicism. F o l l o w i n g his father's death, Rubens's
mother, M a r i a Pijpelinckx, returned w i t h her family to Antwerp i n 1589. After receiving
a rigorous education at the Latin school o f R o m b o u t Verdonck, a foundation that
w o u l d inform and shape his future artistic endeavors, Rubens entered the household o f
Marguerite de Lalaing d'Arenburg, comtesse de Ligne, i n Audenarde as a page. After
only a short time, Rubens left the cloistered courtier's w o r l d to begin his artistic training,
entering the workshop o f a distant relation, the landscape and history painter Tobias
Verhaecht (1561-1631) i n about 1591 at the age o f fourteen.
Rubens soon sought a more sympathetic and perhaps influential teacher and
became apprenticed to the history painter A d a m van N o o r t (1562-1641) before finally
settling w i t h the illustrious O t t o van Veen i n about 1594.5 1
In V a n Veen he found a
teacher o f great erudition w h o had himself traveled to Italy and purportedly w o r k e d i n
the studio o f Federico Zuccaro ( 1 5 4 0 / 4 2 - 1 6 0 9 ) . 5 2
I n the late 1590s, V a n Veen was not
only painting important altarpiece commissions, such as The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew
(fig. 18), w h i c h met the rigorous criteria o f orthodox Catholicism, but was in charge o f
devising the celebratory allegories for the triumphal entry o f the Archduke Albert and
Archduchess Isabella into Antwerp. A t this time he was appointed engineer o f the citadel
o f Antwerp, an official court position accompanied by privileges and few restrictions.5 3
Rubens was already seeking out pictorial models outside the example o f his
teacher. H e later confided to a fellow artist that he had assiduously made drawings after
18 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 18
O t t o van V e e n , The Martyrdom
of Saint Andrew, 1594-99.
O i l o n panel, 4 0 0 x 300 c m
(1571/2 x 118 in.). A n t w e r p ,
Sint-Andrieskerk
© I R P A / K I K - B r u s s e l s
F I G U R E 19
Peter Paul Rubens, Portrait of a
Man, ca. 1597. O i l o n copper,
21.6 x 14.6 c m (8]
/2 x 53
/4 in.).
N e w York, M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m
o f A r t , T h e Jack and Belle L i n s k y
C o l l e c t i o n , 1982, inv. 1982.60.24
prints by early German masters as a young artist.5 4
With his command of Latin, Greek,
and several other languages, and his exposure to Van Veen's own extensive knowledge
of antique and Italian Renaissance works, Rubens acquired the foundations of a learned
painter, zpictor doctus. He became a master in the Guild of Saint Luke in 15985 5
and
remained in Van Veen's studio, perhaps as an assistant, until 1600. Only a few works
from this period can be identified, including the refined miniature Portrait of a Man
(fig. 19).5 6
He never returned to this format. Although his famous declaration that he
was "by natural instinct, better fitted to execute very large works than small curiosities"
was made twenty years later, Rubens's earliest paintings, including The Battle of the
Amazons (cat. no. 1), suggest that his inclinations were already established.5 7
In his collaboration
with Brueghel on The Battle of the Amazons, Rubens adopted an intermediate
scale for the tangle of figures, which he infused with the graphic emotion of a much
larger work. Although the experiences of Brueghel's Italian sojourn may have helped
prepare Rubens for his own journey, he eschewed a specialty in landscape to establish
himself as an outstanding painter of historical subjects.
The following eight years, during which Rubens (fig. 20) traveled and worked in
Italy and Spain, were decisive.5 8
Armed perhaps with a letter of introduction from Otto
van Veen, he left Antwerp in November 1600 for Mantua with an assistant, Deodaat
del Monte.5 9
While his projects for the duke of Mantua, Vincenzo I Gonzaga, were
routine—he mostly painted and copied portraits—Rubens took advantage of the duke's
extraordinary collection and the opportunity to study the work of leading Renaissance
painters such as Andrea Mantegna (1430/31-1506), Titian (1485/90-1576), and Giulio
Romano (ca. 1499-1546), among others. He visited Rome, where the rivalry between
Caravaggio (1571-1610) and Giovanni Baglione (ca. 1566-1643) had polarized art lovers
for six months between July 1601 and January 1602. He was immediately drawn to
the famous works of antique sculpture that could be seen in the papal collection of the
Belvedere Palace, which contained the Torso Belvedere and the Laocoon, as well as
works in the private collections of the Borghese and Farnese families. His drawings after
sculpture in this period are full of contained energy and eventually formed a repertoire
to which he would return when composing paintings in Antwerp.6 0
In addition to Paul Bril and Hans Rottenhammer, other Northern artists had
moved to the city. The fluid brushwork and nocturnal effects of the German painter
Adam Elsheimer (1578-1610) were as important to Rubens as the graphic, aggressive
compositions of Caravaggio. Rubens's presence in the city and success were also monitored
by Archduke Albert, whose agent, Johannes Richardot, kept him abreast of
the activities of Flemish artists. In 1602 Albert favored Rubens with the important commission
of an altarpiece for Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, which had been his titular
church in Rome (the archduke, who had been elevated to the cardinalate at age eighteen
and later became archbishop of Toledo, renounced his ecclesiastical rank in 1598).6 1
Rubens's diplomatic skills were tested as the emissary of the duke of Mantua to
the court of Philip III in Madrid. Accompanying the train of gifts, which included
almost forty paintings as well as horses from the Gonzaga stud, Rubens arrived in the
Spanish capital Valladolid in May 1603 and remained there for eight months. After
repairing works damaged during the journey, he visited the royal collections, including
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 19
F I G U R E 2 0
Peter Paul Rubens, Self-Portmit
with Friends, ca, 1602. O i l o n
canvas, 77.5 x 101 c m {^ol
h x
393
A in.). C o l o g n e , WallrafR
i c h a r t z - M u s e u m , inv. 248
© Rheinisches Bildarchiv K o l n
the Escorial, where Philip II had amassed a considerable group o f works by the most
famous Flemish painters o f the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, including The
Temptation of Saint Anthony (fig. 21), a collaboration between Antwerp's leading painters
o f the early sixteenth century, Q u i n t e n Metsys (1466-1530) and Joachim Patinir.6 2
Rubens also executed the i m p o s i n g and influential equestrian portrait o f the duke o f
L e r m a (fig. 22), the king's most powerful minister, the only documented commission he
received while i n S p a i n . 6 3
In this painting Rubens transformed the influences o f Titian
and Tintoretto to create a highly dramatic and unified evocation o f status and power.
The tautly animated steed, w h i c h seems to pause just i n front o f the viewer, was later
used to great effect o n a m u c h smaller scale by Jan Brueghel, both i n joint works w i t h
Rubens (see cat. nos. 2, 4, and 7) and in the paradise landscapes (see cat. no. 26).6 4
Once Rubens was back i n M a n t u a , Venetian and R o m a n influences continued to
shape his work, for example, i n the three canvases h o n o r i n g the H o l y Trinity (1604-05)
commissioned by D u k e V i n c e n z o . 6 5
I n 1605-06 Rubens traveled to Genoa, where he
painted monumental portraits as well as an altarpiece o n the subject o f the Circumcision
(Genoa, Jesuit Church). Ultimately, Rubens grew tired o f the constraints o f the
Gonzaga court and asked for liberty to remain i n R o m e . There, residing w i t h his brother
Philip i n the V i a de la Croce, he secured one o f the foremost commissions i n the city,
the altarpiece for the Oratorian C h u r c h o f Santa M a r i a i n Vallicella (see cat. no. 29).6 6
Rubens incorporated the reputedly miraculous image o f the Vallicella M a d o n n a , an
20 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 21
J o a c h i m Patinir (ca. 1480-1524)
and Q u i n t e n M e t s y s (1466-1530),
The Temptation of Saint Anthony,
ca. 1522. O i l o n panel, 155 x 173 c m
(61 x 68Vs in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o
N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1615
Andachtsbild, i n the new h i g h altarpiece and encircling it w i t h venerating angels, a solution
that met his patrons' key demand and had ramifications for the treatment o f
decorated images o f the V i r g i n and C h i l d that he, and particularly Jan Brueghel, w o u l d
pursue i n A n t w e r p . 6 7
The news that his mother was gravely ill brought Rubens home to A n t w e r p i n
October 1608, just days after his mother's death. Despite this personal loss, he recognized
the auspicious indications o f change. W i t h the signing o f the Twelve Years' Truce
imminent, bringing hostilities w i t h the N o r t h e r n provinces to a halt w i t h the recognition
o f their independence, the future o f the Southern Netherlands, and beleaguered
A n t w e r p i n particular, appeared more promising. A l t h o u g h Rubens considered returning
to Italy, as he wrote to his friend Johann Faber i n R o m e : C
T have not yet made up m y
m i n d whether to remain i n m y o w n country or to return forever to R o m e , where I am
invited o n the most favorable terms. H e r e also they do not fail to make every effort to
keep me, by every sort o f compliment. The Archduke and the M o s t Serene Infanta have
had letters written urging me to remain i n their service. Their offers are very generous,
but I have little desire to become a courtier again. A n t w e r p and its citizens w o u l d satisfy
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 21
22
F I G U R E 22
Peter Paul Rubens, Equestrian
Portrait of the Duke ofLerma, 1603.
O i l o n canvas, 283 x 200 c m
(111V2 i n . x 783
/4 in.). M a d r i d ,
M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado,
inv. 3137
F I G U R E 23
Peter Paul Rubens, Samson and
Delilah, ca. 1610. O i l o n panel,
185 x 205 c m (72% x 8o3
/4 in.).
L o n d o n , N a t i o n a l Gallery,
inv. 6461
F I G U R E 24
Jacob H a r r e w y n (died after 1701)
after J. van Croes (active late 17th
century), The Facade and Arch
of Rubens's House, 1684. E n g r a v i n g ,
287 x 434 m m (ulA x iyVs in.).
A n t w e r p , Stedelijk Prentenkabinet,
inv. 17.877
me, if I could say farewell to Rome. The peace, or rather, the truce from many years
will without doubt be ratified, and during this period it is believed that our country will
flourish again."6 8
Rubens decided to stay in Antwerp and set about to attain the status he desired.
Within the first twelve months after his return, he established himself as one of the city's
leading painters. Early in 1609, he was commissioned to paint The Adoration of the Magi
(1609; Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado) for the Statenkamer (State Room) of the
Antwerp town hall where the new peace was signed.6 9
By the end of 1609, he had also
completed a major altarpiece and gallery paintings for preeminent collectors. The erudite
elite of Antwerp were well acquainted with the figurative language employed by Rubens,
who in essence was updating a long-standing Italianate visual style preferred by socially
and politically ambitious patrons.7 0
Samson and Delilah (fig. 23) would have appealed
to the learned viewer familiar not only with the major monuments of antiquity but also
with the weighty, sculptural forms of Michelangelo.7 1
Rubens was soon able to command
higher prices than his colleagues, and many students were drawn to his studio.7 2
Following his marriage in 1609 to Isabella Brant, Rubens bought a substantial house on
the Wapper (see fig. n), renovating it according to Italian architectural ideals and adding
a large studio extension (completed in 1618) (fig. 24).
The archdukes sought to attach Rubens to their service on generous terms. In the
patent letter of September 23, 1609, they recognized his "great experience in the art
of painting and other arts" and entreated him to become their officier and paintre de nostre
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 23
F I G U R E 25
Peter P a u l R u b e n s , The Raising of
the Cross, ca. 1610-11. O i l o n
panel, central panel: 4 6 0 x 340 c
(181 x 1335
/s in.). A n t w e r p
Cathedral © I R P A / K I K - B r u s s e l s
m
hostel, from which office Rubens would benefit from the "rights, honors, liberties,
exemptions and the customary liberties and from appurtenances, and from other uses
of our attendants and servants" (droitz, honneurs, libertez, exemptions et franchises
accoustumez et y appertenans, et dont joyssent aultres noz domesticques et serviteurs).
In addition to freedom from onerous responsibilities such as participation in the civic
guard, he was also freed from membership in the painters' guild and could teach his art
to whomever he wished (enseigner a ses serviteurs et aultres qu'il voudra sondict art,
sans estre assubjecti a ceulx du mestier). Rubens was allowed to work away from the
court and reside in Antwerp and received an annual pension of 500 livres, a substantial
amount comparable to the cost of a large painting.7 3
In addition, he was to be paid
for all work executed for the archdukes over and above the pension. Rubens's stature
and the great admiration the archdukes held for him were further reinforced by the
sword and gold chain presented to him upon the conclusion of this agreement, along
with a double-sided portrait medal bearing his patrons' likenesses (see cat. nos. 9A and
24 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 26
Peter Paul Rubens and Frans
Snyders (1579-1657), The
Recognition ofPhilopoemen, ca. 1609.
O i l o n canvas, 201 x 311 c m
(79Vs x 122l
A in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o
N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1851
9B). These splendid gifts bound the artist to the court still further and constituted the
"golden fetters" Rubens's nephew famously referred to in the biography of his uncle.7 4
While it is often emphasized that Rubens reinfused the Antwerp artistic scene
with the vitality and expressiveness he had acquired during his Italian sojourn, he seems
also to have consciously adopted a Northern sensibility. For example, he used panel
supports for many of the commissions after 1609, a support long favored by Flemish
artists. He continued to devise altarpieces in the triptych format preferred by his
patrons, finding creative solutions to the challenges posed by separate fields, uniting,
for example, the scene across all three sections in The Raising of the Cross (fig. 2s).7 5
Upon returning home, Rubens also embraced the local artistic practice of collaboration.
Among the earliest works he produced with a second artist is The Recognition
of Philopoemen (fig. 26), with Frans Snyders.7 6
This large-scale painting, in which the
magnificent still life by Snyders dominates the composition, was the beginning of
a long-term working relationship between the two men that was very different from
Rubens's partnership with Brueghel. The enterprise was overseen by Rubens, who
painted a preliminary sketch for the composition (fig. 27), including the still life.
Snyders was called upon to paint on a substantial scale and with a greater vividness than
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 25
F I G U R E 27
Peter Paul R u b e n s , The Recognition
of Philopoemen, ca. 1609.
O i l o n panel, 50.5 x 66.5 c m
(19% x 26 Vs in.). Paris,
M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. M . I . 967
F I G U R E 28
A n t h o n y van D y c k , Portrait of
Frans Snyders, 1621. O i l o n canvas,
124.5 x 105 c m (49 x 41V8 in.).
N e w York, Frick C o l l e c t i o n ,
inv. 1909.1.39
in his previous works. Only two years younger than Rubens, he was carefully cultivated
as a specialist contributor during the formation of Rubens's studio in anticipation of
future large-scale commissions. Snyders was an independent master, who brilliantly
expressed the complexities of subjects devised by Rubens, such as magnificent vegetables
or game, that the latter was disinterested in ideating. While in some cases, such as the
Philopoemen and Prometheus Bound (cat. no. 22), Snyders adhered to a design provided
by Rubens, in other instances Snyders was either brought in after the composition
had been planned or allowed to devise the still-life and animal aspects of a composition,
as in Diana Returning from the Hunt (cat. no. 23). So compatible was Snyder's brushwork
with Rubens's, that in their most successful collaboration, The Head of Medusa
(cat. no. 24), in which snakes emerge from both the gorgon's hair and drops of blood, it
is difficult to determine where the contribution of one begins and the other ends.
Snyders's success as a specialist and the regard with which he was held by his colleagues
are evident from the splendid portraits of Snyders (fig. 28) and his wife by Anthony van
Dyck. Rubens and Snyders worked together until Rubens's death in 1640, and Snyders
served as one of the assessors who drew up the inventory of Rubens's collection.7 7
Rubens's creative relationship to the work of other artists could, on occasion,
take a direct and even revisory form. A n avid collector of sixteenth-century Italian and
German drawings, he sometimes changed works by adjusting contours, reworking
areas, or affixing new sheets of paper with figures added by his own hand.7 8
Although this
interference may seem surprising, Rubens's hands-on interaction with non-compliant
partners reflects the confidence of his creative response and approach to problem solving.
In an unusual example of painted intervention, Rubens reworked an existing landscape
26 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 29
Paul B r i l (ca. 1554-1626),
retouched by Peter Paul Rubens,
Landscape with Psyche and Jupiter,
1610. O i l o n canvas, 93 x ^ c m
(365
/s x 503
/8 in.). M a d r i d ,
M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado,
inv. 1849
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 2J
F I G U R E 30
Peter Paul R u b e n s , \The Saint
IIdefonso Altarpiece, 1630-32.
O i l o n panel, central panel:
352 x 236 c m (138 Vi x 9 2 % in.).
V i e n n a , Kunsthistorisches
M u s e u m , inv. 678
28 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
by Paul Bril, Landscape with Psyche and Jupiter (fig. 29). Rubens covered the end of the
cliff at the center with, gray paint, then replaced it with landscape, and added the figures
of Psyche and Jupiter. He also introduced the rainbows and the shimmering effects of
spray from the waterfall on the right. Rubens retained the painting for himself, and it
appears in the inventory of his collection at his death.7 9
While this case doesn't represent
a joint effort by Rubens with Bril, who was still living in Rome, it highlights Rubens's
readiness to adjust and perhaps "improve" the work of another artist, an approach
that notably recurs in The Return from War (cat. no. 2). That Rubens made a similarly
dramatic revision of the composition established by Brueghel is indicative of the spirit of
reciprocity in which they worked and the forthrightness that can exist between friends
and equals.
Collaborative works executed with Jan Brueghel, Frans Snyders, and Osias Beert
(?i58o-i624) were but one aspect of Rubens's tremendous activity in the 1610s and
1620s.8 0
In addition to the sacred images that defined devotional imagery in this period,
Rubens devised complex iconographic programs in the form of book illustrations, as
well as a program of ceiling paintings for the Jesuit church in Antwerp (1618-21), decorative
cycles, such as the history of the Roman consul Decius Mus, and the politically
charged series of paintings (1622-25) portraying the life of Marie de' Medici. Jan Wildens
(1585/6-1653), recognized as an independent landscape painter of merit in Rubens's
correspondence with Sir Dudley Carleton, contributed calm, broadly executed landscapes
to the Decius Mus tapestry series and other history paintings, elements which were
compatible with Rubens's own brushwork but always subordinate to his figures.8 1
After the death of Archduke Albert in 1621, Rubens served Isabella as a diplomat
and political agent, until her death in 1633. In 1630-32 Rubens painted The Saint Ildefonso
Altarpiece (fig. 30) for Isabella in memory of her husband. The monumental triptych
recalls traditional Flemish devotional images in its format and rich, jewel-like palette,
while also epitomizing the marvelous painterly brushwork of Rubens's late career.
Rubens's own aversion to war and his frustration with the elusiveness of peace are a recurring
theme in his later career, in works such as The Horrors of War (1637-38; Florence,
Palazzo Pitti). In the late 1630s, Rubens oversaw the production of decorations for the
triumphal entry of Archduke Ferdinand into Antwerp (1635), and the suite of over one
hundred scenes from Ovid's Metamorphoses that were painted by his contemporaries and
assistants for Torre de la Parada, the hunting lodge of Philip IV.8 2
Rubens's last years
were spent in part at his castle, the Steen, at Elewijt, outside Antwerp. He died in 1640
after an illness and was eulogized on his epitaph as "the Apelles, not only of his own
age but of all time."8 3
T H E W O R K I N G F R I E N D S H I P O F R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
Rubens and Brueghel's professional and personal lives were closely intertwined, revealing
the extent of their remarkable friendship. Shortly after Rubens decided to remain in
Antwerp, Brueghel introduced him into the elite confraternity of Romanists, of which
he had been a member for the preceding ten years.8 4
One of the most often cited examples
of their friendship, however, was Rubens's role as amanuensis for his friend. He acted
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 29
as BrueghePs secretary to Cardinal Borromeo and his agent Bianchi. Starting in October
1610, over two dozen letters in Italian from Rubens's hand are known, continuing up
to Brueghel's death in 1625.85
Although Rubens and Brueghel together painted at least
one garland for Borromeo, Rubens facilitated his friend's exchanges with his Milan
patrons regardless of the content. His briefer, more elegant style is evident when
compared with the lively but irregular grammar of those written by Brueghel himself.
The intimacy and warmth of their personal relationship were conveyed in Rubens's
splendid portrait of Jan Brueghel and his family, painted at about the time they resumed
their painterly collaborations in 1610-12 (frontispiece). The affectionate interactions
between Jan, his second wife, Catharina van Marienberghe, and their children Elisabeth,
on the left, and Pieter are emphasized by the tight format of the Netherlandish portrait
tradition. The strong lighting, simple background, and sculptural quality of the figures
lend the group a polished immediacy that mitigates the simplicity of this older portrait
type, and underscores the familiarity of the painter with his subjects. Jan Brueghel's
angled posture conveys the relaxed naturalism that seems to have been a revised objective
of the painting.8 6
Rubens's first wife, Isabella Brant, was present at the baptism of
the Brueghel children,8 7
and Rubens himself was godfather to Brueghel's older children,
Jan and Paschasia. At Brueghel's death, he served as one of the executors of his friend's
will and guardian of his children.8 8
As a mark of esteem for Brueghel and his family,
Rubens painted The Delivery of the Keys to Saint Peter to decorate the tomb of Jan's father,
the celebrated Pieter Bruegel the Elder, in Notre Dame de la Chapelle, Brussels.8 9
Despite their disparate styles, Brueghel and Rubens exercised an artistic relationship
that was based on mutually held principles. From their earliest known collaboration
(cat. no. 1), conceptually innovative and technically challenging projects were the norm.
Unlike their work with other colleagues, in which the painting styles are similar, Rubens
and Brueghel's joint works are distinguished by the evident separateness of their hands
in a composition. While only one collaboration bears the names of both artists (see
cat. no. 4), and a handful of others Brueghel's name (see cat. no. 8), their established
specialties and styles of painting serve as the visual equivalent of a signature. Most
unusually for Rubens, in certain works, notably The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1) and
The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2), there exists a visual equality
between his work and that of Brueghel. His willingness to allow certain features of
Brueghel's approach, such as a high viewpoint or tilted foreground, as well as the strong
and even lighting Jan preferred, to be employed suggests that he perceived these as more
truly collaborative ventures than his works with other artists such as Snyders, which
were carried out under his direction. In instances where the composition is dominated
by Brueghel's contribution, such as in the allegories of the senses (see cat. no. 8) and the
garlands (fig. 1 and cat. no. 12), it is the type of painting that determined which of the
two partners took the primary role. There are also instances of friendly reciprocity; in
The Garden of Eden with the Poll ofMan (cat. no. 4) Rubens shared the role of animal
painter and may even have contributed grapes to the foreground still life in The Return
from War. The artists certainly had access to each other's studios, and Brueghel's repeated
borrowing of animal motifs from Rubens in the years around 1612-13 attests to the close
association they enjoyed and which they acknowledged in paint.
30 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 31
H e n d r i c k van Balen, Jan B r u e g h e l
the Elder, Frans Francken the
Y o u n g e r (1581-1642), and
Sebastian V r a n c x (1573-1647),
Blazon for the Rhetorician's Guild
"De Violieren" 1618. O i l o n panel,
73 x 73 c m (283
/4 x 283
/4 in.).
A n t w e r p , K o n i n k l i j k M u s e u m v o o r
Schone K u n s t e n , inv. 366
© I R P A / K I K - B r u s s e l s
While Rubens and Brueghel's artistic camaraderie was unusual, in the closeknit
Antwerp artistic community there were bonds of affinity and family between many
leading painters. It was not uncommon for the principal families to be connected
by marriage. Many of these connections were facilitated by the common membership in
the Guild of Saint Luke, the body that regulated and protected the work not only of
painters but also of sculptors and goldsmiths.9 0
A related corporate body, the rhetoricians
(rederijkers), brought together painters and so-called liefhebbers, amateur art-lovers, in a
learned dramatic society. Membership in the guild and other civic corporations provided
ample opportunity for feasting and merrymaking. The blazon (blazoen) of 1618 (fig. 31)
presents the ideals of the group as a delightful rebus, in which the art of painting receives
tfee protection of its patron, Saint Luke, and the goddess Fortuna.9 1
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 31
C O L L A B O R A T I O N A N D T H E F L E M I S H W O R K S H O P T R A D I T I O N : B A C K G R O U N D
In their joint works Rubens and Brueghel largely adhered to their respective specialties,
although each could, and did, paint other elements on occasion. Their working relationship
on a practical level reflected the Flemish tradition of specialized contributions to
a single painting by artists and their workshops. While, as we shall see, only Patinir and
Metsys's partnership offers a possible precedent for the close artistic relationship of
Rubens and Brueghel, the examples of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century practices outlined
below testify to the truly elaborate and complex methods of coproduction in which
paintings resulted from the participation of different contributors. Until a comprehensive
study of collaboration in the Netherlands is completed, it is only possible here to
touch on the main elements of the rich tradition that informed the collaborative mode
employed by Rubens and Brueghel.
Collaboration was an essential component of structured workshop practice and
was quite common in the Low Countries by the fifteenth century.9 2
Important precedents
for the rapid development of genres and the associated practice of specialization in
the early sixteenth century are found in manuscript illumination. As J. G. Alexander
has observed, collaboration between different illuminators was "very common, especially
in the later Middle Ages... facilitated by the fact that the manuscript was still unbound
and could be distributed for different artists to work on at one time."9 3
A scribe in
the late fourteenth century recounted how he traversed the streets of Paris in the rain
carrying a colophon between two studios.9 4
A hierarchy of status and expertise was
implicit in this process. Broadly speaking, under the direction of a lead illuminator, who
might execute the most important miniatures, other artists, perhaps studio assistants,
would paint the remaining miniatures and the borders, which themselves might be
separated into decorative and figural components. It became increasingly common for
one artist to execute the figurative elements and another the landscape or elements
from nature.9 5
Model books, transfer, pouncing, and other methods helped artists keep
pace with demand.
Panel painters' workshops in the fifteenth century were structured in a similar
fashion. Documentary evidence, such as accounts, contracts, and guild records, suggests
that the master painter executed the important aspects of a commission and assistants
in the studio would carry out the rest. Essential preparatory materials for painting,
including drawings of motifs, enabled successful painters to produce multiple versions
of successful or popular compositions.9 6
Designs, drawings, and other precious resources
of a workshop might also be passed to the son of a painter or other family member,
who would continue in his father's manner.9 7
The most famous example of a jointly
produced painting in the fifteenth century was The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, also
known as the GhentAltarpece (fig. 32), by Hubert van Eyck (d. 1426) and his brother Jan
(ca. 1390/1400-1441). A fragmentary inscription on the outside of the altarpiece is
today largely accepted as evidence that Hubert began the polyptych and that his younger
brother Jan finished it.9 8
Workshop resources were protected and passed on to descendants
in the seventeenth century as well. Rubens closely guarded his drawings and
retained preparatory oil sketches for future reference.99
While it is assumed that Jan
Brueghel the Elder worked with his son Jan the Younger, before the latter's departure for
32 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
F I G U R E 32
H u b e r t van E y c k (d. 1426) and
Jan van E y c k (ca. 1390/1400-
1441), The Ghent Altarpiece
Adoration of the Mystic Lamb)
(open), completed 1432. O i l o n
panel, 350 x 461 c m (i373
/4 x
181V2 in.). G h e n t , Cathedral o f
Saint B a v o © I R P A / K I K - B r u s s e l s
Italy in the spring of 1622, it was at the unexpected death of his father in 1625 that Jan II
inherited the contents of the workshop and its "resources."1 0 0
The younger Brueghel
capitalized on the successful compositions and relationships established by his father and
produced, for example, numerous versions of the Five Senses and garlands.1 0 1
Documents
attest to his continued contact with Rubens, though the latter was pursuing diplomatic
ventures and must have largely operated through his studio.1 0 2
Jan the Younger's journal
(Dagfboek) for the period 1625-51 provides insight into the market-driven collaborative
relationships the younger Brueghel maintained with Abraham Janssens (ca. 1575-1632),
Lucas van Uden (1595-1672), and his brother-in-law, David Teniers the Younger
(1610-1690), as well as his careful perpetuation of his father's inventions.1 0 3
Early in the sixteenth century, according to Karel van Mander, particularly in
the burgeoning port city of Antwerp, the growing phenomenon of varieties or specialties
(verscheydenheden) in which artists worked began to gather momentum. The favorable
economic climate in the city, whose population would double over the next fifty years,
is often considered one of the contributing factors to the change in artistic practice.
Opportunities for selling works of art increased with the establishment of yearly markets
(pandts) and later with the building of the new bourse with its upper gallery of shops
where artists and painters could sell on the open market. In this dynamic and competitive
marketplace, it has been argued, a specialized product was often advantageous.1 0 4
Many painters moved to Antwerp from towns in the southern Flemish regions, setting
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 33
up workshops and establishing themselves as specialists. O f the leading sixteenth-century
Antwerp painters, Joachim Patinir, the innovative landscape painter, and Quinten Metsys
the leading figure painter in Antwerp, best anticipate the working relationship of equals
enjoyed by Brueghel and Rubens. The Temptation of Saint Anthony (see fig. 21) is the only
painting that can be securely attributed to both artists, whereas Brueghel and Rubens,
remarkably, produced many paintings together. Like Brueghel and Rubens, Patinir
and Metsys worked with other artists, but their elements often dominated those of the
other painter.
U N D E R S T A N D I N G A N D P E R C E I V I N G C O L L A B O R A T I O N
While Walter Friedlander pessimistically described the increasing tendency toward
specialization as the seventeenth century approached as "a kind of collaboration, which
often took excessive forms in the seventeenth century, especially in Antwerp" that
"implied a dubious division of labor, a pernicious specialization,"1 0 5
there is little evidence
to indicate that specialties were perceived negatively in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Even the painter Karel van Mander, whose biography of the eminent
artists of the time relied heavily on information supplied by descendants and others
for fifteenth- and early-sixteenth-century artists, and for whom the ideals of the master
history painter were at odds with the Northern expertise in landscape, adopted a
matter-of-fact approach. While it is clear that an artist with talent in all areas was considered
most admirable, Van Mander often simply states that a painter such as Patinir
was famous for a particular subject.1 0 6
There is very little documentary material to tell us how collaborative paintings
were perceived by early viewers or patrons. It seems likely, particularly in the fifteenth
century when verisimilitude was especially valued, that a successfully unified surface
was the artistic and aesthetic goal. The intriguing inscription on the Ghent Altarpiece is
all the more suggestive, as the question of which parts of the polyptych were painted by
which artist has remained contentious even as the work was famously celebrated as the
work of the brothers Van Eyck. In an interesting case from Bruges about 1520, an artist's
decision to subcontract out a portion of the work on a large altarpiece gave rise to a lawsuit
when the disgruntled patrons sought to require him to paint the entire composition.1 0 7
Statements by artists themselves concerning their authorship versus others' participation
in a work are very rare and should be understood as exceptional occurrences.
Brueghel's attestations that he painted certain pieces while others were the work of a
knecht (assistant) have usually gone unnoticed but allow a rare glimpse into his working
arrangements.1 0 8
Rubens's famous declaration to Sir Dudley Carleton that certain
works were "by my hand" while others were "retouched by my own hand" amounts to
an acknowledgment of the negative perception of his workshop process and the desire
for wholly autograph works among potential patrons, and reveals his methods for
reassuring his important clients.1 0 9
Brueghel, too, often promoted his colleagues—
including Rubens—to Cardinal Borromeo. In a letter of September 1621, Brueghel
offered a garland to Borromeo and promoted its magnificence and the contribution of
34 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
his colleague in glowing terms, noting that Rubens had demonstrated his skill with a
beautiful painting of the Madonna in the middle, perhaps aware that the cardinal was
among the few patrons in Europe who remained cool to Rubens's talents.1 1 0
Perhaps the best evidence of the status of the collaborative process generally, as
well as the regard for the products of Rubens and Brueghel's partnership, is the frequency
with which paintings of joint authorship are identified in contemporary documents.
Patinir and Metsys's Temptation of Saint Anthony (fig. 21) was attributed in
the 1574 inventory of the Escorial to "Master Quinten and Master Joachim," followed
by a description of their respective contributions.1 1 1
Brueghel regularly identified his
collaborators in his correspondence with Borromeo.1 1 2
Prometheus Bound (cat. no. 22),
clearly described by Rubens in correspondence with Carleton, is the best-known
example in Rubens's oeuvre for which the second artist is named.1 1 3
However, The Head
ofMedusa (cat. no. 24) was identified in 1635 as "by Rubens and Subter [Snyders]," and
several works that entered prominent aristocratic and royal collections (for example,
cat. nos. 6 and 12) were also recognized as collaborative works. The inventories of paintings
at the archducal hunting castle of Tervuren identify works of joint authorship, as
do numerous household inventories, including those of painters' estates. Three paintings
were clearly identified as by two artists in the Specifcatie drawn up at Rubens's death,
and Frans Snyders owned three such paintings, including, extraordinarily, a "Psyche by
Titian and Rubens" (untraced).1 1 4
0 0 0 0
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L ' S A P P R O A C H T O C R E A T I N G W O R K S O F E X T R A O R D I N A R Y
beauty and refinement represents a late phase in the development of the collaborative
artistic process in the Low Countries, and much about their technical method, such
as their general adherence to figure and landscape specialties, reflects the practical
and long-held approaches to working pursued by their sixteenth-century predecessors.
Brueghel, however, challenged the traditional secondary role of landscape by transforming
settings, both interior and exterior, with encyclopedic detail, from the lush
menagerie of the paradise landscape to the crumbling shadowy forge. Because every
painting Rubens and Brueghel produced was initially unique, their mode of working
varied. It is often difficult today to discern with certainty how a particular work
was painted.1 1 5
Both men shared forceful and energetic personalities, evident in the
quickness and surety of their brushwork. The joyful camaraderie of their collaborative
ventures is evident from the multiple levels of meaning in their allegories, where even
politics and eroticism could coexist (see cat. no. 10). Equally evident is the delight
both artists took in illusionism and new ways of viewing. The juxtaposition of armor
painted by their two hands in The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2)
amounts to friendly competition, whereas Brueghel's transfixingly descriptive fruit and
flower garlands, whether supported by Rubens's weighty putti (see fig. 1) or inhabited
by Brueghel's lively birds and animals (see cat. no. 12), compete with the ostensible
T W O C E L E B R A T E D PAINTERS 35
primacy of Rubens's central painted icon, creating a highly intense viewing experience
and aid to devotion. It is only with a clearer understanding of Brueghel's achievement as
an equal and even as a lead collaborator that the significance of their mutual exchange
becomes apparent. Ultimately, Rubens and Brueghel's joint efforts were distinguished by
the cachet that their high status brought to each piece, as well as their close association
with their royal patrons, the impact of their shared political and spiritual beliefs on the
invention of new subjects, and, not least, their own profound friendship.
N O T E S
1. W h i l e some insight into Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder's
w o r k s h o p can be gleaned f r o m the documents
p u b l i s h e d i n D e n u c e 1934, a study o f his studio
arrangements is needed; see the observations
i n H o n i g 2005. F o r Rubens, see H a n s V l i e g h e ,
"Rubens's A t e l i e r and H i s t o r y P a i n t i n g i n
Flanders: A R e v i e w o f the Evidence," i n B o s t o n T
o l e d o 1993-94, pp. 159-70; and A . Balis,
'"Fatto da u n m i o discepolo': Rubens's S t u d i o
Practices Reviewed," i n T o k y o 1994, pp. 133-41.
2. "Peter P a u l R y b e n t u n d B r u g e l zweene
beriihmbte M a h l e r . H i e r a u f f sahen sie auch ben
den beyden vortrefHichen M a h l e r n Peter P a u l
R y b e n t u n d B r i i g e l n viel herrlich G e m a h l d e
u n d Kunststiick. R y b e n t mahlet meistlich grosse
Stuck u n d alles i n rechter natiirlicher grosse,
aber iiberaufi k i i n s t l i c h schon, u n d nach d e m
L e b e n . S o l i alle W o c h e n auff 100 G u l d e n arbeiten
k o n n e n , m a g leicht ein Stuck seyn er verkauffet
solches u m b 2, 3, 4, auch 500 Reichsgulden.
B r u g e l aber mahlet kleine Tafnein m i t L a n d schafften,
aber alles so subtil u n d kiinstlich, daft
mans m i t B e r w u n d e r u n g ansehen m u f i " :
N e u m a y r 1620, p. 261.
3. T h e joint oeuvre o f R u b e n s and B r u e g h e l
has been investigated i n M e r r i a m 1994 and
V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , V a n M u l d e r s
2 0 0 4 , V a n M u l d e r s 2005, and H o n i g 2005,
and the e x h i b i t i o n K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 ; it
w i l l be the subject o f a f o r t h c o m i n g v o l u m e
i n the C o r p u s R u b e n i a n u m L u d w i g B u r c h a r d t
series by C h r i s t i n e V a n M u l d e r s .
4. F o r collaboration generally i n seventeenthcentury
F l e m i s h p a i n t i n g , see V a n der Stighelen
1990; Peter C . S u t t o n , " P a i n t i n g i n the A g e o f
R u b e n s : C o l l a b o r a t i o n , " i n B o s t o n - T o l e d o
1993-94, pp. 35-37; H o n i g 1995; and V l i e g h e
1998, pp. 7 - 8 . S o m e o f the chief specialist studies
include V a n Puyvelde 1949; M i i l l e r Hofstede
1968; H a i r s 1957; H a i r s 1977, pp. 13-33; and the
additional references cited b e l o w i n conjunction
w i t h specific partnerships.
5. C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 241 (letter o f D e c e m b e r 9, 1616).
6. See cat. nos. 7, 8, 9A and 9B. D e M a e y e r 1955
remains the most t h o r o u g h consideration
o f Rubens's (pp. 93-130) and Brueghel's
(pp. 144-59) w o r k for the archdukes, but see also
C h r i s t o p h e r B r o w n , " R u b e n s and the A r c h d u k e s "
(pp. 121-28), and Barbara W e l z e l , " A r m o r y
and A r c h d u c a l Image: T h e Sense o f T o u c h f r o m
the F i v e Senses o f Jan B r u e g h e l and Peter P a u l
R u b e n s " (pp. 9 9 - 1 0 6 ) , i n Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 .
7. F o r the government and religious policies o f the
archdukes, see Pasture 1925 and Elias 1931. F o r
A n t w e r p ' s circumstances after 1585, see Thijs 1990.
8. T h e most t h o r o u g h treatment o f Jan Brueghel's
career is E r t z 1979; aspects o f this study have
been revised and updated by the same author i n
Brussels 1980, E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, and
A n t w e r p 1998. See also C r i v e l l i 1868, W i n n e r 1961,
W i n n e r 1972, and B e d o n i 1983.
9. O n the o u t p u t o f Pieter B r u e g h e l the Younger's
industrious w o r k s h o p , see M a a s t r i c h t - B r u s s e l s
2 0 0 1 - 0 2 .
10. "Jan van z y n G r o o t e - m o e d e r de W e d u w e van
Pieter van A e l s t hier van water-verwe hebbende
gheleert, q u a m en leer de van O l y - v e r w e by eenen
Pieter goe-kindt, daer veel fraey d i n g h e n waren
i n huys" (Jan learned to w o r k i n watercolor f r o m
his grandmother, the w i d o w o f Pieter [Coecke]
van Aelst, and became a student o f o i l p a i n t i n g
w i t h one Pieter G o e - k i n d t , i n whose house there
were m a n y h a n d s o m e w o r k s ) : V a n M a n d e r 1604,
fol. 234r; V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 , v o l . 1,
p. 195 (translation: author).
11. " H i j reysde v o o r t nae C o l e n , en soo i n I t a l i e n . . . "
(he then traveled to C o l o g n e and so o n to Italy):
36 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
V a n M a n d e r 1604, fol. 234r; V a n M a n d e r /
M i e d e m a 1994-99, v o l . 1, p. r95-
12. W i n n e r 1961, p. 190; and W i n n e r 1972, figs. 3 and
4. Brueghel's short stay i n Naples is discussed by
B e d o n i 1983, pp. 19-21.
13. Brueghel's presence i n R o m e by 1592 is supported
by the inscription o n the verso o f a d r a w i n g o f
Venus and putti by the A n t w e r p artist L o d e w i j k
Toeput ( S t o c k h o l m , N a t i o n a l M u s e u m , inv.
1347/1863): " H a n s brueghel i n R o o m a 1592,"
indicating that Brueghel acquired the d r a w i n g
from Toeput, w h o then resided i n Treviso;
see W i n n e r 1961, pp. 1 9 0 - 9 1 , illustrating the
inscription, and R u b y 1999, pp. 4 4 , 145 n
- 34o.
14. R u b y 1999, pp. 4 4 - 45.
15. F o r the influence o f Jacopo Bassano o n Brueghel's
emerging paradise landscape genre, see K o l b
2005. F o r Brueghel's awareness o f Zucchi's i n n o vations,
see H o n i g 2005.
16. Klaus E r t z , "Jean Brueghel PAine," in Brussels
1980, p. 166.
17. Brueghel's correspondence w i t h B o r r o m e o is
published i n C r i v e l l i 1868 and Vaes 1926-27. F o r
Brueghel's contact w i t h B o r r o m e o i n R o m e
and i n M i l a n , see, respectively, Gabrieli 1933-34,
pp. 5 9 - 6 0 ; and B e d o n i 1983, pp. 89-107.
18. ' T o sono per tutti i n H o l l a n d i a e F i a n d r o , per
veder la pittura d i nostra: m a veramente n o n
trove cosa nisuno appreso quello dTtalia et
d'quel D o d e s c o : per questo prego v s . 111.mo de
tenir le cosa sua i n grand grand' e' stimo."
(letter o f O c t o b e r 10, 1596): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 7.
19. F o r the Six Small Landscapes, as well as A Glory of
Angels by R o t t e n h a m m e r and Brueghel, see Jones
1993, pp. 234-35, no. 30, and pp. 2 6 0 - 6 1 , no. 100,
respectively. F o r B o r r o m e o ' s early contact w i t h
Brueghel and Rottenhammer, see B e d o n i 1983,
pp. 3 8 - 4 9 .
20. See, for example, Cascades ofTivoli (pen and
watercolor o n paper, 23.7 x 28.4 c m [9V4 x
11V8 i n . ] ; L e i d e n , Rijksuniversiteit, inv. 1240);
B r u s s e l s - R o m e 1995, pp. 127-28, cat. no. 47.
21. T h e d r a w i n g probably dates from the end o f
Brueghel's R o m a n stay; see W i n n e r 1972, p. 122;
and B r u s s e l s - R o m e 1995, p. 128, cat. no. 48.
22. See note 13 above.
23. F o r the print " S o l i t u d o , sive vitae patrum
e r e m i c o l a r u m " by Jan and Raphael Sadeler after
drawings by M a r t e n de V o s , see Jones 1993,
pp. 216-17, 234; and E r t z 1979, P- 562, no. 30.
F o r Brueghel's transformation o f the subject to
suit B o r r o m e o , see Jones 1993, PP- 7 8 - 7 9 .
24. Brueghel was in M i l a n by M a y 30, 1596
(Van den Branden 1883, p. 445)- H i s letter to
B o r r o m e o o f O c t o b e r 10, 1596, confirms he
had arrived i n A n t w e r p by that time (Crivelli
1868, p. 7).
25. R o m b o u t s and V a n Lerius 1864-76, pp. 397, 416,
418.
26. F o r the history and membership o f the A n t w e r p
confraternity o f Romanists, see D i l i s 1923.
27. H e l d (1983, p. 24) proposed that Brueghel c o u l d
have met Rubens w h e n he traveled through
C o l o g n e , where Jan's sister M a r i a lived, o n his
way to Italy. H o w e v e r , this scenario seems
remote, as Rubens, w h o w o u l d have been about
twelve i n 1589, was not yet part o f an artistic
community.
28. " . . . en is i n seer groot achten ghecomen met te
maken Landschapkens en seer clcen beeldekcns
daer hy een uytnemende fraey handelingh van
heeft" (... and is held i n very great esteem by
m a k i n g small landscapes and tiny figures in w h i c h
he shows an excellently fine manner o f w o r k i n g ) :
V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1994-99, v o l . 1, p. 195.
29. "een stuck van O c t a v i ende Brcugel endc van
Rubens eerst geschildert, met buitenlyst, wesende
den berch Parnassus, get. N o . 362" (a piece by
Octavi [ O t t o van Veen] and B r c u g e l and by
Rubens in his early style, framed, depicting
M o u n t Parnassus) i n the inventory o f H e r m a n
de N e y t (October 15-21, 1642); see D e n u c e
1932, p. 100. See also cat. no. 1.
30. Brueghel married Catharina in A p r i l 1605
(Van den Branden 1883, pp. 4 4 5 - 4 6 ) .
31. V a n den B r a n d e n 1883, p. 4 4 6 . F o r the document,
see D e n u c e 1934, pp. 2 0 - 2 1 , doc. n .
32. F o r V a n Balen's career, see V a n M a n d e r 1604,
fol. 295V; V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1994-99, v o l . 1,
p. 441; Jost 1963; and Werche 2004.
33. Brueghel's correspondence was published by
C r i v e l l i 1868.
34. See the important article by Frecdberg (1981), as
well as Jones 1993, pp. 8 4 - 8 7 , and U . K l c i n m a n n ,
" B l u m e n , Krantze u n d G i r l a n d e n : Z u r E n s t e h u n g
u n d Gestaltung eines Antwerpener Bildtypus,"
in E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 5 4 - 6 6 . See also
cat. nos. 12 and 19.
35. A scene o f Hell, sent i n 1608, was altered per
B o r r o m e o ' s specifications; see Jones 1993, p. 235.
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 37
36. " F u i t i n suo genere mirisicus, potuitque corpus culis
illis inserere tarn generosos, viuidosque
spiritus, vt incertum relinquere videatur i n spect
a n t i u m animis, altane, an h u m i l i dimensione
incluserit t e n u u i u m earum figurarum m o d u m .
V i d e t u r penicillo suo per cuncta nature voluisse
peruagari. P i n x i t e n i m , sicuti postea demostrabimus,
M a r i a , M o n t e s , A n t r a , specusque subteraneos,
et o m n i a ista spacys disiecta i m m a n i b u s
i n augustum coegit, naturam ipsam imitatus
n o n coloribus tantum, sed etiam facilitate, qua
sicuti nature, ita etiam artis s u m m u m decus
est. Q u a si fortafie c u i p i a m nimis effusa laudatio
videtur, sciat, tantam o l i m fore famam, n o m e n q u e
v i r i , vt parce, ac restricte laudatus videri possit."
T h e E n g l i s h translation is f r o m Q u i n t (1986,
p. 236), and the L a t i n is f r o m the facsimile reproduced
by the same author (p. 198).
37. Jones 1993, pp. 232-33, no. 26.
38. " . . . h o principiata et destinato a V S 111.mo una
M a s s a de vario fiori g l i quali reucerani m o l t o
bello: tanta per la naturalleza come anco delle
bellezza et rarita de vario fiori i n questa parto
alcuni inconita et n o n p e i u uisto: per quella io
son stata a Brussella per ritrare alcuni fiori del
natural, che n o n troue i n A n v e r s a " (letter o f
A p r i l 14, 1606): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 63; and " C r e d o
que n o n sia m a i fatto tanti raro et vario fiori,
finita c o n simla diligensa, d'inuerna farra u n bel
uedere, alcuni colori arriueno apressa poca i l
natural" (letter o f A u g u s t 25, 1606): Crivelli 1868,
pp. 74-75. T h e E n g l i s h translation is f r o m Jones
1993, p. 82, w h o notes the letter was written
in June.
39. F o r example, see D u v i v i e r i 8 6 0 , p. 331,
doc. i v ( A p r i l 5, 1606), and p. 332, doc. v i
( A p r i l 10, 1606).
4 0 . D e Maeyer's (1955) t h o r o u g h consideration o f
the different categories o f artists w o r k i n g at the
archducal court has recently been given thoughtful
reconsideration by Sabine van Sprang,
"Les peintres a la cour d A l b e r t et Isabelle: une
tentative de classification," i n V l i e g h e and
V a n der Stighelen 2005, pp. 3 7 - 4 6 .
41. F o r the document, see D u v i v i e r i 8 6 0 , doc. II,
p. 4 4 0 ; Brueghel's request is discussed i n
D e M a e y e r (1955, p. 148) and by V a n Sprang
(note 4 0 above, p. 41).
42. F o r a reassessment o f Brueghel's Peasant W e d dings
and the political agenda o f the archdukes,
see C o r d u l a S c h u m a n n , " C o u r t , C i t y and
C o u n t r y s i d e : Jan Brueghel's Peasant W e d d i n g s
as Images o f Social U n i t y under A r c h d u c a l
Sovereignty," i n Brussels 1998-99, pp. 151-60.
43. F o r the career o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Younger,
see M . - L . H a i r s , "Jan Brueghel de Jongere,"
in Brussels 1980, pp. 2 2 6 - 3 0 , 238-43; and E r t z
1984.
4 4 . Seghers was registered i n the g u i l d o f Saint L u k e
as a leerjongen (apprentice) i n 1611; see R o m b o u t s
and V a n Lerius 1864-76, v o l . 1, pp. 477, 4 8 0 , 483.
45. T h e i r artistic relationship is d o c u m e n t e d i n
1612-13, w h e n B r u e g h e l said he had painted the
figures i n six o f D e M o m p e r ' s paintings at 25
florins each (fatto l i figuri i n 6 quadri del
M o m p e r a 25 fiorina per un) as w e l l as the figures
for a F o u r Seasons series at 4 0 florins a part
( L i quatro stagioni f del M o m p e r , et l'altro fatto
in Casa, l i figuri fatto d i m i o mane a 4 0 fiorina
per pezzo); see C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 208; and E r t z
1979, p. 470.
46. C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 295 (letter o f M a y 7, 1622,
written by Rubens o n Brueghel's behalf).
47. D i a z P a d r o n 1995, v o l . 1, pp. 236-45,
nos. 1 4 0 3 - 0 4 .
48. V a n den B r a n d e n 1883, p. 451.
4 9 . A l t h o u g h it has l o n g been believed that the garland
B r u e g h e l refers to is today i n the M u s e o
N a c i o n a l del Prado, according to A r i a n e van
Suchtelen it is more likely to be the Madonna and
Child in a Garland of Flowers i n the M u s e e d u
L o u v r e ; see cat. no. 12.
50. F o r Rubens's life, see the monographs by W h i t e
(1987) and V o n S i m s o n (1996), and the recent
treatments by U . H e i n e n ( " c
H e r r Pietro Paulo
Rubens, Ritter' A n m e r k u n g zur Biographie,"
i n B r a u n s c h w e i g 2 0 0 4 , pp. 13-27) and B a u d o u i n
(2005).
51. F o r Rubens's early teachers, see N o r r i s 1940,
pp. 189-90; and H e l d 1983.
52. F o r the life and career o f O t t o van V e e n ,
see M i i l l e r Hofstede 1957 and V l i e g h e 1998,
pp. 18-19.
53. F o r V a n Veen's service to the archducal court,
see D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 6 2 - 8 2 . V a n Sprang (note
4 0 above, p. 37) discusses the duties and privileges
associated w i t h the p o s i t i o n o f "ingenieur?
54. E a r l y G e r m a n prints were collected and discussed
a m o n g a learned circle associated w i t h the
mapmaker A b r a h a m Ortelius. Rubens's recollect
i o n o f the importance o f d r a w i n g after G e r m a n
artists i n his y o u t h was recounted by J o a c h i m
v o n Sandrart (1606-1688); see Peltzer 1925, p. 156.
38 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
55. "Peeter Rubbens, vrymeester, scilder" (Peeter
R u b b e n s , free master, painter): R o m b o u t s and
Van Lerius 1864-76, p. 401.
56. F o r the portrait, w h i c h is engraved o n the verso,
P E T R V S PAVLVS R V B E N S / P I , see L i e d t k e 1984,
vol. 1, pp. 187-91.
57. " . . . je confesse d'estre par u n instinct naturel
plus propre a faire des ouvrages bien grandes que
des petites curiositez," (letter o f September 13,
1621, to W i l l i a m T r u m b u l l ) : Rooses and Ruelens
1887-1909, v o l . 2, p. 286 (letter no. 225); translated
in M a g u r n 1955, p. 46.
58. F o r Rubens's career in Italy, see Jaffe 1977 and
L o n d o n 2005.
59. V l i e g h e (note 1 above), pp. 159-60.
60. F o r Rubens's drawings after antique sculpture,
see V a n der M e u l e n 1994, and the insightful
observations i n L o n d o n 2005, pp. 8 9 - 9 5 .
61. Saint Helena Discovering the True Cross (Grasse,
Cathedral), The Mocking of Christ (Grasse,
Cathedral), and The Raising of the Cross k n o w n
today from a copy (Grasse, Cathedral). A l b e r t
resigned his cardinal's hat w h e n he married
Isabella Clara E u g e n i a .
62. It entered the royal collections by 1574; see Balis
et al. 1989a, pp. 78-81.
63. W h e t h e r the sitter c o m m i s s i o n e d an equestrian
portrait from Rubens or whether the artist
invented it in response to a general request is
unclear; see Vergara 1999, pp. n - 1 6 ; and M a d r i d
2 0 0 1 - 0 2 .
64. W h i l e the earliest histories o f t w o drawings by
Rubens connected w i t h the equestrian portrait
o f L e r m a (Equestrian Portrait of a Knight in
Armor, pen and b r o w n ink w i t h b r o w n wash over
black chalk heightened w i t h white, 67.3 x 41 c m
[26V2 x i 6 1
/ s i n . ] ; M u n i c h , Staatliche Graphische
S a m m l u n g , 1983.84, and Equestrian Portrait of
a Knight in Armor, pen and ink w i t h wash, 29 x
21.5 c m [ i i 3
/ s x 8V2 i n . ] ; Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e ,
inv. 20.185) are not k n o w n , i f Rubens retained
them, the sheets m i g h t have been accessible to
Brueghel i n the studio.. T h e drawings and their
histories are discussed by T h e a V i g n a u - W i l b e r g ,
" R u b e n s ' Studies for the Equestrian Portrait
o f the D u k e o f L e r m a , " i n M a d r i d 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ,
pp. 21-29, 54-59-
65. F o r Rubens i n M a n t u a , see M a n t u a - M i l a n 1977.
66. F o r the brothers' R o m a n residence, see Rooses
and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 1, p. 309. F o r
the altarpiece c o m m i s s i o n , see Jaffe 1963,
pp. 209-251; Incisa dclla Rocchctta 1963,
pp. 161-83; a n
d H e l d 1980, pp. 537-45.
67. See Rubens's letter to A n n i b a l c C h i e p p i o
(February 2, 1608), where he says " m y painting
for the h i g h altar o f the C h i c s a N u o v a turned
out very well, to the extreme satisfaction o f the
fathers and also ( w h ich rarely happens) to all
the others w h o first saw it (... m i o quadro per
PAltar maggiore della chicsa nova, cssendo
riuscito b u o n i s s i m o , i con s u m m a soddisfattione
di quelli Padri i [cio che rare volte accade]
di tutti gli altri ch'el videro prima): Rooses and
Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 1, p. 403 (letter no. 108);
translated in M a g u r n 1955, pp. 4 2 - 4 3 . Rubens
goes o n to note the unfortunate light that
required h i m to repaint the w o r k o n a n o n reflective
support. Sec cat. nos. 12 and 19.
68. " M a per venire alle cose mie sapia V S . chio n o n
saprei in adesso che resolutione p i g l i a r m i che ferm
a r m i nella Patria o di ritornare per sempre in
R o m a donde vengo sollecitato con buonissimc
c o n d i t i o n i ; q u i ancora n o n mancano di far o g n i
sforzo a ritenermi con o g n i sorta di carezze.
L'Arciduca, e LTnfanta serenissima m i hanno fatto
scrivere facendo instanza di rimanere al l o r o
servizio c o n grandissime offcrte, benche ho poca
volonta di rifarmi corteggiano. A n v e r s a m i bastara
colli suoi cittadini, quando potessi dir a D i o a
R o m a . L a pace o per dir meglio tregua per m o l t i
anni si fa di sicuro mediante la quale si credc che
questi paesi rifioriranno et si crede che per la
settimana prossima si publicara per tutte qucste
province.": Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 6,
pp. 323-24; translated in M a g u r n 1955, pp. 52-53.
69. F o r The Adoration of the Magi, see M a d r i d 2 0 0 4 ,
pp. 55-123.
70. See V l i e g h e 1993. F o r Rubens's awareness o f
fifteenth-century precedents, see Eisler 1967.
71. F o r Samson and Delilah, see L o n d o n 2005, p. 166,
cat. no. 77.
72. F o r Rubens's prices, sec H . V l i e g h e , " M a a t w e r k
en confectie. O v e r de functie van historic
schilderkunst in de Vlaamse stad van de i 7 d c
ceuw," in B r u s s c l s - S c h a l l a b u r g 1991, p. 260. In
1611 Rubens stated he was unable to accept the
potential student proposed by his friend Jacob
de B i e , saying " . . . ic van alle cantcn gh epre veil
ieert ben soo dat n o c h s o m m i g h e v o o r etlycke
jaren by ander meesters haer onderhouden o m
myn c o m m o d i t e y t te vcrwachten . . . voorts mach
ic segghen met der waerheyt sonder ecnich
hyperbole dat ic over die hondert hebbe m o c t c n
refuseren 00c s o m m i g h e van m y n ende myns
h u y s v r o u w e n maegen niet sonder grooten
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 39
ondanck van vele van m y n beste v r i e n d e n " ( F r o m
all sides applications reach me. S o m e y o u n g m e n
remain here for several years w i t h other masters,
awaiting a vacancy i n m y s t u d i o . . . I can tell
y o u truly w i t h o u t exaggeration, that I have h a d
to refuse over one h u n d r e d , even some o f m y
relatives or m y wife's, and not w i t h o u t causing
great displeasure a m o n g m a n y o f m y best
friends): Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2,
p. 35 (letter o f M a y 11, 1611); translated i n
M a g u r n 1955, P- 55-
73. T h e letter patent was p u b l i s h e d by D e M a e y e r
(1955, pp. 293-95) and discussed b y C h r i s t o p h e r
B r o w n ("Rubens and the Archdukes," i n Brussels
1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , p. 121) and V a n Sprang (note 4 0 above,
p. 4 0 ) .
74. L i n d 1946, p. 38.
75. F o r The Raising of the Cross, see M a r t i n 1969.
76. Rooses 1886-92, v o l . 4, p. 14, no. 800. F o r recent
technical findings, see G a y o G a r c i a and Vergara
2 0 0 4 .
77. Several independent w o r k s by Snyders appear i n
the Specificatie (Specification) made at Rubens's
death: "no. 239 A baskett w i t h fruite, and birds,
by Franchys Snyders," "no. 260 the huntinge o f a
great w i l d bore; by Francys Snyders," "no. 261 A
flower pott by the same," " A B o r d , where fruite
Lyes v p p o n the E a r t h by F r a n . Sndyers," and
"no. 264 A b o r d , w i t h Cabbages & Turnipps by
the same"; see M u l l e r 1989, pp. 137-38; and
A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , pp. 174-76.
78. T h i s fascinating practice was the focus o f
E d i n b u r g h - N o t t i n g h a m 2002 and is discussed
in N e w Y o r k 2005, pp. 15-18.
79. "26. V n paysage de B r i l avec l'histoire de Psyche.
/ 26. A Landschap [sic] o f P a u l Brill's w i t h a
Psyche"; see M u l l e r 1980, p. 100, no. 26, w h o
notes "it is n o t clear whether R u b e n s ordered a
figureless landscape f r o m B r i l for the purpose
o f collaboration or independently retouched Bril's
work." See also K o n r a d Renger's entry o n the
p a i n t i n g i n A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 a , p. 174.
80. F o r Beert's w o r k w i t h R u b e n s , see B e r g s t r o m
1957, and for their Rausias and Glycera (1612-15;
Sarasota, F l o r i d a , T h e J o h n and M a b e l R i n g l i n g
M u s e u m o f A r t , inv. S N 219(0]), see V i e n n a Essen
2002, pp. 116-17, cat. no. 33.
81. I n a letter o f M a r c h 14, 1617 (to Sir D u d l e y
Carleton), G e o r g e G a g e refers to "a y o n g m a n
w h o hath lived l o n g i n Italy, w h o I t h i n k is the
rarest m a n l i v i n g i n Lantscape": Rooses and
Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2, p. 104 (letter no. 151).
T h i s y o u n g m a n is usually identified as W i l d e n s .
W h e n W i l d e n s m a r r i e d M a r i a Stappaert i n 1619,
"his g o o d friend" (zijnen goede vriendt) R u b e n s
served as a witness ( V a n den B r a n d e n 1883,
p. 684).
82. F o r the decorations for the t r i u m p h a l entry, see
M a r t i n 1972. F o r the Torre de la Parada, see
Alpers 1971.
83. T h e epitaph was c o m p o s e d by Rubens's friend
Jan Gaspar Gevaerts; see Rooses 1903, p. 629.
84. D i l i s 1923, pp. 456-57-
85. P u b l i s h e d b y C r i v e l l i 1868.
86. See V l i e g h e 1987, pp. 6 0 - 6 2 , no. 79; Rubens's
portrait remained i n Brueghel's family t h r o u g h
the e n d o f the seventeenth century.
87. H a i r s 1977, p. 13.
88. T h e other guardians were the painters H e n d r i c k
van B a l e n and C o r n e l l s Schut; see D e n u c e 1934,
pp. 51-52, doc. 20, and pp. 55-57, doc. 23.
89. Jaffe 1989, no. 219.
90. F o r the A n t w e r p G u i l d o f Saint L u k e , see
R o m b o u t s and v'an L e r i u s 1 8 6 4 - 7 6 .
91. T h e image is i n the f o r m o f a rebus o f a p o e m
by the painter Sebastian V r a n c x : "Apeiles
scholieren, die Sint Lucas vieren, / W i l t helpen
versieren den Olyftak snel, / M e t ons V i o l i e r e n
en A p o l l o ' s laurieren, / V l u c h t droevige manieren,
w i l l i c h h o u d t V r e d e w e l " (Students o f Apeiles
w h o celebrate Saint L u k e / H e l p us quickly!
Decorate the O l i v e B r a n c h / w i t h o u r gillyflowers
and the laurels o f A p o l l o , / M e l a n c h o l y ways
readily flee. K e e p the Peace w e l l ) ; see
Keersmaekers 1957, pp. 343-50 and Peter S u t t o n
in B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 57.
92. C a m p b e l l 1981, p. 50.
93. Alexander 1992, p. 4 9 .
94. A l e x a n d e r 1992, p. 50.
95. F o r a t h o r o u g h consideration o f the varied practices
i n v o l v e d i n manuscript p r o d u c t i o n , see
Alexander 1992. Recent contributions to literature
o n the p r o d u c t i o n o f F l e m i s h miniatures include
Catherine R e y n o l d s , "Illuminators and the
Painters' Guilds," i n L o s A n g e l e s - L o n d o n
2 0 0 3 - 0 4 , pp. 15-33; and T h o m a s K r e n
and M a r y a n W . A i n s w o r t h , "Illuminators and
Painters: Artistic Exchanges and Interrelationships,"
i n L o s A n g e l e s - L o n d o n 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 ,
PP- 35-57-
4 0 T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S
96. See C a m p b e l l 1981; C a m p b e l l 1998, pp. 23-28;
and M a r y a n A i n s w o r t h , " W o r k s h o p Practice i n
Early N e t h e r l a n d i s h Painting: A n Inside View,"
in N e w Y o r k 1998-99a, pp. 205-11.
97. C a m p b e l l 1998, p. 53-
98. W h i l e the nature and extent o f collaboration
between H u b e r t and Jan van E y c k o n Adoration
of the Mystic Lamb are still disputed (see T i l l H
o l g e r Borchert, " I n t r o d u c t i o n : Jan van Eyck's
W o r k s h o p , " in Bruges 2002, pp. 14-15), K a r e l
van M a n d e r i n his biography o f the brothers
published i n 1604 asserted his o p i n i o n : "Some
believe that H u b e r t u s began this picture o n his
o w n and that Joannes subsequently finished
it but I am o f the o p i n i o n that they began it
together and that H u b e r t u s d i e d i n the year 1426
while the w o r k was i n progress" (Eenige meenen
dat H u b e r t u s des tafel eerstmael alleen hadde
begonnen en datse Ioannes daer nae voldaen
heeft, dan ick houde dat yse t'samen aenghevanghen
hebben, maer datter H u b e r t u s over
gestorven is): V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 ,
vol. 1, pp. 58-59.
99- F o r Rubens and his drawings, see A n n e - M a r i e
L o g a n , "Peter Paul Rubens as Draftsman," i n
N e w Y o r k 2005, p. 3.
100. D e n u c e 1934, pp. 113-15, doc. L X V I I I
(September 3, 1638).
101. F o r B r u e g h e l the Younger's copies o f the Five
Senses made for a patron i n H o l l a n d , see D e n u c e
1934, pp. 8 0 - 8 2 , doc. 39 (June 8, 1632); Brueghel
subsequently claimed that "thousands o f people"
(nochtans duysent menschen) came to see the
Senses (letter o f A u g u s t 25, 1632): D e n u c e 1934,
p. 83, doc. 41; and B e d o n i 1983, p. 142. See the
numerous references to garland paintings i n the
correspondence between Jan the Y o u n g e r and the
Seville merchant C h r . V a n Immerzeel i n D e n u c e
1934, pp. 6 8 - 7 1 , 92-93- See also, for example,
D e n u c e 1931, pp. 31, 48, 98; and D e n u c e 1932,
pp. 246, 252-57; instances o f such references
a m o n g A n t w e r p inventories are too numerous
to cite.
102. E r t z 1984, pp. 8 0 - 8 1 .
103. Vaes 1926-27 and D e n u c e 1934.
104. F o r the rise o f the A n t w e r p art market i n the early
sixteenth century, see E w i n g 1990 and V e r m e y l e n
2003. F o r its relation to the rise o f n e w genres,
see A r n o u t Balis, " D e nieuwe genres en het burgerlijk
mecenaat," i n Brussels-Schallaburg 1991,
pp. 237-54; for the art market i n the seventeenth
century, see D e M a r c h i and V a n M i e g r o e t 1994;
and for the p h e n o m e n o n o f a " n e w " product, see
De M a r c h i and V a n M i e g r o e t 1998.
105. Friedlander 1967-76, v o l . 7 ( Q u c n t i n Massys),
p. 25.
106. Patinir " . . . hadde een sekcr c y g c n manicr van
te maken landscappen, seer aerdich en suyvcr"
(had a certain i n d i v i d u a l way o f landscape painting,
most subtle and precise): V a n M a n d e r /
M i e d e m a 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 , v o l . 1, p. 135. Later he
described Gillis van C o n i n x l o o as "den uytncmenden
Landscapmaker" (the excellent landscape
painter): p. 331.
107. C a m p b e l l 1988, p. 51; and Tamis 2 0 0 0 .
108. " H e t eene van m y n hant heeft... geghelden 54
guldens; het ander van m y n knccht gedaen is
vercocht 18 guldens..." (the one by my hand was
w o r t h 54 g u l d e n ; the other done by m y assistant
cost 18 guldens): D u v i v i e r i 8 6 0 , v o l . 2, p. 331,
doc. i v (April 5, 1606); " . . . deux pieces de p c i n tures
siennes, l'une faicte de sa m a i n a 54 f l . , et
l'aultre par u n sien valet a 18 fl." (two o f his paintings,
one f r o m his hand at 54 florins, and the
other by his assistant at 18 florins.): D u v i v i e r
i 8 6 0 , v o l . 2, p. 332, doc. v i (April 10, 1606).
109. Letter o f A p r i l 28, 1618; sec the discussion in
cat. nos. 22 and 24.
n o . Crivelli 1868, p. 272.
i n . "Maestre C o y n t i n y M . Joachin. O t r a tabla en que
esta pintada la tentacion de Sant A n t o n contres
mugeres en u n paysage las figuras de m a n de
Maestre C o y n t i n y el paysage de M . Joachin que
tiene de alto 6 p. y de ancho 7"(Master Q u i n t c n
[Metsys] and M a s t e r J o a c h i m [Patinir]. A n o t h e r
panel u p o n w h i c h is painted a temptation o f Saint
A n t h o n y against w o m e n [harlots] and a landscape
of figures the hand o f M a s t e r Q u i n t c n and the
landscape o f M r . Joachim w h i c h has the height
6 p. and the w i d t h 7). T h e citation was first published
by Justi 1886, p. 95.
112. F o r examples, see Crivelli 1868, pp. 248, 249, 272.
113. See cat. no. 22.
114. F o r the inventories o f paintings at Tervuren in
1617 and 1667, see D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 336-37,
doc. 134, and pp. 4 4 8 - 5 3 , doc. 272. F o r the
Specificatie, see A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , pp. 328-33; and
D e n u c e 1949, pp. 188-90.
115. F o r Rubens and Brueghel's joint w o r k i n g methods
i n paintings in the e x h i b i t i o n , and the
approaches used to study them, see the essay by
Tiarna Doherty, M a r k L e o n a r d , and J o r g c n
W a d u m in this v o l u m e .
T W O C E L E B R A T E D P A I N T E R S 41
Catalogue
A R I A N E V A N S U C H T E L E N ( A v S )
A N N E T. W O O L L E T T ( A T W )
Reader's Note: In entries on the collaborative works of
Rubens and Brueghel, a distinction has been made between
the levels of responsibility assumed by each artist, with the
primary contributor listed first.
Literature and Exhibition sections are comprehensive but
not exhaustive.
4 3
1
Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder
The Battle of the Amazons
ca. 1598-1600
O i l o n panel, 97 x 124 cm (38l
A x 48% in.)
Potsdam, Stiftung Preufiische Schlofier u n d Garten Berlin-Brandenburg,
Schlofi Sanssouci Bildergalerie, g k i 10021
P R O V E N A N C E
I n the collection o f O r a n i e n b u r g Castle,
b y 1 6 9 9 1
transferred to Berliner Schlofi,
1710;2
r e m o v e d to a n d exhibited i n Paris,
M u s e e N a p o l e o n ( M u s e e d u L o u v r e ) ,
1806-15;3
B e r l i n e r Schlofi, 1830-1906, a n d
p r e s u m e d 1906-1940/43 ( d o c u m e n t e d i n the
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ca. 1 9 3 0 - 4 0 ) ;
thence i n the N e u e K a m m e r n o f Sanssouci;
[1945-1958 R u s s i a ] ; exhibited i n the
Bildergalerie since 1 9 6 4 4
L I T E R A T U R E
N i c o l a i 1779, p. 6 6 6 ; Waagen 1830, v o l . 2,
p. 227; C o l o g n e 1977, p p . 181-82;5
Bartoschek
1978, p. 11, n o . 1, p i . i ; 6
E c k a r d t 1980,
p. 80, no. 74; H e l d 1983, pp. 21-25; H e l d
1987, pp. 9 - 2 2 ; V o n S i m s o n 1996, pp. 34-35;
P a d u a - R o m e - M i l a n 1990, p. 36; E s s e n V
i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 2 4 0 , 242, 243, 2 4 6 ;
Poeschel 2001, pp. 97, 1 0 7 ; 7
Renger a n d D e n k
2002, p. 350; L i l l e 2 0 0 4 , p. 32; N e w Y o r k
2005, p. 88; V i e n n a 2 0 0 4 a , pp. 158-60,
cat. n o . n ; H o n i g 2005
E X H I B I T I O N S
Paris 1807, cat. n o . 6 0 2 ; C o l o g n e - A n t w e r p V
i e n n a 1992-93, pp. 3 4 3 - 4 4 , cat. no. 4 4 . 1 ;
L o n d o n 2005, pp. n , 4 2 - 4 4 , 47, cat. n o . 1
n
a
ns
•
]
HE BATTLE OF THE AMAZONS IS T H E E A R L I E S T
known collaboration undertaken by Rubens and
Brueghel. Realized through a straightforward divisio
of labor between flgural and landscape components, this
splendid panel captures the swirling action and violence o f
heroic clash o f combatants from the classical past. Painted
after Brueghel's return from his Italian sojourn i n 1596 and
before Rubens departed for Mantua i n 1600, The Battle
of the Amazons proved to be a decisive undertaking that had
repercussions for the independent oeuvres o f both artists,
as well as for their future projects together. It was at this
crucial time, with the execution o f a war theme, that Rube
and Brueghel harnessed their complementary artistic ambitions
and apprehended the power o f their joint inventions.
The Amazons were a race o f fierce female warriors from
Asia Minor, whose horsemanship and skill with the b o w
were legendary. The exploits o f the Amazons and their
queens, Hippolyta, her sister Antiope, and Penthesilea, w h o
were considered worthy opponents o f the great heroes, are
recounted i n the myths o f Hercules and Theseus. Plutarch
{Lives 1.27) describes the Amazons' attack on Athens and
their defeat by the Greek army led by Theseus, for w h o m the
war was "no trivial or womanish enterprise." Although largescale
Amazonomaches are found i n ancient Greek art and the
exploits o f the formidable Amazons were a popular subject
for antique sarcophagi, the subject was rarely depicted
in Renaissance art.8
For this cabinet-sized Amazonomache,
Rubens and Brueghel combined the portrayal o f the fervor
of battle with references to the feats o f Hercules, drawing
on a broad literary tradition rather than a single source.9
O n a wide plain, with a wooded hill to the left and a swampy
river o n the right leading to a bridge, the Amazons engage
4 4 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
45
their opponents. The Greek army charges in from the left,
pushing the Amazons at a gallop across the field toward the
water and forward in the direction of the viewer. In the
foreground, Hercules subdues two Amazons, one of whom
incongruously wears a plumed cap reminiscent of sixteenthcentury
costume.1 0
The Amazon in red in the center right
of the composition, highlighted by the gold banner behind
her, may be Hippolyta, who has not yet succumbed to
Hercules.1 1
To the left of the Hercules group, a muscular
warrior clasps the limp figure of an Amazon; the two perhaps
representing Theseus and the slain Antiope. Around these
foreground groupings, warriors surge forward on foot
and on horseback, fall from their steeds, are trampled, and
resist their adversaries.
The Battle of the Amazons has long been recognized as a
collaborative work, although the attribution of the figures
to Rubens was only restored relatively recently. The Potsdam
panel, or a second version of the composition in a private
collection (see below), is almost certainly the painting
described in the inventory of Diego Duarte's collection in
Antwerp in 1682, in which collaborative works are clearly
identified: "By Peter Paul Rubens. A piece on panel, the
battle of the Amazons, full of action in his early manner;
the landscape or background is entirely by the Velvet [Jan]
Brueghel.5
'1 2
In 1779 the painting was identified as a work
by Breughel and his frequent collaborator during the mid-
15908, Hans Rottenhammer (compare cat. nos. 14 and
15).13
During the confusion over the location of The Battle
of the Amazons after 1816, it was attributed simultaneously
by French authorities to Otto van Veen (ca. 1556-1629) and
again to Rottenhammer by keepers in Berlin. With its arrival
in Potsdam, Muller Hofstede confirmed the attribution
to Van Veen, and the Sanssouci Bildergalerie continued to
recognize this designation, as well as the attribution of the
landscape to Jan Brueghel, until Held returned The Battle of
the Amazons to the small group of early, pre-Italian-sojourn
works by Rubens.1 4
Although there can be no doubt that Rubens was responsible
for the figures in The Battle of the Amazons, the attributions
to Rottenhammer and particularly to Van Veen
reflect the long-held uncertainty about Rubens's style before
his departure for Italy. After short apprenticeships with
the landscape painter Tobias Verhaecht (1561-1631) and the
history painter Adam van Noort (1562-1641), Rubens entered
the studio of Otto van Veen in about 1596.1 5
Originally
from Leiden, Van Veen had spent nearly five years in Italy,
mostly in Rome. One of the most erudite painters in
Antwerp, he had been court painter to Alessandro Farnese,
duke of Parma and governor of the Southern Netherlands,
in Brussels, from 1584 to 1592 as well as to Archduke Ernst
in 1594 and to Archduke Albert in 1596. From 1599, he served
Archdukes Albert and Isabella.16
Rubens's nephew Philip
famously described the resemblance of his uncle's early style
to Otto van Veen's manner.17
Rubens's large Adam and Eve
of about 1598-1600, occasionally attributed to Van Veen,
reveals the influence of his teacher's smooth, heavy Roman
manner. The figures in The Battle of the Amazons, despite
their smaller scale, still retain vestiges of Van Veen's blocky
figural style and utilize the cool undertones for the flesh and
bright pink accents characteristic of his work in the 1590s.
Rubens became a master in the Antwerp Guild of Saint
Luke in 1598, and although he maintained ties with Van
Veen, the Potsdam panel dates from this period of indepen­
dence.18
It demonstrates Rubens's youthful ambition and
interests as well as the decisive ways in which he was expanding
beyond the model of his teacher. The young Rubens
eschewed Van Veen's monumentality and solidity and pursued
motion, action, emotion, and complex arrangements of
men and animals. On a sheet vividly drawn in pen and ink,
Battle ofNude Men (ca. 1598-1600; Washington, D.C.,
National Gallery of Art), he excerpted key individual figures
and groups, choosing figures in violent and extreme motion,
from two engraved battle scenes by Barthel Beham (1502-
1540), Battle of Titus Gracchus (ca. 1528) and Battle of Eighteen
Nude Men (ca. 1528).19
Beham's running frieze was itself
indebted to the battle scenes in relief on the Column
of Trajan (finished by A.D. 113; Rome, Forum of Trajan), a
major source for combat figures in the Renaissance. The
exaggerated expressions of the Greeks and Amazons and the
bloody portrayal of violence in The Battle of the Amazons
reveal a young artist striving to capture the extremity of his
subject. For a subject where the clash between women and
men was the central, charged theme, Rubens adopted the
conventional ruddy and creamy skin tones to differentiate
the sexes. Rubens was already a keen observer of horses,
as demonstrated by studies known through a later copy
(fig. 33). He understood how equine figures could generate
energy and drama in a composition, and the dynamic variety
of horses in The Battle of the Amazons underscores his creative
and dramatic use of equine elements.20
The pink manes of
some of the horses are part of a chromatic palette that, along
with the illogical lighting, enhances the excitement of the
46 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
FIGURE 33 W i l l e m Panccls (ca. 1600-1632)
after Peter Paul Rubens, Studies of Horses
after Jost Amman, ca. 1628-30. Pen and ink,
w i t h traces o f graphite o n formerly white
paper, 20.6 x 31.7 c m (8V8 x 12V2 in.).
H a m b u r g , Kunsthalle, Graphischc S a m m l u n g c n ,
inv. 1957-145
scene.21
Rubens demonstrated his conversance with major
antique models in The Battle of the Amazons even before he
had studied them firsthand. The intricately entwined figures
of Hercules and the struggling Amazons, for example, are
derived from the Laocoon group.2 2
The biting horses at the
extreme right were drawn from Leonardo da Vinci's famous
Battle ofAnghiari, a composition that fascinated Rubens.2 3
From the earliest moments of his career, Rubens was
engaged with the compositional challenges associated with
battle subjects, a passion to which he would return oversucceeding
decades.
The Battle of the Amazons served as a forum for the shared
interests of Rubens and Brueghel and a natural meeting
of their ambitions. Brueghel had returned from his travels
through Naples, Rome, and Milan in the fall of 1596. At this
time he was undertaking ambitious, large-format multifigure
landscapes, such as the Harbor Scene with Christ Preaching
(see fig. 98), in which the majestic setting contextualizes the
human dramas taking place in the foreground. Rubens possessed
a thorough classical education, and it must be
assumed he was familiar with literary accounts of the great
battles of antiquity. In addition, as discussed above, he
had begun to gather a figural vocabulary in anticipation of
a depiction of warfare. The cultural milieu of Antwerp at the
end of the decade may also have served as a powerful impetus
upon the two artists. Battle subjects, both historical and
contemporary, were well represented in Burgundian and
Habsburg collections, and in 1597 Otto van Veen designed a
series of twenty-seven tapestries celebrating the military
victories of Archduke Albert (Madrid, Royal Collection).2 4
Rubens and Brueghel approached the process of collaboration
straightforwardly by dividing the panel horizontally
into two zones. In order to achieve the desired density
of figures, and to show off his command of many difficult
poses, Rubens carefully planned the lower half of the painting.
Infrared reflectography reveals his controlled drawing
(see fig. 115), perhaps after a sketch or group of separate
preparatory drawings.2 5
He was also responsible for the transitional
section of tightly packed warriors. Brueghel painted
an extensive and atmospheric view across the curiously
lush plain to the mountains, throughout which Greek and
Amazon forces continue to skirmish. The wild far reaches
of this view conjure up an earlier, more archaic time. Characteristically,
the different zones of landscape are separated,
so the most distant portions are largely blue in tonality.
Brueghel also added fine grass around the foreground figures.
One of the most striking aspects of The Battle ofthe
Amazons is the lively use of gold detailing, a practice found
earlier in the Netherlands and in the work of Van Veen.2 6
Both artists adjusted their current modes while executing the
Potsdam panel: the viewpoint is lower than in many of
Brueghel's works from this period, while Rubens adopted an
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 47
FIGURE 34 G i o v a n n i Francesco Penni (1496-1528) after G i u l i o R o m a n o
(ca. 1499-1546), The Battle ofZama, ca. 1523-28. Pen and b r o w n ink,
gray wash and w h i t e heightening o n paper, 41.9 x 56.7 c m (16 V2 x
22V8 in.). Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. 3718
intermediate figure size. Although Rubens was, as his nephew
later attested, already renowned before leaving for Italy, the
size of the painting, suitable for a gallery, the importance of
the landscape, and the adaptation of key Roman fresco
sources (discussed below) suggest that Brueghel, senior by
eleven years, strongly influenced its direction.2 7
It is, in fact,
difficult to determine in some areas exactly where Rubens's
figures end and Brueghel's work begins—a situation that
further promotes the supposition that their contributions to
The Battle of the Amazons were equivalent.
Rubens and Brueghel's conception of The Battle ofthe
Amazons was particularly indebted to the great fresco
designed by Raphael, The Battle of Constantine against
Maxentius (1520-24; Rome, Vatican, Sala di Constantino),
which Brueghel could have seen when he was in Italy only a
few years earlier, and Rubens could have known through
an engraving. In The Battle of the Amazons, the army surging
into the composition from the left, as well as the viewers'
remove from the melee, which allows for open ground in
the foreground, and the river and arched bridge on the
right, all recall the fresco. However, the foreground combat
of mounted soldiers in Giulio Romano's Battle ofZama
(fig. 34), one of twenty-two designs for the Deeds and
Triumphs of Scipio series of tapestries for the French king
Francis I, itself influenced by Raphael's example, may have
suggested to Rubens the effective portrayal of horses seen
from the rear as well as other motifs of charging and fallen
horses.28
The impressive Battle of the Amazons must have been
admired soon after its completion, as a second version was
painted a short time later.2 9
The extensive use of gold detailing
in the Potsdam panel is absent from the later version,
which is also free of the draperies added (presumably later)
to some of the figures in the Potsdam Battle to cover their
nudity. As the specificity of the Duarte inventory suggests,
almost one hundred years later Rubens and Brueghel were
known to have collaborated on a painting of this subject.
A tradition also existed that there had been a more extensive
collaborative enterprise that included Rubens's teacher.
Two works have been attributed to the joint authorship of
Van Veen, Brueghel, and Rubens: in 1642 a Parnassus (presumed
lost) was listed in the collection of the Antwerp
dealer and painter Herman de Neyt, and at the end of the
nineteenth century, a large Battle of the Amazons (location
unknown) was sold in Cologne.3 0
The extraordinary importance of The Battle of the Amazo
for Rubens and Brueghel is evident from their individual
pursuits after 1600. With Rubens's departure for Italy in Ma
1600, Brueghel himself turned to large-scale historical subjects.
For the Continence of Scipio, of about 1600 (see fig. 10
he borrowed Rubens's lively horses, including the white
horses with the pink manes, charging across the foreground
and cavorting at the side, as well as the motif of the horsemen
entering from the right blowing their horns. The Battle
oflssus, 1602 (fig. 35), demonstrates Brueghel's ambitious
treatment of battle. Here, too, many of the most prominent
equine figures recall Rubens's example. However, the densit
of figures ensures that the armies move and swirl en masse,
unified by the bird's-eye view.3 1
For Rubens, The Battle of the Amazons stands at the
beginning of a series of drawn and painted engagements wit
Amazonian themes. A rapidly executed group of figures,
Battle Scene between the Greeks and Amazons and Studiesfo
Samson (Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland) again
combines female and equine combatants.32
Some of the
ideas from this sheet and particularly from the more finished
drawing of The Battle of the Greeks and Amazons (London,
The British Museum) were employed in two other paintings
of the subject: the recently discovered The Battle ofthe
Amazons of 1603-05 (private collection) and The Battle of
ns
y
),
y
h
r
48 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
FIGURE 35 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The Buttle oflssus, 1602. O i l o n canvas,
80 x 136 c m (31.V2 x 531/2 in.). Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. 1094
FIGURE 36 Peter P a u l R u b e n s , The Battle of the Amazons, ca. 1618.
O i l o n panel, 120.3 x 165.3 c m (473
/s x 65 Vs in.). M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek,
inv. 324
the Amazons of about 1618 (fig. 36).3 3
Among the motifs
Rubens retained from the Potsdam Battle of the Amazons and
incorporated into the London drawing, and the two paintings,
is the fearsome Amazon holding her trophy of a severed
head aloft.
For Rubens, The Battle of the Amazons represents an early
attempt at a complex figural composition, and his meticulous
drawn preparation on the panel, not found in later
collaborative works, betrays the difficulties of the process.
When the partnership was reestablished nearly a decade
later with another war theme, The Return from War: Mars
Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2), Rubens and Brueghel realized
the political and allegorical references associated with the
theme of peace through a more complex working process
that nonetheless resulted in contributions of equal visual
value, A T W
N O T E S
1. N o . 321, " E i n e A m a z o n i s c h e Bataille m i t H e r c u l e u n d Theseo":
E c k a r d t 1980, p. 80; and H e l d 1983, p. 22.
2. Catalogued i n 1779 as Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and H a n s
R o t t e n h a m m e r ; see Eckardt 1980, p. 80.
3. A s the w o r k o f O t t o van V e e n ; see H e l d 1983, p. 21. H e l d discusses
the confusion over the whereabouts o f the p a i n t i n g after 1816, w h e n it
was believed to have been transferred to the M u s e e des Beaux-Arts i n
D i j o n . T h e painting, however, h a d been returned to B e r l i n .
4. Waagen 1830, v o l . 2, p. 227; Eckardt 1980, p. 80; and correspondence
f r o m G . Bartoschek.
5. A s O t t o van V e e n .
6. A s O t t o van V e e n , w i t h the landscape by Jan Brueghel the Elder.
7. A s O t t o van V e e n .
8. F o r ancient examples, see B o b e r and R u b i n s t e i n 1986, pp. 175-80.
A c c o r d i n g to H e l d (1983, p. 22), Rubens may have k n o w n E n e a V i c o ' s
print o f 1543, possibly after G i u l i o R o m a n o .
9. Alternatively, as proposed by M c G r a t h and Jaffe i n L o n d o n 2005
(p. 43), Virgil's characterization o f the virtuous warrior C a m i l l a
in TheAeneid (11.648-63) may have i n f o r m e d Rubens's ideas for
the c o m p o s i t i o n .
10. Perhaps Rubens sought to underscore the relevance o f the subject for
his o w n time w i t h this device. H o w e v e r , he d i d not include contemporary
costume elsewhere i n the c o m p o s i t i o n .
11. I n his n i n t h labor, Hercules was sent to obtain the girdle o f the
A m a z o n queen H i p p o l y t a , succeeding o n l y by slaying her i n battle;
50 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
see, for example, A p o l l o d o r u s , Bibliotheca 2.5.1-12; and D i o d o r u s
Siculus 4. Poeschel (2001, p. 97) identified this figure as H i p p o l y t a .
12. " V a n Petro Paulo R u b b e n s [a total o f eleven paintings i n c l u d e d under
this h e a d i n g ] . . . E e n stuck o p paneel den slagh van de A m a s o o n e n v o l
werckx van syn vroege manier. H e t landscap ofte verschiet is geheel
vanden Fluweelen Bruegel... guld[en] 100 [the sixth most valuable
p a i n t i n g i n this g r o u p ] " : D o g a e r 1971, pp. 2 0 8 - 9 ; discussed i n H e l d
1983, p. 22.
13. E c k a r d t 1980, p. 80.
14. M u l l e r Hofstede i n C o l o g n e 1977, p. 181; see also H e l d 1983, pp. 21-25.
H o w e v e r , V o n S i m s o n (1996, p. 34) does not accept the attribution to
Rubens, and Poeschel (2001) retains the earlier attribution to V a n V e e n .
15. F o r Rubens's early training, see M u l l e r Hofstede 1962; H e l d 1983;
and B a u d o u i n 2005.
16. F o r V a n Veen's career, see D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 6 2 - 8 2 ; M u l l e r
H o f s t e d e 1957; V l i e g h e 1998, pp. 18-19; 117-19; and p. 18 i n
this v o l u m e .
17. "car avant son voyage d'ltalie ils voient quelque ressemblance avec
ceiux d'Octave van V e e n , son maistre" (in correspondence w i t h R o g e r
de Piles, 1676): N o r r i s 1940, p. 189. F o r P h i l i p Rubens's biography,
see D e Reiffenberg 1837, pp. 10-11.
18. R o m b o u t s and V a n L e r i u s 1 8 6 4 - 7 6 , p. 401.
19. Barthel B e h a m , Battle of Titus Gracchus (engraving, 55 x 295 m m [2V8 x
u 5
/ 8 in.]); see H o l l s t e i n 1 9 4 9 - , v o l . 2, p. 191; and Barthel B e h a m ,
Battle of Eighteen Nude Men (engraving, 56 x 295 m m [2V4 x II5
/S in.]);
see H o l l s t e i n 1 9 4 9 - , v o l . 2, p. 203. F o r Peter Paul R u b e n s , Fighting
Men (pen and b r o w n ink over black chalk, 14.1 x 25.2 c m [5V2 x
97
/8 i n . ] ; W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t , Julius S. F i e l d
C o l l e c t i o n , A l i s a M e l l o n Bruce F u n d , 1984.3.57), see H e l d 1959, no. 3,
pp. 6 4 - 6 5 . T h e R u b e n s sheet and the B e h a m prints are discussed and
reproduced i n L o n d o n 2005, pp. 52-53, cat. no. 6.
20. R u b e n s c o m p i l e d the horses f r o m different w o o d c u t battle scenes by
Jost A m m a n (ca. 1539-1591) from a G e r m a n e d i t i o n o f The Jewish War
by Flavius Josephus; see H e l d 1983, p. 23.
21. H e l d (1983, p. 25) drew attention to the other instance, dating f r o m
Rubens's M a n t u a n stay, i n w h i c h the artist gave his horses vibrant p i n k
manes: The Council of the Gods, 1601-2 ( o i l o n canvas, 2 0 4 x 379 c m
[8o3
/s x 149V4 i n . ] ; C z e c h R e p u b l i c , Prague Castle A r t C o l l e c t i o n s ,
inv. HSIII).
22. R o m a n copy, first century A . D . , R o m e , V a t i c a n , Belvedere Palace.
R u b e n s w o u l d make several drawings o f the g r o u p a few years
later w h i l e he was i n R o m e . F o r these drawings, see V a n der M e u l e n
1994, v o l . 2, pp. 9 2 - 1 0 4 . Despite its title, W i l l e m Paneels's d r a w i n g
after Rubens, The Rape of the Sabines (1628-30, black chalk, pen
and b r o w n ink, 21 x 26.9 c m [8V2 x 10V2 i n . ] ; C o p e n h a g e n , Statens
M u s e u m for K u n s t , inv. K K S G B 7270), is specifically related to the
trio o f figures i n the Potsdam c o m p o s i t i o n ; see H e l d 1983, pp. 2 1 - 2 2 .
23. L e o n a r d o da V i n c i ' s wall p a i n t i n g i n the Sala del G r a n C o n s i g l i o o f
the Palazzo V e c c h i o , Florence, begun about 1503 and abandoned
by L e o n a r d o i n 1506, was p r o b a b l y k n o w n to Rubens i n the late 1590s
from engraving or copy. F o r Rubens's study o f this m o d e l later in his
career, see W o o d i n E d i n b u r g h - N o t t i n g h a m 2002, pp. 4 0 - 4 1 ; and
L o n d o n 2005, PP- 41-45-
24. Tapestry series, notably the Battle ofPavia, 1526-28, designed by
B e r n a r d van O r l e y and depicting Charles V ' s defeat o f the French
k i n g Francis I, and the Conquest of Tunis series, 1548-54, designed by
Jan V e r m e y e n for Charles V , were an important f o r m o f imperial
propaganda; see U t r e c h t - ' s - H e r t o g e n b o s c h 1993, p. 263; and N e w
Y o r k 2002, pp. 2 6 7 - 7 0 . F o r V a n Veen's tapestries, see D e M a e y e r 1955,
P- 75-
25. See the essay by D o h e r t y , L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e ,
pp. 223, 228.
26. See particularly the decorative use o f g o l d i n the important Portrait
of Alessandro Farnese (ca. 1585-92, o i l o n copper; L o s Angeles C o u n t y
M u s e u m o f A r t , inv. M . 2003.69).
27. N o r r i s 1940, p. 190.
28. The Battle ofZama was engraved by C o r n e l l s C o r t (1567); sec H o l l s t e i n
1993-, v o l . 8, no. 3, pp. 9 2 - 9 4 , nos. 195 and 196. F o r G i u l i o R o m a n o ' s
d r a w i n g and the tapestry series, see Paris 1978, p. 97.
29. O i l o n panel, 102 x 120 c m (40 Vs x 4714 in.), private collection.
See H e l d 1983, p. 25; P a d u a - R o m e - M i l a n 1990, pp. 36-37, cat. no. 1;
E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 238, 2 4 0 - 4 2 , cat. no. 68; and L o n d o n
2005, p. 44-
30. Inventory o f H e r m a n de N e y t , O c t o b e r 15-21, 1642: " O p d e earner
boven den w i n c k e l : . . . E e n stuck van O c t a v i ende Bruegel ende
van Rubens eerst geschildert, met buytenlyst, wesende den bcrch
Pernassus, get. N o . 362" (In the r o o m above the s h o p : . . . a piece by
O c t a v i [ O t t o van Veen] and Brueghel and R u b e n s i n his early style,
framed, d e p i c t i n g M o u n t Parnassus); see D e n u c e 1932, p. 100; and
G e m a l d e - G a l e r i e des z u Pressburg verstorbenen H e r r n G r a z i o s o E n c a
Lanfranconi sale, J. M . H e b e r l e ( H . L e m p e r t z Sonne) C o l o g n e ,
O c t o b e r 1 8 - 2 0 , 1895, no. 209 (Battle of the Amazons, o i l o n panel,
130 x 252 c m [51 Vs x 99V4 in.]).
31. F o r Jan Brueghel's Battle oflssus, see E r t z 1979, pp. 4 6 3 - 6 5 , 571, no. 86.
T h e effect recalls A l b r e c h t Altdorfer's vertical Battle oflssus (1528-29;
M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 688) as observed by E r t z 1979 (p. 463)
and verbally to the author by D r . G e r t Bartoschek.
32. Studies for Hero and Leander (recto), Battle Scene between the Greeks and
Amazons and Studies for Samson (verso) (ca. 1601-03, pen and b r o w n
ink and b r o w n wash [recto] and pen and b r o w n ink [verso], 20.4 x
30.6 c m [8 x 12 i n . ] ; E d i n b u r g h , N a t i o n a l Galleries o f Scotland, inv.
D 4936); see N e w York 2005, pp. 83-85, cat. no. 10; and L o n d o n 2005,
pp. 50-51, cat. no. 5 (as "attributed to Rubens").
33. Rubens, Battle of the Greeks and Amazons (ca. 1 6 0 2 - 0 4 , pen and b r o w n
ink over traces o f graphite, 25.1 x 42.8 c m [ 9 % x J67
/8 i n . ] ; L o n d o n ,
B r i t i s h M u s e u m , inv. 1895.9.15.1045), see N e w Y o r k 2005, pp. 8 8 - 9 0 ,
cat. no. 12; The Battle of the Amazons (oil o n canvas, 89 x 135.5 cm [35 x
533
/8 i n . ] ; private collection), see L o n d o n 2005, pp. 4 8 - 4 9 , cat. no. 4
(dated 1603-05, but possibly earlier); and The Battle of the Amazons
(see fig. 36). T h e last w o r k was o w n e d by the A n t w e r p collector
C o r n e l l s van der Geest; see Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 350-55.
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 51
2
Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder
The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus
ca. 1610-12
Oil on panel, 127.3 x 163.5 cm (50 Vs x 643
/s in.)
Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, acquired in honor of John Walsh, 2 0 0 0 . 6 8
P R O V E N A N C E
Possibly collection o f Ferrante Spinelli,
Naples, 1654; possibly private collection,
Italy, eighteenth century; perhaps w i t h
the duke o f M a n t u a ; ca. 1890, purchased by
the P e n n i n g t o n - M e l l o r family, Castello
di L u n g h e z z a ; b r o u g h t by the family
to E n g l a n d , 1911, and then to F r a n o n , the
P e n n i n g t o n - M e l l o r property i n B i a r r i t z ;
transferred f r o m B i a r r i t z to E n g l a n d i n 1940
by H i l d a P e n n i n g t o n - M e l l o r ; by inheritance
to her son M a j o r M a l c o l m M u n t h e , M u c h
M a r c l e at H e l l e n s , near L e d b u r y , H e r e f o r d shire,
and transferred by 1953 to Southside
H o u s e , W i m b l e d o n , E n g l a n d ; given by
M a l c o l m M u n t h e to the P e n n i n g t o n - M e l l o r
M u n t h e C h a r i t y Trust i n 1981; sold to the
J. Paul Getty M u s e u m , 2 0 0 0
L I T E R A T U R E
W o o l l e t t 2001; V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 4 , pp. 70,
74; D o h e r t y 2005; H o n i g 2005, fig. 14;
V a n M u l d e r s 2005; Rosenthal 2005, pp. 73-75
T
H I S A M B I T I O U S A L L E G O R Y W A S O N E O F T H E
first joint projects of Rubens and Brueghel's resumed
partnership, following Rubens's decision to remain
in Antwerp in 1609. The Return from War: Mars Disarmed
by Venus highlights the specialties of both artists and reveals
the accommodating nature of their exceptional working
method. In this, one of their largest collaborative works, the
artists adapted the scale of their contributions, with
Brueghel painting exceedingly large pieces of armor and
Rubens adopting an unusual intermediate figure scale.
Significantly, in the revision of the right side of the panel,
Rubens introduced figures over finished pieces of furniture
and small objects, thus altering the subject but not, apparently,
the firm friendship upon which the partnership was
based. Rubens and Brueghel brought together Flemish and
Italian Renaissance iconography as easily as two different
pictorial styles in a composition that highlights the genius
of both painters.
The Return from War started out on the easel of Brueghel,
who painted the cavernous interior and the foreground
accoutrements. The ruined, vaulted space is a modified version
of the dilapidated forge Brueghel developed between
1606 and 1608.1
As in earlier compositions, the Los Angeles
panel features a long corridor leading to the landscape outside
and various bays inside housing the forge and smithy
(the many figures working in these recesses are by his hand).
Many drawings from Brueghel's Italian sojourn, particularly
from the period of his residence in Rome ( 1 5 9 2 - 9 4 ) , attest
to his interest in the majestic remains of antiquity and in particular
to the rhythm and texture of the arched corridors of
the Colosseum and Baths of Diocletian (see figs. 6 and 7).2
He was further inspired by the fanciful re-creation of a vaulted
52 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
53
ruin as the setting for the Forge of Vulcan by the Antwerp
painter Pauwels Franck, called Paolo Fiammingo ( 1 5 4 0 -
1596), who was active in Venice about 1570 (see fig. 78).3
While Brueghel reversed the location of the main features of
the setting (for example, the smithy and the mill wheel) in
the Allegory of Fire (cat. no. 17) and related compositions, in
The Return from War the position of the main figure group
on the right and the display of precious articles (subsequently
obscured by Rubens, see below) correspond to the Fiammingo
drawing. The Prophesy ofIsaiah (cat. no. 18), a collaborative
work by Brueghel and Hendrick van Balen, features a
similar alcove on the right.
However, Brueghel made key changes to the vaulted setting
for The Return from War, abandoning the picturesque
arching heights that dwarf the figures and foreground debris
for an interior that is more circumscribed and enclosed. Not
only are the pieces of armor larger, in keeping with the scale
of a substantial figure group, but they have been carefully
selected for their rich surfaces and complex forms. Beautiful
pieces of Milanese-style parade armor predominate, along
with copper vessels, minutely described objects that include
a crossbow and winders (cranequins), a powder horn, a
spanner, and a wheel-lock gun.4
Most of these items can be
found in earlier allegories of Fire and in the Prophesy of
Isaiah. Surviving sheets of figure studies, apparently from
life, as well as studies for birds and hunting implements (see
fig. 64), suggest that Brueghel kept drawings in the studio
for reference.5
Although Antwerp was an important center
for the fabrication of armor, Brueghel may have studied the
armor firsthand in the archducal armory in Brussels,
although specific archducal garnitures are not represented, as
they are in the Allegory of Touch (see fig. 56).6
The shield
on the right with a blue tasseled fringe, its interior surface
and decorative rivets broadly described, while painted
by Rubens, was probably a prop in Brueghel's studio and
appears face up in the immediate foreground of the Prophesy
ofIsaiah. Brueghel took a playful approach to the main heap
of armor, showing his technical virtuosity in the evocation
of edges and dark interior spaces. On this scale, the liveliness
and crisp impasto of his brushwork reveal the essentially
painterly nature of his technique.
Brueghel painted many objects in the alcove beneath the
figures of Mars, Venus, and her helpers, which are only
partially visible with the naked eye but have been revealed
by X-radiography and infrared photography (see figs. 123 and
124).7
From left to right they include a three-legged copper
bowl of glowing embers and a triangular wooden stool with
a tazza of grapes on the seat. A little higher up are a group
of small items, including a shell, a porcelain bowl, a candlestick,
clippers, an overturned decorated glass, a lobed pewter
container, and a circular piece of gilt plate, perhaps a salver,
leaning against the wall; a wooden bench stands diagonally
in the right corner.8
All of these elements appear to have
been brought to a finished state by Brueghel.9
When Rubens received the panel, he revised the alcove
by covering many of these objects with a layer of gray paint,
neatly sidestepping the cranequin in the foreground and
following the barrel of the musket. The standing figures of
Mars and Venus must represent an acute shift in the original
design, as they do not resemble the single roughly underdrawn
figure, visible with infrared reflectography, with its
bent posture and smaller scale (see fig. 121).1 0
Together with
the forge setting, the presence of the legged brazier allows
for the possibility that the scene was planned as a Venus in
the Forge of Vulcan. This distinctive vessel of burning
embers is found near Cupid and Venus in several of the
Venus in the Forge of Vulcan scenes Brueghel painted with
Van Balen (see, for example, fig. 76).1 1
However, in his
conceptual partnership with Brueghel, Rubens's substantial
alteration was in keeping with his independent contribution
to the commission. More than simply adjusting the subject
with the addition of standing figures, Rubens eliminated
extraneous attributes that did not support the new theme.
As we shall see, there is every reason to believe that Rubens
discussed the transformation of the theme with Brueghel,
whose later contributions served to enhance it.
With Rubens's contribution of a figure group based on
antique and Renaissance sources, Vulcan's forge became the
setting for an allegory of Peace. Leaning into his embrace,
the nude Goddess of Love fixes the God of War with a disarming
gaze. Venus divests her returning lover of his armor
as he stands relaxed and oblivious to her cupids playfully
stealing away his martial emblems. The untying of the war
god's buskin, for example, is a reference to his binding
by the fetters of love and conveys the peaceable hope that
Love is more powerful than Strife.1 2
Often, the allegory
of Mars and Venus was treated as an idyll that transpires
in a landscape where Mars's relaxation, and even sleep, was
emphasized.13
Rubens himself later treated the theme in
a painting now lost.1 4
Ironically, in The Return from War,
while the disorder of discarded musket, crossbow, and cansurrounding
the illicit lovers emphasizes the halt to
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 55
F I G U R E 37 O t t o v a n V e e n (ca. 1556-1629), " L o v e lycketh darkness"
( C E L A R I V V L T S V A F V R T A V E N U S ) , Amorum Emblemata (Antwerp, 1608).
Getty Research Institute, Special Collections
war, the distant fires of Vulcan's forge ensure that these
armaments increase, a reminder that the war god's powers,
although tempered by love, can be reclaimed. The Return
from War also reflects the contemporary interest at the
Brussels court for playful and allusive allegories of love, as
demonstrated by Otto van Veen's influential Amorum Emblemata
of 1608. The emblem portraying Cupid's preference
for seclusion and darkness, represented by a dark grotto
(fig. 37), parallels the meeting of Mars and Venus in The
Return from War.
Rubens may not have looked to a single source for the
figure of Venus. The cross-legged pose of the goddess appears
in various antique sources, particularly on sarcophagi.15
In
this work, together with her white mantle and jeweled girdle,
it supports her characterization as Chaste Love. The powerful
figure of Mars, particularly the foreshortening of his baton
arm, reflects the influence of Michelangelo on Rubens's early
work in Antwerp. The intertwined pose of Mars and Venus,
and especially her removal of one of the god's key martial
emblems, his plumed helmet, may have been suggested
to Rubens by a gem carved with a scene showing Hercules
Crowned by Minerva.1 6
Rubens used the sinuous posture and
overhead gesture of the goddess (in reverse) again almost
immediately for The Crowning of Virtue (fig. 3 8 ) . 1 7
The panel subsequently returned to Brueghel, who integrated
the figure group into the interior and adjusted the
still-life attributes to support an allegory of Peace. Only
those objects specifically associated with the figures or necessary
for expanding upon the consequences of Peace were
painted in this second campaign: in the foreground the tools
relating to the armorer's craft (square, compass, clippers,
scales, tweezers) and in the right corner the pocket watch
and bowl of grapes (reintroduced from Brueghel's initial
treatment), both of which allude to the passage of time and
the impermanence of Peace. Smaller objects related to the
activities of the forge were added in a subdued tone between
Brueghel's pile of armor and the putto wresting away Mars's
sword, including an anvil, which sits prominently behind
the war god's hand. This key element was part of the longstanding
iconography of war, as exemplified by a sixteenthcentury
print of the Art of War (fig. 39), which also includes
a cannon and evidence of the armorer's craft.18
Perhaps, in
this last phase, Brueghel also added the prominent, but not
incongruous, pair of guinea pigs to the foreground as the
exotic embodiment of fruitfulness that accompanies Peace.19
While the earliest provenance of The Return from War
remains to be discovered, the substantial size of the panel, its
shared authorship by Antwerp's preeminent painters, and
the delightfully intertwined political allegory and theme of
love strongly suggest that it was a specific commission, likely
for the archducal court if not for Albert and Isabella themselves.
The Return from War celebrates the Twelve Years'
Truce of 1609, brokered by Archduke Albert, which brought
hostilities between the Protestant Northern provinces and
the Catholic Southern Netherlands to a halt. The occasion
prompted new hope, as Rubens noted in his letter to Johann
Faber in Rome just one day prior to the signing of the
treaty: "The peace, or rather, the truce for many years will
without doubt be ratified, and during this period it is
believed our country shall flourish again."20
The Los Angeles
panel is one of a small group of paintings to treat the theme
of peace following the signing of the treaty. The Union of the
Scheldt River and the City ofAntwerp (Scaldis and Antwerpia)
( 1 6 0 9 ; Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten)
by Abraham Janssens (ca. 1575-1632) was commissioned by
the Antwerp magistracy to decorate the Statenkamer (State
Room) of Antwerp City Hall, where the treaty was signed on
April 10 and ratified on April 14, 1609. Rubens's Adoration of
the Magi (Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado) celebrated the
beginning of the new era and the bounty it was expected to
56 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
FIGURE 38 Peter Paul Rubens, The Crowning of Virtue, ca. 1613-14. O i l o n
panel, 221.5 x
201 c m (87 V4 x 79 Vs in.). M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 997
FIGURE 39 Filips Galle after Frans Floris (ca. 1519/20-1570), The Art
of War. E n g r a v i n g , 205 x 246 m m (8]
/8 x 95
/s in.). V i e n n a , Graphische
S a m m l u n g A l b e r t i n a
afford the city and was likewise commissioned by the magis
trates for the same gallery.21
The topic remained relevant
years after the signing, as indicated by Janssens's later composition
Peace and Plenty Binding the Arrows of War (1614;
Wolverhampton, Municipal Museum and Art Gallery). The
Return from War may have been known to the Dutch artist
Adriaen van de Venne ( 1 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 2 ) , whose The Treves (Alle
ofthe Twelve Tears^ Truce) (1616; Paris, Musee du Louvre)
combines allegory and history in the form of portraits of di
nitaries from the Northern and Southern Netherlands in a
detailed composition reminiscent of Brueghel's style, replet
with its own still life of discarded armor.2 2
Alongside the primary political allegory in The Return
from War, the inventively combined efforts of Rubens and
Brueghel also give rise to an additional, sensual, layer of
meaning. There are delightful visual puns, such as the phall
cannons to the left of Mars and the loose bridles, added by
Brueghel after Rubens's revision, hanging next to the
­
gory
g­
e
ic
aggressively seductive goddess. The setting of Vulcan's forge
contributes to the theme of the senses, and the fire, armor,
and weapons each connote pain or protection from it. All of
these elements, and the ancient structure, were later invoked
in Brueghel and Rubens's Allegory of Touch (see fig. 56).
Brueghel's calligraphic handling of metal surfaces rivals and
contrasts with Rubens's smooth breastplate, its own cold,
hard surface juxtaposed with the creamy, opulent flesh
of Venus. While this painting's exceptional tactility adds an
additional dimension to the allusion to the sense of touch,
it also clearly demonstrates how Brueghel's graphic brushwork
complements Rubens's broad handling, creating a
setting that envelopes the figures and enables them to inhabit
the space.
Until recently, The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by
Venus was only known from a print of 1778 by Jean-Jacques
Avril (fig. 40), which may represent a second version of
the subject, as it shows the main armor still life having been
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 57
FIGURE 4 0 Jean-Jacques A v r i l (1744-1831) after Peter P a u l R u b e n s ,
Mars au Retour de la Guerre, 1778. E n g r a v i n g , 453 x 576 m m (17% x 22V8
in.). Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, Graphische S a m m l u n g , inv. A98/6776, c ( K K )
modified with the addition of a furled standard.23
The composition
was evidently known in Antwerp, where a painter
familiar with the early works of Anthony van Dyck included
the figure of Venus among other selected motifs in an oil
sketch dating from about 1625.24
Similar figures of Mars and
Venus appear in the Allegory ofFire from the late 1620s by
Hendrick van Balen and Jan Brueghel the Younger.2 5
A T W
N O T E S
1. The Allegory of Fire (signed and dated B R V E G H E L / 1606, o i l o n panel,
46 x 83 c m [18Vs x 32S
/8 i n . ] ; L y o n , M u s e e des Beaux-Arts, inv. 75)
appears to be the earliest example o f this setting i n Brueghel's oeuvre.
See pp. 6 - 9 and cat. nos. 17 and 18 i n this v o l u m e .
2. F o r Brueghel's d r a w i n g o f ruins, see W i n n e r 1961, pp. 191-97; W i n n e r
1972, especially pp. 122-38; and B e d o n i 1983, pp. 29-38.
3. S o l d Sotheby's, A m s t e r d a m , N o v e m b e r 4, 2003, lot. 7.
4. F o r a v i e w o f the crossbow w i t h the w i n d e r attached, see V a n der
Stock 1991, p. 357. F o r wheel-lock firearms, see particularly R i m e r
2001, and for the "alia fiamminga" type made i n A n t w e r p , see H o f f
1978, p. 31; and V a n der S l o o t 1959, p. 112. F o r H a b s b u r g armor,
see Q u i n t a n a Lacaci 1987 and Soler del C a m p o 2 0 0 0 and the literature
therein. I thank L i l l i a n H s u , G e t t y M u s e u m undergraduate intern,
for her help identifying these items.
5. See, for example, Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, A crowded beer stall with
studies of elegant figures drinking and of two monks a priest and An elegant
company drinking (recto), Five figures seen from behind and Other figures
(verso) (Christie's, L o n d o n , July 6, 2 0 0 4 , lot 163); some o f these
figures correspond to those i n Brueghel's Village Scene (1612; M u n i c h ,
A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 1884). F o r a sheet depicting a large variety
o f birds, perhaps i n anticipation o f an allegory o f A i r (Braunschweig,
H e r z o g A n t o n U l r i c h - M u s e u m ) and a sheet o f h u n t i n g implements
(fig. 64 i n this v o l u m e ) , see W i n n e r 1972, p. 159, fig. 38, and p. 146,
fig. 127.
6. F o r the armor depicted i n the Allegory of Touch, see B . Welzel,
" A r m o u r y and A r c h d u c a l Image: T h e Sense o f T o u c h f r o m the
Five Senses o f Jan B r u e g h e l and Peter P a u l Rubens," i n Brussels
1998-99, pp. 100-102. F o r the Brussels armory, see Terlinden 1961
and Wop ens 1992.
7. See the essay by Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e ,
pp. 230-31.
8. T h e stool, bench, and credenza g r o u p i n g appears i n m a n y o f
Brueghel's paintings o f Venus i n the Forge o f V u l c a n and i n the
Allegory of Fire executed by Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k
van B a l e n between 1608 and 1623; see E r t z 1979, nos. 191, 252, 254, 277,
382; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , nos. A 136, A 140, A 162, A 163, A 164, A 165.
It also appears i n the Allegory of Fire compositions V a n B a l e n executed
w i t h Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r ; see Werche 2 0 0 4 , pp. 194, 195,
nos. A 144 and A 148.
9. See Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m , p. 231.
10. It is not possible to determine whether any other figures wT
ere planned
due to the density o f the paint layers i n the area o f the figure o f M a r s .
See Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m , p. 230.
11. N o t a b l y i n the c o m p o s i t i o n established w i t h the 1606 Allegory of Fire
n o w i n L y o n and related treatments o f the theme. See note 1 above.
12. T h i s idea h a d been expressed by Lucretius i n De rerum natura
(1.30-44). F o r the iconography o f Venus and M a r s and the theme o f
Peace, see W i n d 1958, particularly pp. 82-88. See also Baumstark 1974,
pp. 177-201. T h e m o t i f o f the fetters is eloquently conveyed i n a
painting by Paolo Veronese, Mars and Venus United by Love (1576-82;
N e w York, M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m o f Art, inv. 10.189), w h i c h was
in the collection o f R u d o l f II i n Prague. Rubens returned to the theme
o f Peace and the agency o f V e n u s again i n a lost canvas (see note 14
below), i n The Council of the Gods (1625; Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e ) ,
one o f the political allegories he devised for M a r i e de' M e d i c i ,
and i n Venus, Mars, and Cupid (ca. 1630; D u l w i c h Picture Gallery,
inv. dpg285). H o w e v e r , the intimacy o f these scenes is dramatically
t o r n asunder i n the Horrors of War (1637-38; Florence, Palazzo Pitti),
where, according to Rubens, " M a r s . . . rushes forth w i t h shield and
blood-stained s w o r d , threatening the people w i t h great disaster. H e
pays little heed to Venus, his mistress, w h o , accompanied by her
A m o r s and C u p i d s , strives w i t h caresses and embraces to h o l d h i m .
M a r s is dragged forward by the fury A l e k t o , w i t h a torch i n her hand.
N e a r b y are monsters personifying Pestilence and F a m i n e , those inseparable
partners o f W a r " (letter to Justus Sustermans, A n t w e r p , M a r c h
12, 1638): M a g u r n 1955, pp. 4 0 8 - 9 , letter 242 ( " M a r t e . . . v a collo
scudo e la spada insanguinata minacciando ai p o p o l i qualche gran ruina,
curandosi p o c o d i Venere sua dama, che si szforza c o n carezze ed
58 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
abbracciamenti a ritenerlo, accompagnata dalli suoi A m o r i e C u p i d i n i .
D a l F altara banda M a r t e vien tirato dalla furia A l e t t o , c o n una face i n
mano. M o s t r i acconto, che significano la Peste e la Fame, c o m p a g n i
inseperabili della G u e r r a " : Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 6,
p. 208). F o r the theme o f Peace i n Rubens's oeuvre and possible connections
w i t h his personal hopes and d i p l o m a t i c activities, see
Baumstark 1974; Rosenthal 1993, pp. 103-5; Rosenthal 2 0 0 0 ; Poeschel
2001; and Werner 2004.
13. See, for example, Sandro Botticelli, Mars and Venus (ca. 1485; L o n d o n ,
N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t , inv. N G 915) and Piero d i C o s i m o , Venus,
Mars, and Amor (ca. 1505; B e r l i n , Gemaldegalerie, inv. 107).
14. C a . 1617, formerly Schlofi K o n i g s b e r g , K a l i n i n g r a d , n o w at St.
Petersburg, State Heritage M u s e u m ; see Evers 1944, fig. 292. T h i s
w o r k is discussed by Baumstark 1974, pp. 177-78; and V a n G e l d e r
1950/51, pp. 115-16.
15. T h e standing female nude, legs crossed, appears early i n Rubens's oeuvre
in Adam and Eve (ca. 1599; A n t w e r p , Rubenshuis) and i n Hercules
and Omphale (1602-05; Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. 854).
16. R u b e n s was an avid collector o f gems, and such a g e m was i n his collection;
see N e v e r o v 1979, p. 432; and A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , pp. 287, 289.
A gem o f similar description is m e n t i o n e d by Rubens i n a letter
to A n t o i n e Peiresc ( M a y 1628); see V a n der M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 1,
pp. 2 0 6 - 7 , no. 4- T h e helmet depicted i n The Return from War, w h i l e
similar to sixteenth-century examples, is distinct f r o m the N e g r o i i style
helmet possessed by Rubens and used i n his Portrait of a Man
as the God Mars (ca. 1620-25; private collection); see B o s t o n T
o l e d o 1993-94, pp. 2 8 7 - 8 9 ; N e w Y o r k 1998-99, pp. 152-54; and
Karcheski 2001.
17. Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 376-79. The Crowning of Virtue is one o f a
g r o u p o f allegorical paintings f r o m about 1614 i n w h i c h R u b e n s portrayed
scenes from the life o f the C h r i s t i a n K n i g h t and the V i r t u o u s
Soldier. Created o n a m o n u m e n t a l scale, these w o r k s are characterized
by strongly lit, powerful figures. See V a n der A u w e r a 1985 and
Rosenthal 1993.
18. T h i s is one o f a series o f eight prints o f H u m a n Activities, presumably
designed by Frans Floris, t h o u g h o n l y one is dated—1574 (after the
death o f Floris). See V a n de Velde 1975, v o l . 1, pp. 4 2 8 - 2 9 , no. P129;
v o l . 2, fig. 282. T h e inscription o n the print, " M a u o r t i s B e l l o n a soror
. . . nudus m e m b r a Pyraemon," is f r o m Virgil's Aeneid, a source w h i c h
influenced Brueghel's invention o f the vaulted forge interior. See
cat. no. 17.
19. T h e guinea pigs were painted f r o m life and appear i n many c o m p o s i tions,
i n c l u d i n g cat. nos. 4, 6, 12, 21, and 26 i n this v o l u m e , and
notably in the early large Venus o f 1600 painted w i t h H e n d r i c k van
Balen (St. Petersburg, State H e r m i t a g e M u s e u m , inv. 3256). T h e
animals were first i n t r o d u c e d to E u r o p e from S o u t h A m e r i c a , possibly
via West Africa about 1580. See Z e u n e r 1963, pp. 436-37, 439; W e i r
1974, pp. 437-38; and V e r n o n N . K i s l i n g , Jr., "Ancient Collections
and Menageries: Earliest L i v e N e w W o r l d A n i m a l s Sent to E u r o p e a n
Menageries," i n K i s l i n g 2001, p. 35. F o r the arrival o f new species
in E u r o p e f r o m the N e w W o r l d , see K o l b 2005, pp. 17-20. Brueghel
b o r r o w e d the magnificent gray horse f r o m Rubens, where it first
appeared i n the equestrian portrait o f the D u k e o f L e r m a (1603;
M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 3137). F o r the importance o f
the gray horse i n Brueghel's w o r k , see K o l b 2005, pp. 67-73.
20. Letter o f A p r i l 10, 1609; see M a g u r n 1955, pp. 52-53.
21. F o r the Janssens painting, see J. V a n der A u w e r a in A n t w e r p 1993,
pp. 1 4 6 - 4 7 . F o r the Statenkamer commissions, see M a d r i d 2004.
22. T h e painting is discussed i n B o l 1989, pp. 4 1 - 4 3 , fig- 27.
23. T h e text b e l o w the title reads: "Dans les bras caressans de la belle
Deesse, L e d i e u M a r s languissait brulant et desarme, E t , le front rayonnant
de la plus douce ivresse, II g o u t o i t a longstraits le bonheur
d'etre aime." It is also possible that A v r i l modified the c o m p o s i t i o n for
the print, w h i c h also exists w i t h o u t the verse (Stuttgart, Staatsgaleric,
Graphische S a m m l u n g , inv. A 98/6776, b[iac]). I am grateful to H a n s
M a r t i n K a u l b a c h , Graphische S a m m l u n g , Staatsgaleric Stuttgart, for
his k i n d assistance w i t h these prints. S m i t h (1829-42, pp. 306, 396,
no. 1122) was aware o f the c o m p o s i t i o n as a result o f the A v r i l engraving,
as was Rooses (1886-92, v o l . 4, pp. 52-53), w h o cited the likely
participation o f Jan Brueghel the Elder. Ellis Waterhouse made note o f
the present painting in 1953 d u r i n g a visit to M u c h M a r c l e at H e l l e n s ,
near L e d b u r y , a P e n n i n g t o n - M e l l o r property, identifying it as the
w o r k catalogued by S m i t h as no. 1122, although apparently w i t h o u t
seeing it ("Account o f Pictures i n British Private C o l l e c t i o n s June
1953-Aug. 1955" [p. 35], B o x 6, F o l d e r 3, Ellis K i r k h a m Waterhouse
N o t e b o o k s and Research Files, 1901-1987 [bulk ca. 1924-ca. 1979],
Getty Research Institute, Research Library, accession no. 870204). See
V a n M u l d e r s 2005, p. 199 ( w h i c h appeared too late to be addressed
here) for a discussion o f t w o copies and a variant o f this c o m p o s i t i o n .
24. U n k n o w n seventeenth-century F l e m i s h artist, Studies for the Martyrdom
of Saint Sebastian and Venus (ca. 1625 [revised title and date], o i l o n
paper laid d o w n o n canvas, 63.5 x 56 c m [25 x 22 i n . ] ; Basel,
C o l l e c t i o n L u d w i g Geiger). T h i s ricordo was attributed to A n t h o n y
van D y c k by A . S c h u g (1985-86, p. 147, pi- 32). U n t i l n o w , the female
figure o n the sheet has been identified as an A n d r o m e d a f r o m an
unidentified source; see S c h u g , i b i d . , and C h r i s t o p h e r B r o w n in
Y o k o h a m a - S h i z u o k a - O s a k a 1990, p. 144, cat. no. 7.
25. O i l o n copper, 47.5 x 82.5 c m [18V4 x 32^2 i n . ] ; E n g l a n d , K i n g s t o n
Lacy, N a t i o n a l Trust, private collection. See Werche 2004, v o l . 1,
p. 195, no. A 148; v o l . 2, p. 422.
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 59
3
Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder
The Feast of Acheious
ca. 1614-15
Oil on panel, 109.5 x 165.7 cm (43V8 x 65V4 in.)
New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Alvin and Irwin Untermyer
in memory of their parents, 1945, inv. 45.141
P R O V E N A N C E E r t z 1979, p p . 415, 613, n o . 335; L i e d t k e 1984,
pp. 1 9 4 - 9 8 ; L i e d t k e i n V l i e g h e 1992,
Basile de S c h l i c h t i n g collection, Paris, 1906;
pp. 1 9 0 - 9 2 ; V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , p p . 113, 118
Julius B o h l e r (art dealer), M u n i c h , 1910;
S a m u e l U n t e r m y e r collection, N e w York, E X H I B I T I O N S
1912 (sale, N e w York, Parke Bernet, M a y 10,
N e w Y o r k 1919, cat. n o . 21; D e t r o i t 1936,
1940, l o t 52, bought i n ) ; A l v i n a n d I r w i n
cat. n o . 5; N e w Y o r k 1973; N e w Y o r k 1977,
U n t e r m y e r collection, 1 9 4 0 - 4 5
cat. n o . 388; D o r d r e c h t 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 , cat. n o . 66
L I T E R A T U R E
H e l d i 9 4 i ; W e h l e 1946; D e M a e y e r 1955,
pp. 4 7 - 4 8 , 118; S p e t h - H o l t e r h o f f 1957,
p. 88; V a n Puyvelde 1964; M u l l e r Hofstede
1968, p. 225; Alpers 1971, p p . 9 3 - 9 4 , 162;
?
N T H E L A T E S I X T E E N T H C E N T U R Y , T H E B A N Q U E T
of the Gods became a popular subject in Haarlem and
Utrecht among such artists as Hendrick Goltzius
(1558-1617), Cornelis van Haarlem (1562-1638), Abraham
Bloemaert (1566-1651), and Joachim Wtewael ( 1 5 6 6 - 1 6 3 8 ) . 1
In 1587 Goltzius introduced the theme in the North with
his phenomenal print of The Wedding of Cupid and Psyche
after Bartholomeus Spranger (1546-1611).2
A Banquet of the
Gods—which could depict any one of a number of stories
from classical mythology—provided the artist with an
opportunity to portray an array of nude figures in a variety
of poses ranged around a sumptuous banquet table. In
1550 the Antwerp master Frans Floris (ca. 1519/20-1570)
had painted a Banquet of the Gods on a monumental scale
with large figures—dressed as well as nude—filling the
picture plane. It was, however, the influence exerted by the
above-mentioned Mannerist masters, and also Hans
Rottenhammer, that popularized the theme in the Southern
Netherlands from about 1600 onward.3
In Brussels it was
depicted by Hendrick de Clerck and in Antwerp by Hendrick
van Balen, often in collaboration with Jan Brueghel the
Elder, who painted the fantasy landscapes and richly laid
tables.4
The earliest dated Banquet of the Gods by Van Balen
and Brueghel is The Wedding ofPeleus and Thetis, dated 1608
(fig. 4 1 ) . 5
About 1614-15 Brueghel collaborated with Rubens
on The Feast ofAcheious, a Banquet of the Gods that is
considerably larger than earlier Flemish cabinet paintings.6
Ovid recounts in the Metamorphoses ( 8 . 5 4 7 - 6 1 9 ) the story
of Theseus, son of the king of Athens, who was returning
home after his adventures in Crete and Calydon when
he came to the rain-swollen river called Acheious.7
The river
god advised Theseus and his traveling companions against
60 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
61
FIGURE 41 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k van B a l e n , The Wedding
ofPeleus and Thetis, 1608. O i l o n copper, 4 4 x 61 c m (17V8 x 24 in.).
D r e s d e n , Staatliche K u n s t s a m m l u n g , Gemaldegalerie A l t e Meister, inv. 92
crossing and invited them to join him at table. Theseus
was entertained in "the river-god's dark dwelling, built of
porous pumice and rough tufa; the floor was damp with
soft moss, conchs and purple-shells paneled the ceiling." After
the banquet, Theseus asked Acheious to tell him about the
islands in the river, which used to be naiads. One of them,
Perimele, had been the object of the river god's love. When
he robbed her of her maidenhood, her father had been
so incensed that he hurled her from a cliff into the sea in an
attempt to kill her. Acheious, however, prayed to Neptune
to save her, whereupon "a new land embraced her floating
form and a solid island grew from her transformed shape."
Rubens placed the river god in the middle of the picture,
pointing to the island in the background while looking at
young Theseus, seated opposite him at the table. Sitting nex
to Theseus is his bosom friend Pirithous, who turns to him
impatiently. He laughs at Acheious, calling his stories "fairy
tales," but Theseus's older companion Lelex, seated at the
right, upbraids him, saying, "The power of heaven is indeed
immeasurable and has no bounds...." Acheious then told the
assembled company how he had transformed himself into
a savage bull to fight the brave Hercules, who eventually laid
him low and broke off one of his horns, which the naiads
filled with fruit and flowers. At this point in Acheloiis's story
a nymph, "one of the attendants with locks flowing free,
0
t
,
appeared and served them from her bounteous horn with
all autumn's harvest" (Metamorphoses 9 . 8 0 - 9 2 ) . In the painting,
two nymphs approach from the left, carrying a cornucopia,
and a third nymph—her water-drenched blonde hair
matted on her back—lifts out of the water a large conch
filled with shellfish.
While this water nymph is seen from the back, Rubens
depicted Theseus frontally and his friend Lelex from the
side. These figures derive from drawings he made in Italy of
antique statues, including the Torso Belvedere in Rome.8
Rubens varied not only the poses of his idealized nude
figures and the angle from which they are seen but also the
flesh tones: the women and young men are pale, while the
bearded men have darker complexions.
Brueghel based his cave setting on earlier Banquets of the
Gods made in collaboration with Van Balen, including depictions
of the Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, the Wedding of
Bacchus and Ariadne, the Feast of Acheious, and Banquets
of the Gods set in sea caves.9
In these paintings he had tried
out various motifs, such as the arched caves lined with
shells,1 0
the gifts brought forth from the water, and the banquet
table with costly vessels displayed on an oriental carpet
and white tablecloth. This last motif can in fact be traced
to Goltzius's influential print after Spranger. In all likelihood,
The Feast ofAcheious on which Van Balen collaborated
with Jan Brueghel the Younger (fig. 42) was based on a
lost work he had earlier made with Jan Brueghel the Elder.1 1
The wide-ranging variety of Rubens's figures and the
wealth of detail in Brueghel's scenery, as well as the large
dimensions of the panel, make The Feast ofAcheious an
extremely ambitious work—undoubtedly the result of close
consultation and mature deliberation. Brueghel created
a highly imaginative cave landscape in which the river flows
right up to the foreground. The two figures emerging from
the water at the lower left, as well as the elements depicted
in the foreground—water lilies, shells, and fish—all serve to
emphasize the scene's aquatic surroundings. The table laid
with sumptuous fare—featuring oysters, lobsters, and roast
game—must have been painted after Rubens completed his
figures. It is clear, for example, that the oysters were painted
around the outstretched fingers of Theseus's left hand and
that the wineglasses were later placed in the figures' hands.
Many details—such as the cornucopia carried by the
nymphs, the shellfish proffered by the blonde nymph, the
lobster on the arm of the bearded sea creature at the lower
left, the jug held by the servant pouring wine, and the
62 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
willow wreath in Acheious' hair (covering the wound in his
head where Hercules had torn off his horn)1 2
—were painted
by Brueghel in the final stages. Compared with most of
the other paintings on which these two masters collaborated,
Rubens's contribution to this complex composition is very
great indeed. Although this might lead one to suspect that he
initiated the project, the type of depiction—a Banquet of
the Gods set against a cavelike backdrop—most likely stems
from the repertoire that Brueghel developed together with
Hendrick van Balen. AvS
N O T E S
1. See V a n T h i e l 1999, no. 159; Roethlisberger and B o k 1993, nos. 12 and
24; and L o w e n t h a l 1986, nos. A 4, 20, 30, 49, 50, and 53, see also
n. 2. C o m p a r e also D i r c k Barendsz's print Mankind before the Flood o f
ca. 1580 ( A m s t e r d a m 1986, cat. no. 309.1).
2. A m s t e r d a m 1993-94, cat. no. 2; and A m s t e r d a m - N e w Y o r k - T o l e d o
2 0 0 3 - 0 4 , cat. no. 28.
3. Frans F l o r i s , Banquet of the Gods (1550; A n t w e r p , K o n i n k l i j k M u s e u m
v o o r Schone K u n s t e n , inv. 956); and H a n s Rottenhammer, Banquet of
the Gods (1600; St. Petersburg, State H e r m i t a g e M u s e u m , inv. 688);
see Schlichtenmaier 1988, no. G 1 37; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , fig. 30.
4. See, for example, H e n d r i c k de Clerck and Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The
Wedding ofPeleus and Thetis (Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. RF 1945-17),
and H e n d r i c k de Clerck, The Feast of Acheious ( M a d r i d , M u s e o
N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 2071). R e g a r d i n g H e n d r i c k van Balen, see
Werche 2 0 0 4 , nos. A 57-59 (A 58 and A 59 w i t h Jan B r u e g h e l the
Younger, The Feast of Acheious), A 6 1 - 6 2 ( w i t h Jan Brueghel the Elder,
The Wedding of Bacchus and Ariadne), A 110-12 (A n o and A H I w i t h
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, A 112 w i t h Jan B r u e g h e l the Younger, The
Wedding ofPeleus and Thetis), A 116-22 ( A 117-21 w i t h Jan Brueghel
the Elder, Banquets o f the G o d s ) , A 123-26 ( A 125 and A 126 w i t h
Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Banquets o f the G o d s in a sea setting).
5. See Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. A n o .
6. L i k e Diana at the Hunt by Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and R u b e n s
(cat. no. 10), this p a i n t i n g is pictured i n an Allegory of Painting by
Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r (Phoenix-ICansas C i t y - T h e H a g u e
1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , cat. no. 8).
7. F o r the passages q u o t e d i n this paragraph, see O v i d , Metamorphoses,
Books I-VJII, pp. 4 4 5 - 4 9 ; and O v i d , Metamorphoses, Books IX-XV,
p. 9 ( L o e b Classical Library, C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , and L o n d o n , 1994).
8. F o r drawings after R u b e n s o f an antique female torso, see V a n der
M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 3, figs. 1 0 2 - 4 ; for the antique statue o n w h i c h
Theseus was m o d e l e d (at that time i n Florence, but n o w lost), see
L i e d t k e 1984, pp. 195-96, n. 8; for the Torso Belvedere, see V a n der
M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 1, p. 48; v o l . 2, pp. 56-59; and v o l . 3, figs. 7 5 - 7 9 ;
see also A n t w e r p 1993, pp. 124-27.
9. See note 4 above.
10. These arched caves c o u l d have been inspired by the arched architecture
o f ruins seen i n the w o r k o f H a n s R o t t e n h a m m e r (see note 3 above).
11. See Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. A 58.
12. See O v i d , Metamorphoses, Books IX-XV, pp. 3 - 9 ( L o e b Classical
Library, C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , and L o n d o n , 1994).
FIGURE 42 H e n d r i c k van Balen and
Jan B r u e g h e l the Younger, The Feast of Acheious,
1610-20. O i l o n panel, 55.9 x 92.7 c m
(22 x 3 6 ]
A in.). D a y t o n ( O h i o ) A r t Institute,
Gift o f M r . R o b e r t B a d e n h o p , inv. 1957.137
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 63
4
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man
ca. 1617
Oil on panel, 74.3 x 114.7 cm (29V4 x 45Vs in.)
The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, inv. 253
I NSCRI P T I O N S
A t l o w e r left, P E T R I P A V L I . R V B E N S F I G R . ;
at l o w e r right, I B R V E G H E L F E C . [I and B i n
ligature]; o n the reverse, panelmaker's mark,
G G [in ligature]
P R O V E N A N C E
Possibly J o h a n de Bye collection, L e i d e n ; 1
A d r i a a n W i t t e r t van der A a collection,
L e i d e n , 1710; Pieter de la C o u r t van der V o o r t
collection, L e i d e n , 1710-39; A l l a r d de la
C o u r t van der V o o r t collection, L e i d e n ,
1739-55; Catharina de la C o u r t van der V o o r t Backer
collection, L e i d e n , 1755-66, sale,
L e i d e n , September 8, 1766, lot 1; collection
o f Stadholder W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e , 1766;
Gallery o f Stadholder W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e ,
1774-95; M u s e e N a p o l e o n (Musee d u
L o u v r e ) , Paris, 1795-1815; Gallery o f
W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e , 1815-22; M a u r i t s h u i s ,
since 1822
L I T E R A T U R E
H o u b r a k e n 1718-21, v o l . 1, p. 87; C a m p o
W e y e r m a n 1729-69, v o l . 1, p. 348; H o e t
and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 3, p. 542; V o n
Uffenbach 1753-54, v o l . 3, p. 421; T h o r e Biirger
1858-60, v o l . 1, pp. 2 8 8 - 8 9 ; Drossaer
and L u n s i n g h Scheurleer 1974-76, v o l . 3,
pp. 2 0 2 - 3 ; E r t z 1979, pp. 236, 245, 391,
s
no. 308; B r o o s 1993, pp. 88-95; Beaujean
1996; V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , pp. 114, 118;
W a d u m 2001; Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ; W a d u m 2002;
K o l b 2005, pp. 7 8 - 8 0 .
E X H I B I T I O N S
E s s e n - V i e n n a 2003, cat. no. 106; A n t w e r p
2 0 0 4 a (not i n catalogue)
?
N 1766, W H E N S T A D H O L D E R W I L L E M V B O U G H T
The Garden ofEden for the considerable sum of 7,350
guilders at the sale of the De la Court van der Voort
collection, he could feel sure he had done the right thing
by recalling the high praise expressed for this panel by
the artists' biographer, Arnold Houbraken. In his Groote
Schouburgh of 1718, Houbraken called the painting: "the
most outstanding in Art that I have seen by him [Brueghel]
is the so-called paradise at Mr. De la Court van der Voort's
in Leiden, in which a multitude of divers animals appear
in the most ingenious way in a landscape painted no less
ingeniously, with Adam and Eve rendered in the greatest of
detail by Rubens."2
In 1729 Houbraken's younger colleague
Jacob Campo Weyerman enlarged upon this encomium
by adding that "this glorious work of art... was conceived
and painted in collaboration by Rubens and Brueghel, each
master having challenged the other, as though in a competition,
to do his utmost."3
In short, both of these renowned
Antwerp masters felt honored to be collaborating on this
masterpiece. "Both [contributions] incomparable" were the
words used by the German traveler Zacharias von Uffenbach
to praise the work of these two friends and artists, whose
painting he had admired in 1711 at De la Court's in Leiden.4
In buying this perfectly preserved painting, the stadholder
had acquired an outstanding example of the collaborative
efforts of these two masters—the only painting, moreover, to
bear both their signatures.
Inscribed at the lower right edge of the panel is
I B R V E G H E L F E C , and at the lower left, in larger capitals,
P E T R I P A V L I . R V B E N S F I G R . 5
The use of the genitive case
and the designation F I G R suggests that the latter inscription
should be translated as: "the figures belong to [i.e., are the
64 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
65
work of] Peter Paul Rubens."6
As far as we know, this is the
only example of an inscription that reveals the division of
labor in a collaborative work of this kind. Rubens, for that
matter, must have been responsible not only for the figures
of Adam and Eve but also for the brown horse next to Adam
and the serpent in the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. It has been assumed, because both signatures appear
in the same red-brown paint, that Brueghel applied Rubens's
name as well as his own upon completion of the painting.7
The letters of Rubens's signature are larger, however, and
were applied with a finer brush, so it is conceivable that
the two painters, after approving the result, applied their
signatures at the same time from the same palette.8
Burned into the back of the panel is a panelmaker's mark,
which gives some basis for dating the work. It is the mark
of Guilliam Gabron—GG interlaced with a floral motif—
who since 1609 had been registered with the Antwerp guild
as a tafereelmaker (panelmaker). He used this mark from 1614
to 1626. From 1617, the brand of the city of Antwerp would
also have been burned into the panel. Its absence here suggests
a tentative dating to between 1614 and 1617, although
the lack of the Antwerp brand could also be explained by
the fact that the panel was ordered specially as a support
for this painting, thereby possibly escaping the notice of the
guild's inspectors.9
Dendrochronological research recently
carried out on the wood indicates 1612 as the earliest possibl
dating but suggests 1622 or after as more plausible.1 0
The
traditional dating of the painting to about 1617 is therefore
still acceptable.
The Garden ofEden with the EM ofMan fits into a series
of animal pictures in which Brueghel concentrated on making
true-to-life depictions of all God's creatures. The earliest
example is a paradise landscape—now in the Galleria Doria
Pamphilj in Rome—with the creation of Adam in the background
(fig. 75).1 1
Brueghel signed this work and dated
it 1594, which means it originated during his stay in Rome.
The Staatsgalerie Neuburg an der Donau has a paradise scen
by Jan Brueghel to which the Brussels painter Hendrick de
Clerck contributed the figures of Adam and Eve (cat. no. 16).
Its strong resemblance to such works as the 1594 painting
means that we can assume it was painted early on, probably
not long after Brueghel's return from Italy in the autumn of
1596 (De Clerck had already returned from his Italian
sojourn about 1590). This small round painting shows the
same moment in the story of the Creation as the Garden
ofEden in the Mauritshuis; moreover, the way in which Eve
e
e
reaches up to grasp the apple is very similar.1 2
Thus, some
twenty years before Brueghel portrayed this subject with
Rubens, he had already collaborated with another artist on a
scene of the Garden of Eden.
The story of the animals entering Noah's ark also provided
a pretext for depicting a wide variety of species (see cat.
no. 26).1 3
Moreover, in his series of the Four Elements,
Brueghel seized the opportunity offered by Water to depict
both fish and shellfish; similarly, the representation of Air
was the perfect occasion to portray countless birds.1 4
Just as
his flower paintings gave him the chance to depict, in encyclopedic
fashion, every bloom known to him, the story of the
Creation provided the ideal setting for all kinds of animals—
indigenous as well as exotic—nearly all of which he probably
studied from life.1 5
Before this time, such artists as Albrecht
Durer (1471-1528), Hans Bol (1534-1593), and Jacques de
Gheyn (1565-1629) had painstakingly depicted animals from
life, but Brueghel placed them in their natural habitat, demonstrating
as well his keen observation of their movements
and behavior.1 6
Here, for example, the dogs bark at quacking
ducks, the felines frolic, the guinea pigs nibble beans, and
the heron is poised to catch fish in the shallow water.
As in the painting in Neuburg—but in contrast to
Brueghel's paradise scenes—the portrayal of the first couple
is an important part of the Mauritshuis painting. Adam and
Eve are depicted on the left, beneath the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, on which grow not only apples but
other fruits as well. On the opposite side of the brook,
emerging in the middle from the wooded landscape, another
tree—the tree of life—is heavily laden with fruit. According
to Genesis 2 : 8 - 1 4 , the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil stood in the middle of the Garden
of Eden, and a river sprang forth that watered this paradise.
Here, Eve gives Adam an apple while reaching up to take the
apples offered to her by the serpent coiled around a branch.
On the left, behind Adam, a monkey bites into an apple.
This animal, which apes human behavior, stands for sin. It
traditionally plays a role in depictions of the Fall of Man,
together with the cat, here rubbing its head against Eve's leg.
According to the doctrine of the Four Humors, the sanguine
monkey next to Adam is the hothead who cannot resist
temptation, whereas Eve's choleric cat is a symbol of cruel
cunning.1 7
In the dark green foliage behind Adam and Eve,
several bunches of grapes catch the light; in Christian
symbolism they refer to Christ's death on the cross (as wine
represents his blood), a prefiguration of the redemption
66 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
of humankind from its innate sinfulness, the consequence of
the Fall.1 8
Depicted here is the moment just before the
eating of the forbidden fruit, when all the animals in paradise
were still living together in harmony and Adam and
Eve were naked.
Brueghel, who likely took the initiative in this project,1 9
laid in the composition by means of an underdrawing, using
only a few lines to sketch in the contours of the landscape
on the primed panel.2 0
A couple of zigzagging lines representing
the right bank of the brook were all he needed to
indicate its course, and a few semicircular lines sufficed to
suggest the clearing in the woods. He drew one or two diagonal
lines to sketch the landscape running into the distance
in the right background. The position of the trees to the
right of the couple in the middle distance are also indicated
in Brueghel's underdrawing, though he did not follow
it exactly when painting. In addition to the broad lines of
the landscape in the right half of the painting, Brueghel's
underdrawing included a number of animals: the dogs at
the water's edge were drawn briskly and schematically, but
when painted they were placed lower down and more to
the left. The dog on the right seems, in the underdrawing,
to have its tail between its legs instead of up in the air.
Moreover, the peacocks appear in the underdrawing, but in
the painting their feet are placed more to the left. Finally,
the cat rubbing its head against Eve's leg also appears in the
preliminary sketch, but here, too, the underdrawing seems
not to have been followed precisely during the painting
process. It is not known why so few animals were sketched
in at this stage.21
That Rubens's figures were also positioned
according to an underdrawing is suggested by the fact that
Brueghel knew where to place his cat. However, the brownish
paint Rubens often used for underdrawings cannot be
detected with an infrared camera, nor was it observed here
with the microscope.
In any case, it was Rubens who began to paint, once the
overall design of the picture had been established. He rendered
the play of light on Adam and Eve's skin with subtle
nuances of his palette. The shadow cast by the horse on
the upper part of Adam's body is the effect of a dark underpainting,
applied in places deliberately to shine through
the uppermost paint layer. To prepare a place for his figures,
Rubens rapidly applied thin, fluid paint to render the tree
trunk and the rock on which Adam sits. That Rubens is also
the author of the brown horse was mentioned as early as
1766 in the De la Court auction catalogue.22
While Brueghel
painted his animals in opaque paint, applying small brushstrokes
clearly distinguishable from one another, Rubens
used transparent layers of paint that allow the underlying
layers to remain visible. The serpent also displays Rubens's
typical manner of painting. When Rubens had finished his
part, Brueghel took over and applied a green tone as a basis
for the landscape. Then he painted the sky, leaving reserves
for the trees; by painting the outermost leaves over the blue
of the sky he created the effect of light shining through the
leaves. He went on to paint the larger animals and then
worked up the landscape surrounding them; only the ostrich
and a few of the smaller animals were painted on the dry
background. Working mostly from front to back in this way,
Brueghel could insure that his colors stayed bright; he thus
avoided the disturbing effect created by underlying colors
shining through paint layers that have become more transparent
with time. Brueghel integrated Rubens's contribution
into the composition by applying small retouches along the
contours. The long strands he added to Eve's hair overlap
part of the flying teal and a few grass stalks. Brueghel also
added long strands to the mane of Rubens's horse and made
the cat's ear overlap Eve's calf. He integrated Rubens's tree
trunk into the picture by endowing it with countless twigs
and leaves. The detailing on the serpent's head—with its
pointed ears—and a few strokes along its contours seem to
betray the hand of Brueghel,2 3
who could also be responsible
for some of the pastose accents in Rubens's horse.
Rubens's depiction of the Fall is based on late-sixteenthcentury
prints—after Marten de Vos (1532-1603), Agostino
Carracci (1557-1602), and Adam Elsheimer (1578-1610) —
which apparently record an older prototype.2 4
It is not
entirely clear which of these prints Rubens had in mind, but
the story is usually portrayed in roughly the same way: Adam
sits under the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; next
to him stands Eve, who hands him an apple while reaching
up to take an apple offered to her by the serpent in the tree.25
In portraying Adam's athletic body, Rubens was inspired by
the Torso Belvedere, an antique statue—which he drew during
his stay in Rome—that crops up frequently in his work.2 6
Brueghel based the earthly paradise behind Adam and
Eve on a design he had used several times with great success:
a wooded landscape with a few trees in the foreground
(including bare branches on which birds perch), a clearing,
and a vast prospect unfolding in the left or right background.
A paradise landscape painted by Brueghel in 1612,
now in the Galleria Doria Pamphilj in Rome, seems to have
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 67
FIGURE 43 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The Garden
of Eden, 1612. O i l o n panel, 50.3 x 80.1 c m
( i 9 3
A x 31V2 in.). R o m e , Galleria D o r i a
Pamphilj, inv. F C 341
been the immediate forerunner of the present painting
(fig. 43).2 7
In depicting the animals, Brueghel must have
drawn upon his own stock of studies: numerous animals are
depicted in exactly the same way in other of his paintings.2 8
Some of the animals are also to be found in the few surviving
animal studies by his hand. The monkey biting into
an apple, for example, appears in the oil sketch in Vienna
(cat. no. 28); the surf scoter (the black duck with white on
the back of its head) is based on an example in an oil sketch
on panel displaying ducks and birds (fig. 44) ;2 9
the toucan in
the center derives from a bird study in oil;3 0
the deer appear
on a recently discovered sheet with studies drawn in ink
(fig. 45).3 1
These sketches reveal yet again that Brueghel
based his animals primarily on his own observations of
nature and that he had seen nearly all these animals at firsthand.
The exceptions are the romping tiger and leopard,
the lion, and the white horse in the background, which are
based on examples by Rubens that Brueghel often copied
in his animal paintings.3 2
Rubens, in turn, based his studies
of lions and horses on examples from antiquity and the
Renaissance, as well as on live specimens.
The penchant for encyclopedic detail—demonstrated by
Brueghel in his paradise landscapes, flower pieces, and series
of the Four Elements and the Five Senses—is deeply rooted
in his time: an era in which new discoveries were the order
of the day and there was great optimism about the possibility
of acquiring complete knowledge and understanding of
nature. Scores of explorers voyaging to newly discovered,
far-off lands brought home unknown species of plants and
animals, which were studied and recorded by scientists
and avidly collected by enthusiasts, aristocratic or otherwise.
Publications appearing in the second half of the sixteenth
century were the first to classify the animal species, offering
systematic descriptions accompanied by illustrations.3 3
These
publications were based on the Historia naturalis (A.D. 77)
by Pliny, who in turn based his descriptions of animals,
birds, and fish on his observations of real-life specimens. The
huge popularity of Pliny's encyclopedia, first printed in 1469,
led to its translation into various languages over the course
of the sixteenth century. In 1551 the Swiss naturalist Conrad
Gesner published his Historia animalium, followed by the
encyclopedia of nature published by the Bolognese professor
Ulisse Aldrovandi in 1599. If Brueghel did not own these
influential works himself, he could have consulted them in
Rubens's library.3 4
He would also have had easy access
to the prints of naturalia published in Antwerp by Nicolaas
Bruyn (1571-1656) and Adriaen Collaert (ca. 1560-1618).3 5
Brueghel's paradise scenes may be viewed as painted
encyclopedias of the animal kingdom, his depictions of the
various species being based primarily on empirical knowledge.
Moreover, his exact rendering of the animals' colors is
an aspect that was lacking in the illustrated encyclopedias.
68 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
It was precisely the dazzling range of colors in the natural
world that appealed to the imagination, as evidenced, for
example, by the writings of Cardinal Federico Borromeo,
one of Brueghel's most important patrons.3 6
According to
this Italian theologian, all aspects of the visible and natural
world were made manifest through color, and it was natur
rich palette that led to the recognition of God as the
supreme painter. Karel van Mander expressed the same ide
in his 1604 treatise Den Grondt der edel vrij Schilder-const:
the beginning, when all created things... were given their
colors by this supremely skillful painter and image-maker /
how could the source of color prove more liberal?"3 7
In 1604 Brueghel had been in Prague, where, at the
menagerie of Emperor Rudolf II, he was able to observe
countless exotic animals and birds. Closer to home, in
Brussels, he had access to the archducal zoological gardens
with their aviaries and fish ponds.3 8
In 1621 Brueghel wrote
to Borromeo about a painting he had made in which "the
birds and animals were done from life from several of Her
Serene Highness's specimens."39
Moreover, Antwerp, wher
Brueghel lived, was an important harbor, a point of arrival
for costly goods from the New World and a place where
exotic animals were no doubt seen with regularity. The pre
ent painting features a host of exotic birds, often depicted
pairs, as well as such indigenous European species as the
pheasant, heron, curlew, goldfinch, swallow, stork, swan,
teal, tawny owl, hoopoe, sparrow hawk, spotted woodpecker,
and golden oriole.4 0
In the left foreground is a wil
turkey, which the Spanish first brought from the Americas
in the early sixteenth century, and on Eve's right is a pair o
peacocks, a bird native to India, whose magnificent pluma
made it a favorite in aristocratic collections. Like the Afric
ostrich, these birds, which cannot fly, make their nests on
the ground. In addition to two toucans and a splendid pair
of purple gallinules in the right foreground, Brueghel also
painted various parrots, whose ability to speak links them
the earthly paradise, where all animals still had the capacity
for speech.41
Swimming in the brook, besides a carp and
a pike, is a male surf scoter native to North America (see
fig. 4 4 ) ; the dogs at the water's edge bark at a teal and a
Barrow's goldeneye. Particularly eye-catching are the birds
of paradise, one on the ground at Adam's feet and the othe
in flight, seen against the blue sky. Since their discovery in
New Guinea by the Portuguese in the early sixteenth centu
these animals had been known in Europe only as stuffed
specimens with their feet removed.4 2
Their seeming lack of
e's
a
"In
e
s­
in
d
f
ge
an
to
r
ry,
FIGURE 4 4 Jan Brueghel the Elder, Sketches of Ducks and Birds, ca. 1615.
O i l o n panel, 24 x 34.5 c m (9V2 x 13Vs in.). Present whereabouts u n k n o w n
FIGURE 45 Jan Brueghel the Elder, Studies of Deer in Various Positions,
ca. 1615. Pen and brush in b r o w n ink, 13.5 x 19.7 c m (5V4 x 73
/4 in.).
H a b o l d t & C o m p a n y , N e w York and Paris, 2 0 0 1 - 0 2
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 69
feet led to the assumption that they were perpetually in
flight—in paradise, as it were. Brueghel was the first to
depict this bird in its entirety, feet and all, having included
flying, footless specimens in 1613 in The Entry of the Animals
into Noah^sArk (cat. no. 26).4 3
In the meantime, he had
evidently been able to study a live specimen, presumably in
the well-stocked aviaries of Archdukes Albert and Isabella.
Various documents reveal that the archducal couple kept
a great many birds: in 1605, for example, they received from
Isabella's brother, Philip III, various parrots and also monkeys;
in 1612 they bought nineteen parakeets and three
guinea pigs; the animals they acquired in 1615 included
crows, a red macaw, and a toucan; and in 1617 their collection
was augmented with a large number of canaries.44
Guinea pigs, first brought to Europe from the Americas
in the early sixteenth century, nearly always appear in
Brueghel's animal paintings. Apparently, just after returning
from Italy, he had not yet seen a live specimen, because—in
contrast to the guinea pigs Brueghel painted later on—the
guinea pig at Eve's feet in the Neuburg painting (cat. no. 16)
does not look very lifelike. The other small animals in the
foreground include—in addition to the rabbits, the squirrel,
the European tortoise, and the salamander and toads in the
right foreground—a squirrel monkey (with the apple) and
a capuchin monkey, both native to South America. The
hen and the rooster—peacefully pecking in front of the lion's
paws—are domesticated animals and belong in a separate
category, along with the goats, pigs, sheep, cats, dogs,
horses, and dromedaries. Additionally, there are foxes, elephants,
a crocodile, a wolf, and a llama. The eye can roam
forever and still fail to detect some of the animals, such as
the tiny insects in the foreground.
The story of the Fall of Man provided the ideal context
for Brueghel's artistic discovery of nature. His representations
of paradise depict the animal kingdom in its harmonious
state of perfection before the Fall. In those days, it was
widely believed that the Fall of Man had also precipitated
the loss of knowledge of God's Creation, as well as the
loss of the language in which Adam had named the animals.
Alongside the study of nature, the book of Genesis was
therefore viewed as a source of true knowledge of Creation,
and the identification and naming of the species was considered
the first step toward this renewed understanding.
The collectors who acquired Brueghel's depictions of paradise
must have considered their religious message of prime
importance, for his paintings praise God's Creation in
all its variety and abundance. The individual animals usually
carry no symbolic meaning, but as a whole they underscore
the glory of God's Creation, which—through the fault of
humankind, as represented here—can no longer be experienced
in its perfect state. The earthly paradise may have been
lost, but the successive owners of this painting—starting
with the first, unknown, collector—could consider themselves
extremely fortunate in possessing an undisputed masterpiece
from the collaborative oeuvre of these illustrious
painters and friends—Rubens and Brueghel. A v S
N O T E S
1. H o u b r a k e n 1718-21, v o l . 1, p. 87.
2. "het alleruitmuntenste i n K o n s t dat ik van h e m [Brueghel] gezien heb
is het z o o genaamde paradys, by den H e e r L e C o u r t van der V o o r t ,
tot L e i d e n , waar i n z i g een menigte van allerhande D i e r e n o p ' t
allerkonstigst, i n een niet m i n konstig geschildert landschap doen zien:
en de A d a m en E v a o p ' t alleruitvoerigst d o o r R u b b e n s geschildert.":
H o u b r a k e n 1718-21, v o l . 1, p. 87. I n the sale catalogue o f September 8,
1766, H o u b r a k e n was cited as a recommendation. A collaborative
painting by B r u e g h e l and Rubens had previously been i n the possession
o f the H o u s e o f Orange: i n 1677 W i l l e m H I b o u g h t a Vertumnus
and Pomona by the t w o artists. T h i s painting and other works decorating
H e t L o o Palace were s o l d at auction i n A m s t e r d a m i n 1713; its
present location is u n k n o w n . See Jonckheere 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 , p. 193.
3. "overheerlijk K o n s t s t u k . . . is i n k o m p a g n i e geordonneert en
geschildert by Rubens en by Breugel, welke beyde Meesters als o m
strijd hebben gepoogt o m malkanderen daar o p te verpligten.":
C a m p o W e y e r m a n 1729-69, v o l . 1, p. 348.
4. "Beydes unvergleichlich": V o n Uffenbach 1753-54, v o l . 3, p. 421.
T h i s is the oldest record o f the painting.
5. F o r a transcription, see M a u r i t s h u i s 1935, p. 297.
6. O n this subject, see Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , p. 112.
7. See, a m o n g others, W a d u m 2001, p. 25; Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , p. 112; and
W a d u m 2002, p. 1.
8. F o r a similar signature o f Rubens, see his Rest on the Plight into Egypt
(1614; Kassel, Staatliche M u s e e n , Gemaldegalerie A l t e Meister,
inv. G K 87); Kassel-Frankfurt 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 1. Rubens, incidentally,
seldom signed his paintings.
9. See the essay by Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e .
10. D r . Peter K l e i n , U n i v e r s i t y o f H a m b u r g , report dated A p r i l 29, 2005.
11. See E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, cat. no. 36.
12. R e g a r d i n g this gesture, compare The Garden of Eden o f 1566 by Frans
Pourbus the E l d e r (1569-1622); see B r o o s 1993, P- 93, fig- 5-
70 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
13- Jan Brueghel's first k n o w n paradise scene s h o w i n g the animals enteri
n g N o a h ' s ark dates f r o m 1596; see A n t w e r p 1998, cat. no. 36.
14. I n the earliest example, dating f r o m 1604, Brueghel painted all the
elements o n one panel; see E r t z 1979, no. n o . See also E r t z 1979,
pp. 363-84; and K o l b 2005, pp. 52-59. F o r the series representing the
F o u r Elements, w h i c h Brueghel painted for B o r r o m e o between 1606
and 1621, see Jones 1993, pp. 237-38, nos. 3 4 a - d .
15. O n this subject, see K o l b 2 0 0 0 .
16. A precursor o f Brueghel's animal depictions is The Garden of Eden o f
1566 by Frans Pourbus the E l d e r (see note 12 above). Starting i n about
1600, Roelant S a v e r y — f o l l o w i n g the example o f his elder brother
Jacques—painted paradise scenes for various patrons, one o f w h o m
was E m p e r o r R u d o l f II (compare A m s t e r d a m 1993-94, cat. no. 312).
See also C . V a n de Velde, " H e t aards Paradijs in de beeldende k u n sten,"
in A n t w e r p 1982, pp. 16-35; and U . K l e i n m a n n , " W o lag das
Paradies? Beobachtungen z u den Paradieslandschaften des 16. u n d 17.
Jahrhunderts," i n E s s e n - V i e n n a 2003, pp. 278-85.
17. See P. J. J. van T h i e l in A m s t e r d a m 1993-94, p. 338.
18. See B r o o s 1993, p. 94-
19. B o t h H o u b r a k e n and C a m p o W e y e r m a n (see notes 2 and 3 above)
describe the painting in their biographies o f Jan Brueghel; it was
later assumed that Rubens had taken the initiative in conceiving this
c o m p o s i t i o n . O n this subject, see Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , p. 123, n. 4.
20. A s regards the u n d e r d r a w i n g and other technical aspects o f the painting,
see the essay by Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e , as
w e l l as W a d u m 2001 and 2002; regarding the underdrawing, see also
Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , fig. 6. T h e p a i n t i n g was examined again o n M a r c h 10,
2005, i n the restoration studio o f the M a u r i t s h u i s by Sabrina M e l o n i
and A r i a n e van Suchtelen w i t h the aid o f a stereomicroscope, and
infrared images were made w i t h the A r t i s t camera (Art Innovation,
H e n g e l o ) m o u n t e d w i t h a C C D progressive scan image sensor (1360 x
1036 pixels) and a Schneider K r e u z n a c h X e n o p l a n 1.4/23 m m C C T V lens
in N12 w i t h a 1000 n m long-wave pass filter.
21. These u n d e r d r a w n animals were detected o n M a r c h 10, 2005, w i t h
the A r t i s t camera (see previous note). D o r i e n Tamis, w h o examined
the painting in 1995—together w i t h C h r i s t i n e van M u l d e r s , N i c o
van H o u t , and Jorgen W a d u m — b y means o f infrared reflectography,
using a H a m a m a t s u camera, detected even more animals in the
u n d e r d r a w i n g ; see Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , pp. 118-19. See also W a d u m 2002,
p. 477, n. 6.
22. A u c t i o n , L e i d e n , September 8, 1766, no. 1. See H o e t and Terwesten
1752-70, v o l . 3, p. 542, no. 1.
23. W a d u m 2001. Tamis ( 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , p. 121) w r o n g l y assumes that the
serpent is by the hand o f B r u e g h e l and that Rubens adjusted the
contours.
24. O n this subject, see E r t z 1979, p. 246; B r o o s 1993, p. 90; and Tamis
2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , pp. 114-15, figs. 2 - 4 .
25. R e g a r d i n g this motif, compare a painting by Frans Pourbus o f the
same subject (see note 12 above).
26. See Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , p. 126, n. 19. C o m p a r e cat. nos. 3 and 5 in this
v o l u m e .
27. See W a d u m 2002, p. 2, fig. 4; and A n t w e r p 2004, cat. no. 39.
28. See Tamis 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , p. 130.
29. K o l b 2000, fig. 16; sale, Paris, Galliera, N o v e m b e r 23, 1972, lot 28.
30. T h e panel that E r t z attributes to Jan Brueghel the Y o u n g e r is perhaps
a copy o f a lost study; see E r t z 1984, no. 337.
31. N e w Y o r k - P a r i s 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , cat. no. 8. F o r other animal studies by
Brueghel, see K o l b 2 0 0 0 , figs. 5, 8, and 17; and K o l b 2005, figs. 16
and 54.
32. O n this subject see, a m o n g others, B r o o s 1993, pp. 9 0 - 9 3 ; and K o l b
2005, PP- 65-72.
33. O n this subject, see, a m o n g others, K o l b 2 0 0 0 , pp. 5 8 - 8 0 ; and K o l b
2005, pp. 21-31.
34. See K o l b 2005, P- 85, n. 65.
35. C o m p a r e , for instance, a print by A d r i a e n Collaert from Avium vivae
o f 1580 w i t h purple gallinulcs and ducks ( K o l b 2005, fig. 32).
36. Borromeo's / tre Libri delle Laudi Divine, published p o s t h u m o u s l y in
1632, was largely devoted to color; see M a r t i n i 1975, pp. 2 6 4 - 6 8 .
O n B o r r o m e o ' s role as an art theorist and patron, see, a m o n g others,
B e d o n i 1983, Q u i n t 1986, and Jones 1988 and 1993.
37. "In't begin / als alle gheschapen dinghen . . . heeft al zijn c o l o u r ghehadt
van desen A l d e r constichsten Beeldenaer en Schilder / hoe can der
V e r w e n o o r s p r o n g h blijeken milder?": V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1973,
vol. 1, pp. 2 6 6 - 6 7 .
38. See K o l b 2005, pp. 13-17, p. 83, n. 21.
39. " L i oitcelli, et animali son fatto ad vivo de alcuni delli scren.ma
Enfanto": Crivelli 1868, p. 272. T h i s letter is dated September 5, 1621.
Because A r c h d u k e A l b e r t had died o n July 15, 1621, Brueghel must
here be referring to Isabella.
4 0 . W e are indebted to the ornithologists R u u d V l e k and M a r d i k L e o p o l d
for their help i n identifying the various species o f birds.
41. See Prest 1981, p. 31.
42. T h e h i g h prices paid for this bird's feathers p r o m p t e d the Portuguese
to keep its native habitat a secret. T h e y managed to do so until 1528,
w h e n the Spanish finally landed o n the island; see G i l l i a r d 1969,
pp. 15-16.
43. See also W a d u m 2001, p. 29. In the late 1630s, R e m b r a n d t made a
d r a w i n g o f the b i r d o f paradise w i t h o u t its feet; see Benesch 1954-57
(enlarged edition 1973), no. 456; and B e r l i n - A m s t e r d a m - L o n d o n
1991-92, cat. no. 15.
44. See K o l b 2005, pp. 14-15.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 71
5
Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder
Pan and Syrinx
ca. 1617
O i l on panel, 39 x 59.9 cm (i53
/s x 235
/s in.);
with added strips of wood: 40.3 x 61 cm (15% x 24 in.)
Kassel, Staatliche Museen, Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister, G K 1229
P R O V E N A N C E
Susanna D o u b l e t - H u y g e n s sale, T h e H a g u e ,
N o v e m b e r 6, 1725, lot 35; A d r i a a n B o u t sale,
T h e H a g u e , A u g u s t n , 1733, lot 39; H e n d r i c k
van H e t e r e n collection, T h e H a g u e ; acquired
by W i l h e l m V I I I o f Hessen-Kassel, 1747; i n
1813 taken to Paris by Jerome Bonaparte,
k i n g o f Westphalia 1807-13; M u s e e N a p o l e o n
(Musee d u L o u v r e ) , Paris, 1814; A l p h o n s e
G i r o u x sale, Paris, February n - 1 2 , 1851, lot
159; F. Kleinberger (art dealer), Paris, ca.
1930; private collection, L o n d o n , ca. 1934;
sale, L o n d o n (Sotheby's), June 14, 1961, lot
36; sale, L o n d o n (Christie's), M a r c h 23, 1973,
lot 27; sale, L o n d o n (Sotheby's), July 12,
2001, lot 29; B r e m e n , Galerie N e u s e ,
acquired 2002
L I T E R A T U R E
H o e t and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 1, pp. 310,
387; E r t z 1979, pp. 417-18, no. 384;
E r t z 1984, pp. 7 0 - 7 1 , 81, 413-14, no. 253
E X H I B I T I O N
Kassel-Frankfurt 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 18 ( w i t h
additional literature)
I
]
] H I S P A N A N D S Y R I N X I S T H E S M A L L E S T S U R V I V I N G
collaborative painting by Rubens and Brueghel.
Rubens's figures loom large: indeed, they dominate
the picture, in which Brueghel's background attracts less
attention than usual. Even so, Brueghel's splendid landscape
provides the story with a subtle backdrop. Because the tall
reeds behind the figures extend beyond the height of the
picture, the viewer's vantage point seems to be very close to,
but slightly below, the figures. This lends immediacy to the
threat o f the lecherous satyr from w h o m the nymph attempts
to flee. A teal flies off (but turns its head for a last look) —
the same bird appears to the right of Eve in The Garden of
Eden with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4)—and frogs dive
into the water to escape from the scene of violent menace.
O v i d relates in his Metamorphoses (1.689-712) how the
god Pan falls in love with the nymph Syrinx. H e pursues her,
but her escape is blocked by the Biver Ladon. She is transformed
in the nick of time, and Pan finds himself holding a
handful of reeds instead of a nymph. In another story
from classical mythology, Mercury tells Argus the story of
Pan and Syrinx to lull him to sleep before killing him.
There are places in this painting along the figure's
contours, especially that of Syrinx's right leg, where one can
discern the brown lines of Rubens's preparatory drawing.
H e probably sketched in the figures in many of the paintings
he collaborated on with Brueghel, to demarcate the area
allotted to their respective contributions. It is not entirely
clear which of the two masters first took palette and brush to
hand,1
but in any case the work of both authors is very well
integrated into the whole. Brueghel thus applied some
blades of grass in front of Syrinx's left ankle and reed stalks
in the area of Pan's genitals; in Pan's left arm, however, the
72 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
73
uppermost layer of flesh-colored paint was not applied
until after the reeds were in place. Brueghel also painted out
two ducks in the background and made the fingers of
Syrinx's right hand slightly longer (or perhaps painted them
over the edge of the reserve left in the reeds). Finally, short
strokes of greenish paint were added to Pan's beard and
along his chest, as well as to Syrinx's hair, to soften the transition
between the different passages.
Rubens seems to have based his figures on examples
from antiquity. Syrinx, for instance, is derived from his own
freely interpreted pen-and-ink version of a well-known
antique statue, the Venus Pudica (fig. 46).2
As in the drawing,
Syrinx leans slightly forward, covering her genitals with
one hand. While the chaste, statuary example covers her
genitals and breasts with both hands, here Syrinx uses her
right hand to ward off her assailant. In modeling Pan's
upper body, bending forward to show his well-muscled back,
Rubens seems to have incorporated the Torso Belvedere—
an antique statue he drew several times during his Roman
sojourn—which figures frequently in his paintings (compare
cat. nos. 3 and 4).3
Rubens's interest in this cloven-hoofed
deity is also evidenced by his red-chalk drawing after a
sixteenth-century statue—in his day regarded as antique—
which was on display in the Palazzo Barberini in Rome
(fig. 47). As regards the Pan discussed here, the rendering of
his muscles, cloven hoofs, and characteristic head suggests
his derivation from that example.4
The powerful muscles and
dark coloring of this deity—half-man, half-goat—contrast
with the nymph's white softness. The contrast between
beauty and the beast was a favorite motif of Rubens and also
plays a role in, for example, Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observe
by Satyrs (cat. no. 11).5
The myth of Pan and Syrinx was a popular and frequently
depicted subject in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century.
It was probably introduced to Antwerp by Hendrick
van Balen, who also called upon Jan Brueghel to paint his
backgrounds, as seen in a work—which possibly predates th
present painting by a decade—now in the National Gallery
in London (fig. 48).6
Van Balen based the figures in that
painting on a 1589 print of the same subject after Hendrick
Goltzius (1558-1617); Brueghel's reed landscape is not quite
so successful as the one seen in the present painting. Rubens
also collaborated with Brueghel's son, Jan Brueghel the
Younger, on a related but less impressive composition with
the same subject, a number of variations of which are
known.7
Rubens also tackled the theme independently, in
d
e
FIGURE 46 Peter Paul Rubens, Four Female Figures. Pen and b r o w n i n k ,
27.1 x 17.7 c m (io5
/8 x 7 in.). A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m , Rijksprentcnkabinet,
inv. 66:67
1636 painting an oil sketch of Pan and Syrinx for the series of
mythological paintings he conceived for Torre de la Parada,
Philip IV's hunting lodge outside Madrid.8
The figures in
this sketch are depicted in action: reeds sprout from Syrinx's
hands and Pan wears an expression of unbridled lust.
The present painting displays a more subtle interpretation
of the subject. This is possibly the painting that Jan
Brueghel the Younger sold in 1626/27 for 142 guilders from
his late father's estate: "Pan and Syrinx by Mr. Rubens, the
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 75
FIGURE 47 Peter Paul R u b e n s after G i o v a n n i A n g e l o M o n t o r s o l i (1507-1563), Pun Resting. R e d chalk,
wash, 31 x 49.3 c m (12 V4 x i93
/s in.). Washington, D . C . , N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t , Ailsa M e l l o n Bruce
F u n d 1978.17.1 (B-30-457) © B o a r d o f Trustees o f the N a t i o n a l Gallery
FIGURE 48 Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k van Balen,
Pan and Syrinx, ca. 1607-08. O i l o n copper, 25 x 19.4 c m
(9% x 75/8 in.). L o n d o n , N a t i o n a l Gallery, inv. N G 659
76 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
background by [my] late father," as the son conscientiously
recorded in his account book.9
Unfortunately, he did not
mention the buyer's name. On November 6, 1725, a "Pan and
Syrinx by P. P. Rubens" was sold in The Hague at the
auction of the estate of the "Lady of Sint Annaland," which
is most likely the present painting, since it has exactly the
same measurements.10
This lady of Sint Annaland—a manor
on the island of Tholen in Zeeland—was Susanna DoubletHuygens
(1637-1725), the daughter of Constantijn Huygens
(1596-1687), private secretary to the princes of Orange,
the stadholders Maurits and Frederik Hendrik. Susanna had
probably inherited her sizable collection of paintings from
her father, an avowed admirer of Rubens.1 1
In his autobiography,
written between 1629 and 1631, Huygens said the
following: "to my mind, one of the seven wonders of the
world is the prince, the Apeiles, among painters, Peter
Paul Rubens."12
An erudite connoisseur and artistic adviser,
Huygens succeeded admirably in conveying his admiration
for Rubens's work to his lord and master, the stadholder
Frederik Hendrik (see cat. no. 6).
This Pan and Syrinx was acquired by Elector Wilhelm
VIII of Hessen-Kassel in 1747 but subsequently disappeared
when it was taken during the Napoleonic era to France.
It was not until 2 0 0 2 that the museum in Kassel was able
to re-acquire this splendidly preserved painting.1 3
A v S
N O T E S
1. A c c o r d i n g to C h r i s t i n e van M u l d e r s (Kassel-Frankfurt 2 0 0 4 ,
pp. 75-76), it is possible that Rubens painted the figures first and
B r u e g h e l added the landscape afterward, f o l l o w e d again by Rubens,
w h o supposedly applied the finishing touches.
2. K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 17. F o r the antique statue in the
C a p i t o l i n e M u s e u m in R o m e , see H a s k e l l and Penny 1981, pp. 318-20,
no. 84.
3. See V a n der M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 1, p. 48; v o l . 2, pp. 56-59; v o l . 3,
figs. 75-79. See also A n t w e r p 1993, pp. 124-27. R e g a r d i n g the Torso
Belvedere, see H a s k e l l and Penny 1981, pp. 311-14, no. 80.
4. K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 16. T h e statue by G i o v a n n i A n g e l o
M o n t o r s o l i is n o w i n the Saint L o u i s A r t M u s e u m .
5. F o r the different ways i n w h i c h Rubens painted his male and female
nude figures, see the essay by Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m in this
v o l u m e , p. 227.
6. See Kassel-Frankfurt 2004, cat. no. 11; see also Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. A 105.
7. K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , cat. nos. 2 3 - 2 6 ; see also E r t z 1979,
pp. 4 1 7 - 2 0 . Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r recorded in his account book,
w h i c h he kept from 1625 o n w a r d , several paintings depicting Pan and
Syrinx, i n c l u d i n g one he made in collaboration w i t h Rubens. In 1626
he noted, " A g a i n made a little picture o f Pan and Syrinx, M r . Rubens
the little figures, estimated to be w o r t h 120 guilders" ( N o c h ghemact
een stuxhen Pan en Siringa, S. Rubens de figurkens, dat estimcrende
o p 120 g l d ) : Vaes 1926-27, p. 210, no. 14. In 1627 Jan Brueghel the
Y o u n g e r w r o t e the f o l l o w i n g : " D i a n a w i t h a piece by m y father, a Pan
and Syrinx, w i t h t w o copies, sold to M r . G a u k t , a Parisian, for 535
guilders" ( D i a n a met een stuc van M o n Pcre, een Pan et Siringa, met
twee copyen verkocht aen M . G a u k t , parisien v o o r 535 gulden), and
in 1628 he w r o t e " A picture o f Pan and S y r i n x " (Een stuc. Pan en
Siringa): Vaes 1926-27, p. 213. Finally, in 1646, he recorded "Another
small piece, Pan and Syrinx. A small Pan and Syrinx, w h i c h [was]
sold to L o u i s van V i e r s for 6 guilders" ( N o c h een cleyn stuc, Pan en
Siringa. E e n cleyn Pan et Siringa, dat verkocht aen L o u i s van V i e r s
6 g l d ) : Vaes 1926-27, p. 218.
8. H e l d 1980, no. 207; and Kassel-Frankfurt 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 28.
9. "Pan en Siringa van S i g . Rubens, den g r o n t van vader zaliger": Vacs
1926-27, p. 209.
10. "Pan ende Sieringhs d o o r P : P : Rubens": " V r o u w c van Ste A n n c l a n d "
sale, T h e H a g u e , N o v e m b e r 6, 1725 (lot 35 [ L u g t 1949, no. 340]). T h i s
sale catalogue was reproduced in part in H o e t and Tcrwcsten 1752-70,
vol. 1, pp. 308-12, w i t h this painting listed (with incorrect measurements)
as no. 24.
11. See Schwartz and B o k 1989, pp. 52, 151, 319, and 324; and V a n
Suchtelen 1990, pp. 102-3. T h i s collection contained a large n u m b e r
o f portraits, i n c l u d i n g many o f the Oranges, w h i c h points to a provenance
f r o m the collection o f Constantijn H u y g e n s . Remarkably,
this collection also included t w o depictions o f Pan and Syrinx, by the
N o r t h e r n Netherlandish masters C o r n e l l s van Poelenburch (1586-
1667) and S a l o m o n de Bray (1597-1664); see note 10 above (sale,
T h e H a g u e , 1725, lots 70 and 81).
12. H u y g e n s / H e e s a k k e r s 1987, pp. 79-81 (translated f r o m the L a t i n ) .
H u y g e n s spoke less h i g h l y o f Jan Brueghel in his description o f the
w o r k o f Jacques de G h e y n II, saying that, as far as flower p a i n t i n g was
concerned, D e G h e y n had "carried off the palm o f victory for ever"
(ibid., p. 75).
13. See B . Schnackenburg, "Pan u n d Syrinx v o n 1747 bis 1814—Stationen
aus der Geschichte eines Kasseler Galericbildes," in K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t
2 0 0 4 , pp. 16-39.
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 77
6
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
Flora and Zephyr
ca. 1617
O i l on panel, 136 x 109 cm (53 Vi x 42% in.)
Dessau, Kulturstiftung DessauW o rlitz, Schlofi Mosigkau, MOS. 129
I N S C R I P T I O N
O n the reverse, panelmaker's mark i n red
chalk, G A [in ligature]
P R O V E N A N C E
C o l l e c t i o n o f Stadholder Frederik H e n d r i k
and A m a l i a van Solms, Stadholder's Quarters,
T h e H a g u e , 1632; collection o f their daughter
A l b e r t i n e Agnes o f Orange-Nassau; collection
o f her sister Henriette Catharina o f A n h a l t D
i e t z ; collection o f her daughter M a r i e
E l e o n o r e , duchess o f R a z i v i l l ; purchased by
her niece A n n a W i l h e l m i n e o f A n h a l t - D i e t z ,
1756; since 1758 i n Schlofi M o s i g k a u , Dessau
L I T E R A T U R E
S c h m i d t 1955, p. 30; M u l l e r Hofstede 1968,
p. 226; H a r k s e n 1976, no. 6; E r t z 1979,
p. 389; E r t z 1984, no. 187; D a u e r 1988, no.
129; T h e H a g u e 1997-98, pp. 6 5 - 6 6 ;
Savelsberg 2003
E X H I B I T I O N
Dessau 2003
z
E P H Y R , T H E W E S T W I N D , A B D U C T E D T H E N Y M P H
Chloris and made her his wife. As a wedding present
he gave her a garden filled with flowers, where it was
always springtime. Chloris thus became Flora, the goddess
of flowers. The myth of Flora and Zephyr, as told by Ovid
(Fasti 5.193-214), was a suitable vehicle for Rubens and
Brueghel to show off their respective specialties in a collaborative
painting: Brueghel painted a courtly love garden
in full blossom and Rubens peopled it with idealized nudes.
Even though the painting is closely related thematically
to the allegories of spring and series of the Four Elements
that Brueghel made in collaboration with Hendrick van
Balen, the depiction of Flora receiving Zephyr's flowers
has no precedent in painting, so the choice of subject is in
itself highly original.
Painted with extreme transparency as i f to suggest a
barely noticeable wind, the winged Zephyr, aloft, empties a
basket of flowers into a cloth held by Flora. Flora, by contrast,
is a classical nude—all the nuances of pale skin have
been expressed with delicate brushstrokes. A putto at her feet
bends over to gather up the flowers, while another reaches
up toward Zephyr. The transparency of the paint has left
clearly visible—particularly in the figure of Zephyr—the
brown lines made by the brush with which Rubens sketched
in the contours of his figures before Brueghel painted the
background and the flowers. Only when the background had
been completed did Rubens paint the figures. Making use
of his preparatory sketch, he worked in places beyond the
outlines of the reserves. Brueghel added the finishing touches
by applying some small flowers to the figures, thereby
fully integrating Rubens's contribution into the composition.
7 8 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
79
F I G U R E 49 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and
H e n d r i c k van Balen, Allegory of Spring, 1616.
O i l o n copper, 56 x 84 c m (22 x 33 Vs in.).
N e u b u r g an der D o n a u , Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen,
Staatsgalerie, inv. 13709
Flora and her little companions sit in a garden among
blossoming plants—many of them in pots, vases, and
baskets—with flowers loosely strewn upon the ground. In
the right foreground sit two guinea pigs, while in the background
appear peacocks and two cassowaries—large birds
related to the ostrich. Deer are visible in the park in the distance.
The monumental, classicist building on the left
strongly resembles the artificial grottos with fountains and
cascades that the French architect and hydraulic engineer
Salomon de Caus (1576-1626) designed for the gardens of
the aristocracy, including those of Archdukes Albert and
Isabella.1
Similar structures are depicted in the background
of the Allegory of Smell (see fig. 57) and the Allegory of Spring
(fig. 49), which Brueghel painted with Rubens and Van
Balen, respectively.2
To be sure, no apparent jets of water can
be distinguished in the present painting, but visible to the
right of Flora's face is a basin of water suited to such artificial
grottos. The reliefs on the building reinforce the theme of
the painting. The Rape of Proserpine is depicted above the
archway: after being carried off to the Underworld by Pluto,
Proserpine was allowed to return every spring to see her
mother, the grain goddess Ceres. The side wall contains two
reliefs, partly cut off by the left edge of the painting.3
The upper relief shows Europa, the king's daughter, being
abducted by Jupiter in the guise of a white bull; the lower
relief probably represents the myth of Pan and Syrinx.4
The depiction of the nymph fleeing through the reeds is
based on the collaborative painting of this subject by Rubens
and Brueghel (cat. no. 5).
Brueghel also painted several motifs that are encountered
in other of his works: the basket of flowers with a plucked
tulip beside it in the foreground, for example, also occurs
in a flower still life of 1617 (fig. 50).5
The vase of polychrome
stonework at Flora's back was probably a prop belonging
to Brueghel's studio, since he frequently depicted the very
same vase.6
The faience bowl containing grapes in the left
foreground resembles a similar motif in The Return from
War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2). The melon sliced
in half is very similar to the same motif in Fruit Garland
with Angels (cat. no. 19) and The Feast ofAcheious (cat. no. 3),
and the guinea pigs are nearly identical to those in The
Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark of 1613 (cat. no. 26) and
The Garden ofEden (cat. no. 4). The blossoming fritillary
in the right foreground displays almost the same pattern
of leaves as the fritillary in the Allegory of Spring of 1616
(fig. 49), making it likely that this motif is based on the
same preparatory drawing. This fritillary—a flower that was
first imported from Turkey in the late sixteenth century—
80 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
FIGURE 50 Jan Brueghel the Elder, Flower Still Life, 1617. O i l o n panel,
55 x 91 c m (2i5
/s x 357
/s in.). F o r m e r l y P. de B o e r (art dealer), A m s t e r d a m
must have been one of Brueghel's stock designs, since Jan
Brueghel the Younger used it some ten years later in an
Allegory of Spring based on his father's work.7
A dating of Flora and Zephyr to about 1617, based on
its stylistic relationship to dated paintings displaying similar
motifs, has recently been confirmed by the discovery of
a panelmaker's mark in red chalk on the back of the panel.
This mark, by the Antwerp panelmaker Guilliam Aertssen,
also points to a dating around 1617.8
Flora and Zephyr was owned by the stadholder Frederik
Hendrik of Orange and his wife Amalia van Solms, whose
estate—which devolved on their four daughters—largely
ended up in Germany.9
In the earliest inventory of the
paintings owned by the stadholder and his wife (drawn
up in 1632), this painting was listed as "a piece by Rubens
and the landscape done by Brueghel."1 0
At that time, it
was hanging as an overdoor in Amalia's gallery of paintings
in the Stadholder's Quarters (the present-day Binnenhof
complex) in The Hague. There has in fact been speculation
as to how the painting came into the Oranges' possession
in the first place. One theory suggests that it was presented
to them by Archduchess Isabella on the occasion of their
marriage in 1625 (Albert had died in 1621).1 1
There is, however,
no certainty on this score. But no matter how they
acquired it, Frederik Hendrik and Amalia—ambitious art
collectors and avowed admirers of Rubens—were no
doubt proud to own this painting by two famous Flemish
masters. A v S
N O T E S
1. Welzel 1997, pp. 2 2 6 - 3 0 . F r o m 1600 D e Cans was e m p l o y e d by A l b e r t
and Isabella i n Brussels; see Welzel 1997, p. 226, n. 60. T w o drawings
by H e i n r i c h Schickhardt (1558 —1635) after designs for artificial
grottos by S a l o m o n de Cans are preserved in the Hauptstaatsarchiv
at Stuttgart (Welzel 1997, p. 229, n. 68, fig. 109); they display an
obvious resemblance to the structure i n the painting discussed here.
2. C o m p a r e paintings by Jan Brueghel the Younger w i t h portrayals
o f F l o r a s h o w i n g similar, grottolike structures w i t h fountains in the
b a c k g r o u n d ( E r t z 1984, nos. 188-91).
3. Despite the fact that the picture seems to have been reduced in size
o n the left, the panel has not been sawn off (or at least not to any
appreciable extent); w i t h thanks to D r . W . Savelsberg, Dessau,
for this i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s panel, therefore, was not adapted to fit the
"baroque h a n g i n g " (barocke Hangung) in Schloft M o s i g k a u in Dessau,
as previously maintained; see Savelsberg 2003, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 . T h i s palace,
w h i c h belonged to A n n a W i l h e l m i n e o f A n h a l t - D i e t z , the greatgranddaughter
o f Frederik H e n d r i k and A m a l i a , has been the h o m e
o f Flora and Zephyr since 1758. T h e gilded frame, made specially
for M o s i g k a u , dates from the time o f the painting's installation there.
4. Savelsberg (2003, p. 55) suggests that the last scene m i g h t depict
Zephyr's abduction o f Psyche.
5. E r t z 1979, no. 322, fig. 371 ( w i t h the art dealer P. de Boer, A m s t e r d a m ,
in 1935). C o m p a r e also E r t z 1979, no. 293, fig. 372 (dated 1615), as
well as figs. 361-63.
6. E r t z 1979, nos. 2 0 9 - 1 0 , figs. 332, 357.
7. E r t z 1984, no. 188.
8. W i t h thanks to Jorgen W a d u m . See also W a d u m 1990 and the essay
by Doherty, L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e .
9. T h e H a g u e 1997-98, pp. 6 5 - 6 6 , fig. 4 ; and Savelsberg 2003,
pp. 4 9 - 5 0 .
10. " E e n stuck van Rubbens ende't landschap d o o r Bruegel gcdaen":
Drossaers and L u n s i n g h Scheurleer 1974-76, v o l . 1, pp. 192, 285,
no. 1241; p. 320, no. 791; p. 371, no. 1468 (no. 230 in the inventory).
11. Savelsberg 2003, pp. 56-58.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 8l
7
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
The Vision of Saint Hubert
ca. 1617-20
Oil on panel, 63 x 100 cm (24.V4 x 393
/8 in.)
Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1411
P R O V E N A N C E
R e c o r d e d i n the 1642 inventory o f D o n D i e g o
Mexi'a, marquis o f Leganes, no. 38;1
1655
inventory o f the collection o f the marquis
de L e g a n e s ; 2
i n the Alcazar by 1686; m o v e d
f o l l o w i n g the 1734 Alcazar fire to the Palacio
N u e v o ; transferred to the P r a d o u p o n its
foundation, 1819
L I T E R A T U RE
Rooses 1886-92, v o l . 2, p. 285; D e M a e y e r
1955, p. 155; D i a z P a d r o n 1975, v o l . 1,
pp. 65-67; E r t z 1979, pp. 393-95, 4 8 0 , 616,
no. 366; V o l k 1980, p. 267; D i a z P a d r o n
1995, v o l . 1, pp. 288-89, no. 1411; Vergara
1999, pp- 171-72; V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , p. 121
?
N THE VISION OF SAINT HUBERT, B R U E G H E L ' S E L E gant,
tranquil forest landscape establishes the tenor
for one of the most profoundly moving works he produced
with Rubens. While related by the theme of the
hunt and its motifs to Brueghel and Rubens's mythological
compositions from about 1620 (see cat. nos. 10 and 11),
it nonetheless stands apart as an indigenous and complementary
variation on the popular subject of the chase that had
particular significance for Archdukes Albert and Isabella.
Occasionally overlooked as a collaborative work, The Vision
of Saint Hubert provides considerable evidence as to
Brueghel's leading role in the partnership.
Although the story of Saint Hubert was seldom depicted
in painting, the details of his life and sudden conversion
were well known in Brussels and the Ardennes region to the
southeast. Hubert, a self-indulgent Merovingian nobleman
born about 656, lived in Austrasia, on the border between
modern France and Germany. An avid hunter, he neglected
church services on Good Friday morning to take up the
chase in the rich holdings of the Ardennes forest. Upon
sighting a magnificent stag, he and his hounds pursued the
animal until it stopped suddenly and faced him, and Hubert
perceived a radiant light and a crucifix between its antlers.
According to legend, a voice addressed him: "Hubert,
Hubert, why do you pursue me? Unless you turn to the
Lord and lead a holy life, you shall quickly go down to hell."
Startled, he dismounted and knelt before the stag. Upon
asking what course he should take, he was told, "Go and seek
Lambert, and he shall instruct you." Hubert renounced his
worldly possessions and pursuits and subsequently embarked
on a Christian career, becoming bishop of Maastricht and
Liege. He was known particularly for converting pagans in
82 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
83
remote areas of the Ardennes forest and Brabant. He died
at Fura (modern Tervuren) in 727 or 728.3
The mythology of
Hubert embraces strands of both biblical and folkloric history.
The conversion of the pagan hunter in the forest recalls
and perhaps even draws upon the story of Saint Eustace,
a popular figure in France as well as Germany, whose tale
was recounted in the popular Golden Legend.** The manner in
which the presence of the Almighty appears to Hubert in
the form of radiant light parallels the New Testament account
of the conversion of Saint Paul, in which he was struck blind
by a light from heaven and thrown from his horse.5
Hubert
was the patron saint of hunters and hunting dogs and was
invoked against rabies. Significantly, in Habsburg genealogy,
Hubert was considered a forebear of the archdukes.6
In The Vision of Saint Hubert, Hubert encounters the
stag in a serene woodland clearing near a river inhabited by
numerous birds. The stag's head is positioned against
the luminous sky, which serves as a brilliant backdrop for
the small crucifix. In a striking interpretation of the legend,
Brueghel depicts the stag with his mouth open, as if it is he
who speaks to the saint.7
At the right, the saint kneels reverently,
his head tilted in inquiry, jeweled and plumed cap
drawn back, his gesture one of wonder and veneration. The
semicircular horn and the sword at his side identify him as a
hunter and nobleman. All around him, the hounds of the
chase sit or lie peacefully, emphasizing the halt to their baying
pursuit of their quarry and the silence into which the heavenly
command has been spoken. Hubert's handsome gray stallion
stands directly behind him and gazes out at the viewer.
Brueghel and Rubens's treatment of this unusual subject
reflects the great interest on the part of Archdukes Albert and
Isabella in the cult of this local saint. As part of their larger
campaign to revitalize the Catholic faith, the couple aggressively
strove to revive religious orders in the Southern
Netherlands and supported regional figures such as Hubert,
renowned for his proselytizing in remote areas.8
Deeply
pious themselves, the archdukes were personally devoted to
the saint's cult. The existing wooden chapel of Saint Hubert
in the forest near their hunting castle of Tervuren, thought to
mark the site of the saint's death, was rebuilt in brick according
to the designs of court architect and engineer Wenceslas
Cobergher between 1616 and 1617.9
The altar of the chapel
was refurbished, as was the wooden statue of Saint Hubert.
A pair of monumental paintings depicting the main events of
the saint's life, including his conversion, were commissioned
from Theodoor van Loon (1590-1660) to decorate the
chapel.1 0
Renovations were also carried out in the chapel
dedicated to Saint Hubert in the church of Saint Gudula
near the Coudenburg in Brussels (today the Cathedral of
Saints Michael and Gudula), which was apparently still decorated
in the early 1620s with a diptych portraying episodes
from his life by Rogier van der Weyden (1399/1400-1464)
and his workshop.1 1
At her death in 1633, Isabella bequeathed
works of art from her oratory, including "a Saint Hubert,
painted on panel, by Bruegel" to the church of Saint Gudula.1 2
While The Vision of Saint Hubert cannot be connected conclusively
with either the chapel dedicated to Saint Hubert at
Tervuren or the one in Brussels, it must have been executed
during this period of intense interest in the saint's cult, possibly
as early as 1617.13
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens painted
another version of The Vision of Saint Hubert, formerly in the
collection of the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum, Berlin (fig. 51),
suggesting that it was both popular and significant enough
to be repeated.14
Although the Madrid and Berlin compositions
are similar, certain landscape details (for example, the
large tree in the upper right) differ between the two panels.
More significantly, the stag in the Berlin Vision has a largerset
of antlers, and there are two additional animals in the
foreground: a thickset hound stands directly behind the stag
and a small monkey sits on the ground to the left. While
the question of the primacy of the Berlin versus the Madrid
panel has long been debated, the loss of the Berlin Vision
of Saint Hubert and resultant lack of technical information
make it difficult to determine with any certainty the order
of their execution.1 5
It was not unknown for particularly
admired compositions, including collaborative works, to
be reiterated, and the subject of Saint Hubert's conversion
might well have been popular at the Brussels court.1 6
However,
the numerous small adjustments made by Brueghel
in the Madrid panel and the anomalous additions of animals
to the Berlin panel (discussed below) may indicate that the
Madrid painting was the initial version.
The process of the collaboration between Brueghel and
Rubens in The Vision of Saint Hubert, and Rubens's minimal
share in the execution, has contributed to confusion over
its attribution.1 7
As in other joint paintings, Brueghel began
work on the panel and returned later to integrate and, in this
case, equip Rubens's figure. Infrared reflectography reveals
that Brueghel required very little preparation to establish
the landscape and spatial recession; he used just a few drawn
verticals indicating tree trunks along the right side to help
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 85
FIGURE 51 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and Peter P a u l Rubens, The Vision of Saint Hubert. O i l o n panel,
60 x 90 c m (235
/8 x 353
/8 in.). F o r m e r l y B e r l i n , K a i s e r - F r i e d r i c h - M u s e u m , inv. 765 (presumed lost i n 1945)
F I G U R E 5 2 I n f r a r e d r e f l e c t o g r a m , d e t a i l , T h e V i s i o n o f S a i n t H u b e r t
86 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
him plan the setting.1 8
The gravity of the scene owes much
to Brueghel's landscape, which is characterized by an open
foreground and airy canopy, with a relatively central recession
and low viewpoint.1 9
As in the allegories of the Five
Senses series (see cat. no. 8), Rubens's figural contribution
to the landscape is an important but limited one. The simple
small-scale figure of Saint Hubert resembles the female
personifications and the satyr in these works. Following the
execution of the figure of the saint by his colleague, Brueghel
added Hubert's primary attributes, a hunting horn and a
sword, as well as the saint's plumed hat, details that confused
later authors who noted how finely the figure was painted
and attributed the entire figure to Brueghel.2 0
The long
plumes of the hat cover the horse's tail, indicating that this
element was inserted after the horse had been painted
(fig. 52). The hound sitting in front of Hubert was painted
up to the leg of the saint. Even the small motif of the hunting
horn and the minutely described laces of the bandolier
the saint wears across his body demonstrate Brueghel's
attention to detail. Brueghel evidently studied similar equipment,
as demonstrated by the existence of drawn studies of
the hunting horns and other paraphernalia which feature in
the hunt scenes of Diana (see fig. 64). The hunting horn
was a particularly important attribute of Hubert's and was
the principal relic of the saint preserved in the renovated
Tervuren chapel.2 1
The animals Brueghel chose to surround the saint help
to situate The Vision of Saint Hubert between the paradise
landscapes of about 1615-17, The Entry ofthe Animals into
Noah's Ark (1615; London, Wellington Museum) and The
Garden ofEden with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4), and the
slightly later mythological scenes of the huntress Diana from
about 1620. One of the recurrent reminders of Brueghel's
friendship with Rubens is his portrayal of a gray stallion that
draws on the type Rubens used for the Equestrian Portrait
of the Duke ofLerma (see fig. 22).2 2
The Prado stallion stands
squarely and closely resembles the horse in the corridor of
Rubens and Brueghel's The Return from War: Mars Disarmed
by Venus (cat. no. 2).2 3
Despite using what must have been a
familiar figure, Brueghel adjusted the angle of the steed's ears
inward (fig. 52). He made a similar, and evidently significant,
modification to the ears of the gray stallion in the 1613 Entry
of the Animals into Noah's Ark (cat. no. 2 6 ) . 2 4
The hounds, whose attitudes reflect the gravity of their
master's encounter with the heavenly apparition, are a particularly
important component of the scene. The variety of their
FIGURE 53 A l b r e c h t D i i r e r (1471-1528), Saint Eustace, ca. 1501.
E n g r a v i n g , 361 x 262 m m (14Vi x i o 3
/ s in.). L o n d o n , British M u s e u m ,
inv. 1868-8-22-183 © T r u s t e e s o f the British M u s e u m
poses (curled, standing, profile) and coats demonstrates
Brueghel's powers of observation and inventiveness, echoing
Albrecht Diirer's inclusion of an elegant group of hounds
in his print of Saint Eustace (fig. 53). Diirer's canines were
remarked upon by Giorgio Vasari, and the composition was
well known in the Netherlands as a result of Diirer's visit
in 1520-21.2 5
The discrete group around the kneeling figure
in The Vision of Saint Hubert may have been inspired by this
famous composition, an idea which Brueghel then elaborated
upon for Diana at the Hunt and Diana's Sleeping Nymphs
Observed by Satyrs (cat. nos. 10 and 11). The cream and tan
hound behind the stallion, for example, appears with a companion
in Diana at the Hunt, and the stocky, jowled hound
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 87
at the extreme right here also appears in the same location in
Diana's Sleeping Nymphs. The back of the black and white
hound grooming himself in the foreground was reduced
slightly, and the position of his eyes changed in the Madrid
panel. The same animal appears in both Diana at the Hunt
and Diana's Sleeping Nymphs. While a number of animals
resemble sketches in the Studies ofHunting Dogs (cat. no. 27),
none have been repeated precisely in the present painting.
Like The Vision of Saint Hubert, the Vienna sketch reveals
the individuality and liveliness that illustrate their study
from life, perhaps even from the many hounds kept by
the archduchess.26
A contemporary group portrait of the
archduchess's hounds was commissioned for Tervuren. The
apes included among its forested landscape allude to the
royal menagerie and may explain the presence of the ape in
the Berlin Vision of Saint Hubert. Although not in keeping
with the solemnity of the primary theme of Hubert's confrontation
and conversion, the ape and extra hound may
have been included to broaden the association of the scene
with the court.2 7
The magnificent stag at the center of The Vision of Saint
Hubert almost certainly derives from studies of live animals,
which Brueghel could have seen firsthand in the royal park
in Brussels, as well as at the castle of Mariemont.2 8
Contemporary
visitors describe feeding tame animals, including
deer, in the Brussels Warande.2 9
While the painting by Jan
Brueghel the Younger, The Archdukes in the Garden of Their
Palace in Brussels (1621; Antwerp, Rubenshuis), in which the
archduchess offers a morsel to a doe, portrays the park's
gentle menagerie, Brueghel the Elder's drawing Archdukes at
the Chase attests to the archduke's sportive pursuits.3 0
A
sinuously drawn stag from another study (see fig. 45) was
incorporated into The Hague paradise landscape (cat. no. 4)
in an elegant portrayal of this noble animal. It could similarly
have served as a point of departure for the stag in The Vision
of Saint Hubert, where Brueghel has minutely rendered the
different lengths and colors of fur on its head and neck, ATW
N O T E S
1. " N o . 38 otra piritura de ssan huberto de m a n o de Rubens el pais
cierbo perros y caballos de m a n o de bruxel" ( M a r c h 30, 1642):
V o l k 1980, p. 267. See also M a r y C r a w f o r d V o l k , " O n the C o l l e c t i o n
o f the M a r q u i s o f Leganes i n 1642: ' O n e o f the Greatest C o n n o i s seurs
o f this Age,'5 5
u n p u b l i s h e d manuscript, Getty Research Institute,
Provenance Index, Collectors File (under Leganes), ca. 1980.
2. " N o . 38 otra pintura de san huberto de m a n o de Rubens, el pais cierbo,
perros y cauollos de m a n o de brugel" ( A p r i l 6, 1655): N a v i o 1962,
p. 271. See also Rooses 1900, p. 169.
3. F o l l o w i n g his conversion, H u b e r t traveled to Maastricht and became
the spiritual p u p i l o f Saint L a m b e r t . H e then made a pilgrimage
to R o m e , d u r i n g w h i c h time L a m b e r t was assassinated and H u b e r t
was appointed his successor by Pope Sergius. H u b e r t ' s legend dates
f r o m the early fifteenth century and is not recounted i n Jacobus
de Voragine's Legenda aurea (Golden Legend) o f ca. 1280. See R e a u
1955-59, v o l . 3, pt. 2, pp. 653-58; and C . F. Wemyss B r o w n , "St.
Hubert," The Catholic Encyclopedia, v o l . 7 (1910), pp. 5 0 7 - 8 .
4. See R e a u 1955-59, v o l . 3, pt. 1, pp. 4 6 8 - 7 1 .
5. Acts 9:1-9.
6. See Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , p. 259; and H u y g h e b a e r t 1927.
7. A m o r e exaggerated portrayal o f the stag addressing Saint H u b e r t
appears i n T h e o d o o r van L o o n ' s Conversion of Saint Hubert o f ca. 1620,
see note 10 below.
8. O n the archdukes' religious policy, see Pasture 1925 and Elias 1931.
9. See M e g a n c k 1998, pp. 114-16. W o r k o n the chapel o f Saint H u b e r t
was carried out at the same time as a major b u i l d i n g project, also
designed by Cobergher, at the pilgrimage site o f Scherpenheuvel.
10. H i e r o n y m u s D u q u e s n o y I refurbished the h i g h altar and the statue
o f the saint i n 1617; see D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 210-11, doc. 156. F o r
V a n L o o n ' s paintings, The Conversion of Saint Hubert (ca. 1620, o i l o n
canvas, 278 x 199 c m [109V2 x 78V8 i n . ] ; Brussels, Musees royaux des
Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 273) and Saint Hubert Receiving the
Stole (ca. 1620, o i l o n canvas, 241 x 171 c m [ 9 4 % x 67 Vs i n . ] ; Brussels,
Musees royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 6147), w h i c h were
j o i n e d by The Virgin and Child between Saint John the Baptist and
Saint John the Evangelist (ca. 1620, o i l o n canvas, 237 x 171 c m [93 l
A x
673
/8 i n . ] ; Brussels, Musees royaux des Beaux-Arts de B e l g i q u e ,
inv. 6146), see D e M a e y e r 1955, doc. 124, 125, 156, and 272 (for the
1667 inventory describing the paintings i n the chapel); and Brussels
1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , pp. 2 6 0 - 6 1 . F o r the history o f Tervuren castle, see cat. no. 9.
11. T h e chapel, also called O u r L a d y o f the F l o w e r s ( N o t r e D a m e de
Fleurs), and the paintings were described by F r e n c h tourist FrancoisN
i c h o l a s B a u d o t , sieur de B u i s s o n et d'Aubanay, w h o traveled i n the
Netherlands between 1623 and 1627; see the account p u b l i s h e d by
H a l k i n 1946, pp. 59-61. F o r the paintings, by R o g i e r van der W e y d e n
and his w o r k s h o p , The Dream of Rope Sergius (late 1430s; L o s Angeles,
J. P a u l Getty M u s e u m , inv. 72.PB.20) and The Exhumation of Saint
Hubert (late 1430s; L o n d o n , N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t , inv. N G 783), and
their history, see C a m p b e l l 1998, pp. 4 0 7 - 2 7 , particularly pp. 418-19.
12. F o r the inventory o f Isabella's collection (July 27, 1639), see D e M a e y e r
1955, doc. 255, pp. 4 0 5 - 1 0 ("Saint H u b e r t " appears as no. 28: " U n
Saint H u b e r t , peint sur panneau, par Brueghel, a coute 200 florins.").
13. B u t not later than 1621, the year the variant by Jan B r u e g h e l the
Younger was signed, see note 14 below.
88 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
14. Presumed lost in the fire o f 1945. See Berlin 1911, p. 325; B e r n h a r d
1965, p. 14, p i . 99; E r t z 1979, pp. 393, 4 8 0 , 619, no. 365; and M u l l e r
Hofstede 1968, p. 226. A c c o r d i n g to Rooses (1886-92, v o l . 2, p. 285),
the Berlin Hubert was previously in the collection o f the k i n g o f
Prussia. F o r the variant by Jan Brueghel the Younger, Forest Landscape
with Saint Hubert (signed and dated 1621, o i l o n copper, 52 x 72.5 c m
[20V2 x 28V2 i n . ] ; N e u b u r g an der D o n a u , Staatsgaleric, inv. 2178),
see E r t z 1984, p. 333, no. 168; and Renger and Schleif 2005, p- 84.
15. V l i e g h e (1980, p. 652), in his review o f D i a z Padron's 1975 catalogue,
stated that "Rubens's hand is not recognizable in this copy [the Prado
Vision of Saint Hubert]. J u d g i n g f r o m a p h o t o g r a p h it seems to me
that the version formerly i n the K a i s e r - F r i e d r i c h - M u s e u m , Berlin, was
o f higher quality."
16. A n inventory o f the collection o f paintings at Tervuren (1667) reveals
many paintings o f h u n t i n g subjects; see D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 4 4 8 - 5 3 ,
doc. 272. See also, for example, cat. nos. 2, 10, and n .
17. T h e attribution o f the M a d r i d panel has varied, f r o m the earliest ment
i o n in the 1642 inventory o f the collection o f the marquis o f Leganes,
where it was clearly described as by Rubens and Brueghel, to the 1686
inventory o f the Alcazar, w h i c h ascribed it to Rubens (and identified
the subject as Saint Eustace) ("681 O t r a P i n t u r a de vara y quarta de
largo y tres quartas de ancho en lamina de vn S n
E u s t a q u i o de m a n o
de Rubenes"): B o t t i n e a u 1958, p. 306. Rooses (1886-92, v o l . 2, p. 285)
and Posse (1909-11, p. 325) attributed the M a d r i d panel to B r u e g h e l ;
it was catalogued as Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens
by D i a z P a d r o n (1975, pp. 65-67), an attribution disputed by V l i e g h e
(see note 15 above) but maintained in Balis et al. 1989a, p. 267; and
Vergara 1999, p- 171 (as Rubens and Brueghel).
18. See the essay by D o h e r t y , L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e ,
p. 240. I am grateful to T i a r n a D o h e r t y and M a r k L e o n a r d at the
J. Paul Getty M u s e u m and to Alexander Vergara and A n a G o n z a l e z
M o z o at the M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado for discussing the infrared
reflectograph w i t h me.
19. Brueghel's landscapes take o n a greater m o n u m e n t a l i t y and openness
in the late 1610s, and the present c o m p o s i t i o n may be compared w i t h
Jan Brueghel the Elder, Busy Highway (oil o n copper, 25.8 x 37 c m
[10Vs x 1 4 i n . ] ; M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, no. 1877), and Jan
Brueghel the E l d e r and collaborator, Wooded Landscape with Nymphs,
Dogs, and Hunting Spoils (fig. 68 i n this v o l u m e ) , w h i c h are usually
dated about 1620. See Renger and D c n k 2002, p. 112; and Renger and
Schleif 2005, pp. 7 8 - 7 9 .
20. See note 17 above. A s Doherty, L e o n a r d and W a d u m observe (p. 240),
the hat inserted by Brueghel serves to "bridge" the space between the
saint and the horse.
21. Brussels 1998-99, pp. 2 5 9 - 6 0 .
22. F o r the portrait, see Vergara 1999, pp. n - 1 6 .
23. C o n t r a r y to D i a z Padron's assertion (1975, p. 66), the horse i n The
Vision of Saint Hubert is distinct from the prancing gray stallion
that appears in The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark (cat. no. 26)
and The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (cat. no. 4). F o r Brueghel's
use o f the horse, see K o l b 2005, especially pp. 6 3 - 6 8 .
24. See K o l b 2005, p. 9, fig. 13.
25. Vasari 1966-, v o l . 5, p. 8: "la quale carte e mirabile, e massimamentc
per la bellezza d'alcuni cani i n varie attitudini, che n o n possono esserc
piu belli."
26. See K o l b 2005, p. 12.
27. Artist u n k n o w n (Southern Netherlands), Portrait of Dona Juana de
Lunar and the Dogs of the Infanta Isabella (Brussels, Koninklijke M u s e a
v o o r Schone K u n s t e n , inv. 6417). T h e canvas is thought to have come
from Tervuren; see D e M a e y e r 1955, p. 171, 376, doc. 133. T h e painting
is discussed and reproduced in Brussels 1985, pp. 637-38, cat. no. D18.
T h e marquis o f Leganes o w n e d a copy of Dona Juana de Lunar and the
Dogs of the Infanta Isabella; see N a v i o 1962, p. 296, no. 662. T h e marquis's
connection w i t h the archdukes and w i t h Tervuren is reflected in
W i l l e m van H a e c h t (1593-1637), Gallery of Archduchess Isabella (Kent,
H a w k h u r s t , Hardcastle private collection), w h i c h is thought to portray
the interior o f Tervuren about 1628 and includes the marquis's portrait
along w i t h that o f A m b r o g i o S p i n o l a . See S p e t h - H o l t e r h o f f 1957,
pp. 1 0 8 - 9 , figs. 3 9 - 4 1 .
28. See, for example, Brueghel's d r a w i n g Deerpark of Archduke Albert at
Mariemont (Winner 1972, pp. 154-55, fig. 35).
29. Saintenoy 1932-35, v o l . 1, p. 76.
30. F o r the Rubenshuis p a i n t i n g (inv. R H SI30) and the archducal
menagerie, see K o l b 2005, pp. 13-17, fig. 23. F o r the d r a w i n g o f the
archdukes at the hunt (sold, Sotheby's, A m s t e r d a m [ N o v e m b e r 11,
1997, lot 66]), see W i n n e r 1961, p. 232, fig. 41; and Z w o l l o 2 0 0 0 ,
p. 452.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 89
s
8
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
Allegory of Taste
1618
Oil on panel, 6 4 x 108 cm (25l
A x 42 V2 in.)
Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1397
I N S C R I P T I O N
A t l o w e r right, B R V E G H E L . F E . I 6 I 8
P R O V E N A N C E
Presented by D u k e W o l f g a n g W i l h e l m o f
P f a l z - N e u b u r g to C a r d i n a l Infante Ferdinand,
1634; possibly collection o f the duke o f
M e d i n a - S i d o n i a s de Las Torres, 1634-36;
presented to K i n g P h i l i p I V o f S p a i n ; transferred
to the Prado u p o n its foundation, 1819
L I T E R A T U R E
D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 4 2 - 4 3 , 112, 114, 118;
Speth-HolterhofF 1957, pp. 29, 4 6 - 5 4 ; E r t z
1979, pp- 328-56, no. 330; M u l l e r Hofstede
1984; M a d r i d 1992, pp. 114-53; Scarpa S o n i n o
1992, pp. 21-27; H a r t i n g 1993, pp. 129-31;
D i a z P a d r o n 1995, pp. 265-86; W e l z e l 1997;
Paulussen 1997, pp. 91-132; W e l z e l i n Brussels
1998- 99, pp. 9 9 - 1 0 6 ; W e l z e l i n M a d r i d
1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , pp. 8 2 - 9 7 ; V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 ,
p. 120; K o l b 2 0 0 0 , pp. 161-65; W e l z e l 2002,
pp. 337-39; W e l z e l 2 0 0 4 ; K o l b 2005,
pp. 6 0 - 6 3
E X H I B I T I O N
Brussels 1980, cat. no. 142
?
N E O F T H E B E S T - K N O W N C O L L A B O R A T I V E W O R K S
of Jan Brueghel and Peter Paul Rubens is without
doubt the series depicting the Five Senses in
the Museo Nacional del Prado, represented in this exhibition
by the Allegory of Taste. Five panels, each measuring approximately
65 x 100 cm (twenty-five by forty inches), display
female personifications of the Five Senses, portrayed against
a backdrop of princely collections that together seem to
paint an idealized picture of the court of the Habsburg ruler
of the Southern Netherlands, the archdukes Albert and
Isabella, whose castles in and near Brussels are depicted in
the distance. In these ambitious allegories, encyclopedic
collections of artifacts and naturalia epitomize the cosmos
of sensory experience. The portrayal of the Five Senses
as female personifications with attributes has its roots in
sixteenth-century Flemish printmaking,1
but Brueghel first
tackled the subject as a means of depicting an abundance
of objects related to art, culture, science, and warfare,
augmented by the rich fruits of the earth and the spoils of
the hunt, all of which are experienced through the senses.
With unparalleled precision and an unerring touch, he reproduced
countless paintings, many of which are identifiable:
in Taste, for example, we see his own Garland of Fruit around
a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Giftsfrom the Four Seasons,
with figures by Hendrick van Balen (cat. nos. 20 and 21).
The depictions are set in princely chambers that reflect
the wealth and splendor of court culture.2
The figure of
Sight contemplates a painting in a Kunstkammer, or collector's
cabinet, filled with paintings, antique busts, ornate objects,
tapestries, and scientific instruments (fig. 54); Hearing plays
her lute in the midst of a collection of musical instruments
and clocks (fig. 55); Touch kisses a cupid amid a princely
90 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
91
FIGURE 54 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens, Allegory of Sight, 1617. O i l o n panel, 65 x 109 c m
(255
/8 x 4 2 % in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1394
FIGURE 55 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens, Allegory of Hearing, 1617-18. O i l o n panel, 65 x 107 c m
(255
/8 x 42 Vs in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1395
92 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
FIGURE 56 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens, Allegory of Touch, 1617-18. O i l o n panel, 65 x 106 c m
(25V8 x 4 i 3
A in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1398
FIGURE 57 Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and Peter Paul Rubens, Allegory of Smell, 1617-18. O i l o n panel, 64 x 109 c m
(25 V4 x 4 2 % in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1396
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 93
armory (fig. 56); Smell sits in a garden among blossoming
flowers (fig. 57); Taste, seated at a sumptuously laid table
overloaded with food and drink, nibbles an oyster and allows
a satyr to fill her wineglass. When Brueghel had finished
painting his richly detailed settings, Rubens painted his
female personifications in the reserves, providing each one
with a companion in the form of a putto or a satyr. Brueghel
then added the finishing touches, making the small adjustments
necessary to integrate Rubens's figures into their
surroundings. The reserve for Taste, for example, was a bit
too ample around the legs, so Brueghel made changes to the
white tablecloth at that spot. He also decorated the satyr's
head with a vine wreath. Rubens, for his part, had already
adjusted his contribution to fit what Brueghel had painted,
as evidenced by his satyr, whose body reflects the green of
the fruit on the table. That Brueghel may be regarded as the
originator of the series is confirmed by the fact that he alone
signed three of the five panels. The dates of 1617 and 1618
next to Brueghel's signature on Sight and Taste, respectively,
also offer an important clue as to the chronology of the usually
undated collaborative works by Brueghel and Rubens.
It has often been assumed that this costly series of paintings
was commissioned by Archdukes Albert and Isabella.3
Rubens had, after all, held the post of court painter since
his return from Italy in 1 6 0 8 , 4
and Brueghel regularly worked
for the court at Brussels. The couple's palaces serve as background
scenery in three of the five depictions, and Sight
contains a double portrait of the regents and an equestrian
portrait of Albert, as well as a brass chandelier crowned
with the Habsburgs' double-headed eagle. Despite these
references, it is unclear to what extent the series actually
represents the archducal collections, although some of the
paintings and other works depicted could have belonged
to the couple. It seems more likely that this series presents
an idealized view of the princely culture of collecting,
inspired by the court of Albert and Isabella.5
This series was first recorded in 1636, when the paintings
were listed in an inventory of the Royal Alcazar Palace in
Madrid.6
Their description states that the paintings were
given in 1634 by Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm of Pfalz-Neuburg
(1578-1653) to Cardinal Infante Ferdinand ( 1 6 0 9 - 1 6 4 1 ) , who
had become the new ruler of the Southern Netherlands after
the deaths of Albert and Isabella in 1621 and 1633, respectively.
Through the offices of the Spanish duke of Medina de
las Torres, Ferdinand subsequently presented the paintings to
his brother, King Philip IV of Spain, who had them hung in
the reading room of the Alcazar. It is possible that Wolfgang
Wilhelm's gift to Ferdinand was prompted by his gratitude
for the victory at the Battle of Nordiingen in September
1634, an important turning point in the Thirty Years' War.7
It was near this town in southern Germany that the Swedes
and their German Protestant allies were halted in their
advance by imperial Catholic troops under the command
of Ferdinand, thereby averting the threat to Wolfgang
Wilhelm's territories around Regensburg and Neuburg.
The duke, ruler of the small principality of Pfalz-Neuburg
(in 1614 the strategically important county of Julich-Berg in
the Lower Rhine Valley also devolved upon him), had been
a staunch Roman Catholic since his conversion in 1613-14.
Prompted by the Counter-Reformation, he undertook to
restore the Catholic faith in the territories in his domain.8
He was a brother-in-law of Maximilian of Bavaria (leader of
the Roman Catholic League) and a faithful ally of Albert
and Isabella, to whom he had paid a state visit in the winter
of 1614-15. In 1617 Rubens accepted a commission from the
duke to paint the main altar of the court church in Neuburg,
followed in 1619 by commissions for two altarpieces for
side altars.9
This court church had been founded as a Protestant
church in 1607, but the duke had handed it over to
the Jesuits in 1614. In 1622 Rubens completed a commission
from Wolfgang Wilhelm for an altarpiece for the Church
of Saint Peter in Neuburg representing the Fall of the Rebel
Angels, a popular Counter-Reformationist subject.10
How and when the series came into the possession of
Wolfgang Wilhelm before he gave it away in 1634—whether
directly from the artists or indeed from other owners, possibly
the archdukes—we will probably never know.1 1
At
any rate, during the same period in which the present series
of the Five Senses was painted, Brueghel was working on
another important commission depicting the same subject
in two paintings that were certainly intended for Albert and
Isabella: in October 1618 the city of Antwerp bought from
Brueghel "two ingenious paintings, representing the Five
Senses, on which twelve of the best masters of this city have
worked, to be presented to Their Most Illustrious High­
nesses."12
In 1619 these large and valuable paintings were
hanging in the audience hall of Tervuren castle; in 1731 they
were lost in a fire in Coudenberg Palace. The versions
preserved in the Prado (figs. 58 and 59), which were already
in Spain by 1633, have proved to be faithful copies of the
original paintings.1 3
For Brueghel and his colleagues, these
two collaborative paintings were without precedent, for no
9 4 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
FIGURE 58 After Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and other artists, Allegory of Sight and Smell, ca. 1618. O i l o n
canvas, 176 x 264 c m ( 6 9 x 104 in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1403
FIGURE 59 After Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and other artists, Allegory of Hearing, Taste, and Touch, ca. 1618.
O i l o n canvas, 176 x 264 c m ( 6 9 V4 x 104 in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1404
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 95
fewer than twelve otherwise unnamed masters contributed
their own paintings within the painting, thus enabling the
passionate collectors Albert and Isabella to possess in these
two pictures representative works of the entire Antwerp
school of painting of their day. In the series discussed here,
Brueghel chose a different approach, himself reproducing
his colleagues' paintings as well as his own. Nevertheless,
the Madrid paintings also offer—especially in the Allegory of
Sight, the sense that is so vital to the art of painting—a
splendid sample of the Antwerp school of the early seventeenth
century.
Sight is often seen as the core of the series of the Five
Senses, a position earned by virtue of its exceptionally rich
and multilayered iconography. Furthermore, the date—
1617—indicates that the series began with this painting. Even
so, it is important to consider the individual paintings in
the context of the whole series.14
Just as Brueghel had previously
attempted, in various series of the Four Elements,
to document the natural world in its infinite diversity, in his
allegories of the Five Senses he paints an idealized picture
of every facet of courtly life, presenting a tableau in which
these paintings cannot be seen separately but only as part
of the larger picture. Amassing collections of artifacts and
naturalia, developing a profound appreciation of music, and
taking an active interest in scientific pursuits were integral
parts of court culture, as were the management of the family
estates and the popular pastime of hunting, as reflected, for
example, in the Allegory of Taste. Each painting in the series,
moreover, contains appropriate allusions to the role played
by the individual senses in the doctrine of salvation.
The Allegory of Sight, with the archdukes' Brussels residence
of Coudenberg in the background, is situated in a collector's
cabinet filled with art and scientific instruments.15
This type of Kunstkammer, first painted by Frans Francken
the Younger (1581-1642), would eventually develop—partly
through the efforts of Brueghel—into a popular genre typica
of the Antwerp school.1 6
Almost every genre of painting
is represented in this work, from still life to history painting
and from portraiture to seascape. Perhaps it is only natural
that the paintings by Rubens and Brueghel occupy the most
prominent places and are more numerous than the works
of other artists.17
The personification of Sight studies a
painting—held up by a winged putto—that depicts Christ's
healing of the blind man, probably a painting by Brueghel
himself. Propped against the wall below the shelves of
antique portrait busts is a painting—after Pieter Bruegel the
l
Elder—that represents the antithesis of this biblical story:
the fall of the blind man.1 8
This illustrates the contrast
between the vision that derives from true faith and the blindness
of the unbeliever. Similarly, an attempt has been made
to interpret all the details in the picture symbolically, as
exempla bona or exempla mala of the true vision of Roman
Catholic believers.19
All the same, the Madonna and Child
in a Garland of Flowers, for example, which is based on the
collaborative painting by Brueghel and Rubens in the Louvre
(see fig. 69), seems to have been reproduced mainly to
advertise this new composition by the two friends and not
as a Christian pendant to the personification of Sight.
Brueghel's garland does have a counterpart in the vase of
freshly cut flowers standing on a cupboard to the left. A lot
of philosophizing was done at the time on the relative
merits of painted flowers as opposed to real ones, in the light
of the topos of the rivalry between art and nature: Brueghel's
artistry was, after all, capable of transforming short-lived
flowers into immortal blooms.2 0
In the Allegory of Sight, Brueghel included not only the
Madonna and Child on which he had collaborated with
Rubens but also several of his friend's recent compositions.
The tiger hunt on the back wall, for example, was a brandnew
composition by Rubens,2 1
as was Daniel in the Lions'
Den, a fragment of which is visible at the upper left.2 2
The
Drunken Silenus in the right foreground is also by Rubens,2 3
as is the double portrait of Albert and Isabella—the prototype
of which has not survived2 4
—and the equestrian portrait
of Albert.2 5
The depiction above the gate of Venus
and Psyche is based on a painting by Titian,2 6
while on the
right, in front of the antique busts, is a Saint Cecilia by
Raphael,2 7
half of which is covered up. Among the antique
busts are famous portraits of Marcus Aurelius, Nero,
Augustus, and Alexander the Great. The upper shelf holds
scaled-down replicas of statues by Michelangelo. Antique
statues are prominently displayed in the gallery of paintings
at the back right. In addition to paintings and statues and
the pile of folded-up carpets in the left foreground, Brueghel
depicted magnificent objects in gold and silver, including a
cupboard with ornate jugs, vases, and dishes. The numerous
optical instruments displayed—such as the newly developed
telescope between the woman and the putto—embody the
scientific dimension of sight.2 8
The personification of Hearing plays the lute and sings
along with the putto at her feet, accompanied by two songbirds
perched on a stool; the archdukes' summer castle of
96 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
Mariemont (compare cat. no. 9B) figures in the background.
A group of musicians plays in the back left corner. In
between a harpsichord made by the famous Antwerp firm of
Ruckers and a round table with seven music stands attached
to it, Brueghel depicted a large number of musical instruments.
The music on the stand closest to the viewer bears the
archducal arms and the name of Albert and Isabella's court
composer, the Englishman Peter Philips (1560/61-1628).2 9
Various hunting horns lie on the floor in the right foreground
(see fig. 64), while a number of beautifully designed
clocks grace the table and the back wall—in those days the
measurement of time was perceived mainly by the sense
of hearing. Next to the caged parrots stands an artificial bird
with a chirping mechanism.3 0
Artificial birdsong was often
incorporated into garden architecture to confound the senses
in a game of illusion versus reality that greatly appealed to
the popular imagination. The paintings hanging on the
walls include a triptych with the Annunciation to the Virgin
(who hears the divine word); similarly, the lid of the harpsichord
is decorated with an Annunciation to the Shepherds
after Hendrick van Balen.3 1
The Concert of the Muses above
the triptych is a composition by Van Balen or Hendrick
de Clerck, with whom Brueghel also collaborated (see cat.
no. 16). Hanging on the right is one of Brueghel's own compositions
of a very appropriate subject: Orpheus Charming
the Animals with His Music.32
The Allegory of Touch is situated in a half-open room—
containing paintings, medical instruments, and shelves of
armor—in which the personification of Touch tenderly
kisses her putto. The left half of the depiction is filled with
weapons and suits of armor; in the middle distance, weapons
are forged in an outdoor smithy set amidst ruins. Directly
behind the kissing personification, a dog lunging at a deer's
throat is depicted in the tapestry on which the paintings
hang. After all, pain as well as pleasure is experienced
through the sense of touch. This is keenly expressed by the
medical instruments (including a frightfully large amputating
saw), the two pulled teeth lying on the table, a bird of prey
hovering in the air with its quarry, and the array of weapons
and armor. On a metaphorical level, the arms represent
the pain and heat of battle. In the context of these paintings,
these objects represent both the culture of collecting indulged
in by the higher nobility and their prestigious courtly
armories.3 3
The weapons and armor of illustrious ancestors
were cherished as mementos of heroic deeds of the past,
the preeminent embodiment of a family's dynastic ambitions,
and weapons seized from one's enemies were proudly displayed
as trophies. Suits of armor were put on dummies,
thus becoming a kind of portrait of their former owners. The
importance attached to these relics emerges from the fact
that in 1594 Philip II had the armory belonging to his father,
Charles V, declared an inalienable possession—the first of his
collections to be thus entailed.3 4
The armor on the wooden
stand that rises out of the display of arms on the floor is
possibly a piece (formerly preserved in Brussels) that once
belonged to Maximilian I (1459-1519) or Philip the Handsome
( 1 4 7 8 - 1 5 0 6 ) . 3 5
Lying on the floor are pieces of a suit of
armor bearing engraved and gilded ornamental bands of
a kind mass-produced in Italy in the sixteenth century and
therefore not associated with any specific rank: this motif
belonged to the standard repertoire of Brueghel's workshop
(see cat. no. 2).3 6
The largest painting within the painting in
this allegory is a depiction of the Last Judgment, with leading
roles for the pain of the damned and the heat of hell fire.
This work bears a strong resemblance to Brueghel's scenes
of hell and purgatory (compare cat. no. 15). The Defeat of
Sennacherib below this is based on a composition by Rubens
and depicts the victory of the biblical king Hezekiah over
the pagan enemies of Israel.3 7
Other subjects well suited to
this allegory are of course The Flagellation of Christ and
The Martyrdom of Saint Lawrence, the painting cut off at the
lower right. The latter work is based on an altarpiece that
Philip II commissioned Titian to make for the Escorial;3 8
in the caption to Cornells Cort's famous print after this
composition, the subject—which refers to Philip IPs victory
over the French near St. Quentin on the feast of Saint
Lawrence in 1557—is interpreted as symbolic of the victory
of the Habsburg dynasty over its enemies.39
In the Allegory of Smell, the naked protagonist appears
in a beautiful garden, sitting on a cushion amidst fragrant
flowers, which her putto holds out to her. The castle in the
background is not identifiable, but it naturally alludes to
a courtly lifestyle in which it was a matter of course to have
splendid gardens amply filled with rare plants and bulbs.
Albert and Isabella also had gardens laid out at their residence
in Brussels, for which they collected exotic flowers: in one
of his letters to Cardinal Borromeo, Brueghel said that he had
gone to Brussels to study a number of rare flowers at firsthand.4
0
The building on the left in the middle distance must
be a perfume distillery, as evidenced by the various glass
vessels and the open fire,41
whereas the building on the right
is an artificial grotto with fountains and cascades of the type
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 97
designed for the archdukes by the engineer and garden
architect Salomon de Caus (1576-1626) (see cat. no. 6 ) . 4 2
While Smell allowed Brueghel once again to exhibit his
special skills as a flower painter, in the Allegory ofTaste
he proves himself as a painter of still lifes of game. The foreground
contains an extremely well-rendered pile of game,
with a colorful assortment of songbirds, pheasants, deer,
hares, partridges, doves, a peacock, and a wild boar. Just as
Brueghel's flower pieces are composed of flowers that do not
actually bloom at the same time of year, this painting contains
specimens of wild game that are not hunted in the same
season. In the left foreground lie several pieces of salmon
and some fish. In the kitchen at the back, game is being
roasted and fish prepared; the painting hanging above the
door depicts a Fat Kitchen in the style of Pieter Bruegel
the Elder.4 3
On the table at which Taste is seated, the game
and fish appear to have been delightfully transformed by the
culinary art into pies of swan, pheasant, dove, and peacock,
and plates full of lobsters, oysters, and roast fowl. The personification
of Taste feasts on this delicious fare, while a
satyr fills her wineglass. It is not only this satyr but other
objects as well—the vines at the top of the picture, the basket
of grapes in the central still-life arrangement, and the
wine cooler and jugs on the left—which represent the wines
produced on the princely estates. Taken altogether, these
elements portray the rich and wide-ranging yields of the
domains of Albert and Isabella, whose hunting lodge,
Tervuren Castle—with its game park and fishponds—is
depicted in the background (compare cat. no. 9A). Behind
the table, hanging on the gold-leather wall covering, is a
painting depicting The Marriage at Cana—perhaps after the
example of Frans Francken—a subject that can naturally be
seen as the biblical pendant of the sumptuous table depicted
here. Rather than regarding the Allegory of Taste as a warning
against the intemperance possibly expressed by the winedrinking
woman and her satyr,44
it seems more natural to
interpret this bounteous repast as a reference to courtly
cuisine and the culture of feasting which, like the hunt, were
integral parts of an aristocratic lifestyle.45
A law enacted in
the Southern Netherlands in 1613 prohibited hunting to all
but the lords in power; it was strictly forbidden—on pain
of a heavy fine—to hunt in or near the princely domains, to
possess wild game, or to keep hunting dogs.4 6
This confirmed
the notion that hunting costly game was a princely
prerogative. In this painting, the rich spoils of the hunt
serve as further evidence of the luxurious life at court which
forms the setting for this series of the Five Senses. Indeed,
the reproduction in the left foreground of the Garland
ofFruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Giftsfrom the
Four Seasons by Brueghel and Van Balen is a very appropriate
addition to the abundance pictured here. In reproducing
this recent composition, Brueghel again advertises the very
latest product that he and his artist friends in Antwerp had
to offer. The presence of the silky marmoset on the back
of the chair can be traced, in fact, to traditional portrayals of
the senses in which a monkey is the constant companion
of Taste, just as a dog traditionally appears with Smell and a
deer with Hearing.
For Brueghel, the portrayal of the Five Senses provided
the perfect opportunity to document all aspects of idealized
courtly culture. These pictures were clearly inspired by
the elegance of the archdukes' court and the high quality
and ambitious scope of their collections. On a symbolic
level, these paintings express the prosperity and peace that
prevailed in the Southern Netherlands during the reign
of Albert and Isabella, when art, culture, and science could
again blossom and the land could again bear fruit. A v S
N O T E S
1. See N o r d e n f a l k 1985.
2. Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r spoke o f the possibilities offered by the
subject i n a letter he w r o t e i n 1631 to the art dealer C h r i s o s t o m o
van Immerseel, "As regards the Five Senses, I a m w o r k i n g o n t h e m
w i t h pleasure, d o i n g everything f r o m life, since the subject is agreeably
suited to depicting everything under the sun." (Wat belanct de
V y f sinnen, hebbe die met lust o n d e r handen o m alles naert leven te
doen, als 00c het subject playsant is o m al wat ter werelt is daer i n
te c o n n e n maken.): D e n u c e 1934, p. 71.
3. F o r various theories o n the provenance o f the paintings, see D e M a e y e r
1955, pp. 4 2 - 4 9 ; E r t z 1979, pp. 336-37; M u l l e r Hofstede 1984,
pp. 2 4 3 - 4 5 ; and W e l z e l 1997.
4. See C . B r o w n , "Rubens and the Archdukes," i n Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ,
pp. 121-28.
5. Balis 1986, v o l . 2, pp. 138-39. T h e inventories o f A l b e r t and Isabella's
collections o f paintings (as published i n D e M a e y e r 1955) are t o o
vague and incomplete to provide the basis for a reconstruction o f
their collections.
6. See M a d r i d 1992, p. 115.
7. M u l l e r Hofstede 1984, p. 245.
8. See, for instance, D i i s s e l d o r f 2003.
9 8 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
9. Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 320-23 (Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen,
inv. 890; n o w i n the Alte Pinakothek, M u n i c h ) and
pp. 305-16, 320-23 (Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, inv. 303
and 999; b o t h n o w i n the Staatsgalerie N e u b u r g an der D o n a u ) .
10. Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 312-16 (Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen,
inv. 306; n o w i n the A l t e Pinakothek, M u n i c h ) .
11. It is possible that A l b e r t and Isabella ordered the paintings f r o m
Brueghel and Rubens and that they later came into the possession o f
D u k e W o l f g a n g W i l h e l m , as a gift f r o m the archdukes, for example,
or f r o m Isabella after the death o f her husband. It is also conceivable
that A l b e r t and Isabella ordered the paintings specifically to present
t h e m to their important ally. W o l f g a n g W i l h e l m c o u l d have had the
paintings made for himself, but he m i g h t also have ordered them as a
gift for A l b e r t and Isabella, i n w h i c h case the paintings c o u l d have
been returned to h i m at some later date. See note 3 above for the various
theories regarding the provenance o f these paintings.
12. "twee constige schilderijen, representerende de Vijff S i n n e n , waerinne
gevrocht hebben tweelff diversche van de principaelste meesters
deser stadt, o m geschoncken te w o r d e n aen H a r e D o o r l u c h t i c h s t e
H o o c h e d e n " : D e M a e y e r 1955, doc. 139. See also E r t z 1979,
pp. 356-57; D i a z P a d r o n 1995, v o l . 1, pp. 2 3 6 - 4 5 ; Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ,
cat. no. 6 0 ; and B . Welzel, " E l ciclo de los sentidos de Jan Brueghel el
V i e j o y Peter Paul Rubens c o m o espejo de la cultura de corte de
A l b e r t o e Isabel," i n M a d r i d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 .
13. D i a z P a d r o n 1995, v o l . 1, pp. 236-45, nos. 1 4 0 3 - 0 4 .
14. O n series o f the Five Senses, see especially Welzel 1997.
15. T h i s female personification has often been identified as Venus (SpethH
o l t e r h o f f 1957, p. 53; and E r t z 1979, pp. 343-45) or Juno ( M u l l e r
Hofstede 1984).
16. See H a r t i n g 1989, pp. 83-91.
17. F o r the paintings w i t h i n this painting, see M a d r i d 1992, pp. 117-25;
and D i a z P a d r o n 1995, pp. 268-73.
18. T h e artist is Sebastian V r a n c x (1573-1647); see M a d r i d 1992, cat.
no. 10.
19. See M u l l e r Hofstede 1984.
20. O n this subject, see Welzel 2002 and 2002a.
21. I n the M u s e e des Beaux-Arts at Rennes there is a version o f this w o r k
f r o m the estate o f M a x i m i l i a n o f Bavaria, w h i c h was made i n 1615
to decorate his castle at Schleissheim ( M a d r i d 1992, p. 119, fig. 73).
22. C o m p a r e the version i n the N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t i n W a s h i n g t o n ,
D . C . ( M a d r i d 1992, pp. 117-18; and D i a z Padron 1995, p. 268).
In 1618 Rubens offered to sell this painting to the E n g l i s h d i p l o m a t
and art collector Sir D u d l e y C a r l e t o n . There was also a version
in the collection o f the Spanish marquis o f Leganes (see cat. nos. 7
and 12).
23. It is possible that this w o r k was listed i n an inventory o f 1659—"a
Bacchus by the h a n d o f R u b e n s " ( U n Bacus de m a n o de Rubens) —
w h e n some o f Isabella's former possessions were brought to Spain;
see D e M a e y e r 1955, p. 435, doc. 270, no. 1; p. 4 4 8 , doc. 271, no. 230;
p. 461, doc. 276, no. 2.
24. A c c o r d i n g to E r t z (1979, pp. 338-39), this double portrait is based o n
Rubens's portraits o f A l b e r t and Isabella i n the Prado (cat. nos. 9A
and 9B).
25. C o m p a r e , for example, K o l b 2 0 0 0 , fig. 63.
26. M a d r i d 1992, p. 119-
27. M a d r i d 1992, p. 121.
28. E r t z (1979, p. 342) attempted to interpret the musical instruments as
an A l l e g o r y o f the Liberal Arts.
29. D e M a e y e r 1955, p. 46.
30. See Welzel 1997, p. 258.
31. M a d r i d 1992, cat. no. 13.
32. E r t z 1979, p. 249. F o r another picture by Jan Brueghel w i t h the same
subject, dated 1600, see A n t w e r p 1998, p. 126, fig. 35b.
33. See B . Welzel, " A r m o u r y and A r c h d u c a l Image: T h e Sense o f T o u c h
from the Five Senses o f Jan B r u e g h e l and Peter Paul Rubens," in
Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , pp. 9 9 - 1 0 6 .
34. Brussels 1994, pp. 117-19.
35. Welzel (note 33 above), p. 101, figs. 1 and 2.
36. Welzel (note 33), pp. 102, 105, n . 16; see E r t z 1979, no. 252 (lost in
1945).
37. M a d r i d 1992, p. 286. See also a version i n the P u s h k i n M u s e u m ,
M o s c o w . A variation o f this d e p i c t i o n — a copy by H a n s v o n A a c h e n
after C h r i s t o p h Schwarz (Balis 1986, p. 145, n . 31)—from the estate o f
E m p e r o r R u d o l f II had possibly been i n the possession o f A r c h d u k e
A l b e r t since 1615; see D e M a e y e r 1955, doc. 104.
38. Welzel (note 33), pp. 1 0 3 - 0 4 .
39. R o t t e r d a m 1994, cat. no. 60.
4 0 . F o r Brueghel's letter to B o r r o m e o o f A p r i l 14, 1606, see Crivelli 1868,
p. 63.
41. Welzel 1997, p. 221.
42. See Welzel 1997, p. 229, fig. 109.
43. See M a d r i d 1992, p. 146, fig. 82.
4 4 . C o m p a r e E r t z 1979, pp. 352-54.
45. O n the interpretation o f the Allegory of Taste, see Welzel 1997,
pp. 1 6 1 - 9 8 .
46. Welzel 1997, pp. 182-83; see also Galesloot 1854, pp. 27-51.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 99
9A
Peter Paul Rubens and Workshop and Jan Brueghel the Elder
Portrait of Archduke Albert of Austria
ca. 1 6 1 8 - 2 0
Oil on canvas, 112 x 173 cm (44Vs x 68 Vs in.)
Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1683
Exhibited in Los Angeles only
9B
Peter Paul Rubens and Workshop and Jan Brueghel the Elder
Portrait of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia
ca. 1 6 1 8 - 2 0
Oil on canvas, 102 x 173 cm (40Vs x 68 Vs in.)
Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1684
Exhibited in Los Angeles only
P R O V E N A N C E
D o c u m e n t e d i n the inventory o f the Spanish
R o y a l C o l l e c t i o n s , Alcazar, M a d r i d i n 1636
(as R u b e n s ) ; 1
transferred t o the Prado u p o n
its f o u n d a t i o n i n 1819
L I T E R A T U R E
C r u z a d a V i l l a a m i l 1874, p . 364, nos. 28 a n d
29; Rooses 1903, p. 2 0 4 ; D e M a e y e r 1955,
pp. 112; E r t z 1979, pp. 158, 3 3 8 - 4 0 , nos. 309
and 310; V l i e g h e 1987, pp. 4 3 - 4 5 , nos. 66 a n d
67; D i a z P a d r o n 1995, v o l . 2, pp. 1076-83,
nos. 1683 and 1684; Vergara 1999, pp- 2 1 - 2 4 ;
V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , pp. 118-20
E X H I B I T I O N S
Brussels 1975, cat. nos. 29 and 30; Brussels
1985, cat. nos. B 2 0 and B21; Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ,
p. 149, cat. nos. 202 and 203; M a d r i d
1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , pp. 176-77, cat. nos. 30 and 31
100 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
o
N E O F T H E E S S E N T I A L R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S O F
a court painter was to create official portraits of the
sovereign. These handsome canvases, the only formal
portraits of the governors of the Southern Netherlands
set against landscape backgrounds, unite both Rubens's and
BrueghePs contributions as portraitists with the iconography
of the Brussels court. The imposing images of the archdukes
were devised by Rubens and largely executed in his studio,
while the meticulously executed views of two of their
principal residences, the castle ofTervuren behind Archduke
Albert and the Mariemont castle behind Archduchess
Isabella, were painted by Jan Brueghel the Elder.2
Both
Rubens and Brueghel utilized portrait types they had earlier
developed for other commissions to create a pair of double
portraits that promote the vital attributes of authority and
dominion required for images of the sovereign. As collaborative
undertakings, the portraits of Archduke Albert and
Archduchess Isabella represent a clear and practical working
process of discrete contributions by each studio.
Seated on red-velvet-covered chairs on terraces set apart
from the landscape by a balustrade, with a heavy red fringed
curtain draped behind them, Albert and Isabella regard
the viewer steadily. The archduke appears to be positioned
close to ground level—there are roses growing in front of
the balustrade—while Isabella is seated at a greater distance
from the castle and considerably higher, above the treetops.
Bright light illuminates their features and the details of their
elegant costumes. Archduke Albert, who was in his late fifties
when the portrait was painted, wears a wheel ruff and corresponding
cuffs and a black costume ornamented with gold
buttons. Expressive brushwork describes his austere features.
Around his neck hangs the Order of the Golden Fleece,
of which he became a member in 1599, and he holds a pair of
gloves across his knee. By contrast, Isabella's severe countenance
is more stiffly painted.3
Her red hair is swept upward
and decorated with pearls, a central jewel, and flowers,
including a spray of lily of the valley. She wears a large
wheel ruff, and her rich black gown is adorned with six long
strands of pearls, a large jeweled cross, and an oval jewel
with an image of the Virgin and Child on a crescent moon.4
She holds an open fan and a handkerchief lies across her
lap. Behind Archduke Albert stands the hunting castle
of Tervuren on the river Voer. The wooden bridge, intersected
by a garden, is clearly visible. Swans and the activities
of a number of small figures animate the view. In the portrait
of the archduchess, the castle of Mariemont stands atop a
knoll, from which spreads out the rolling landscape of
the Hainault region, bisected by allies of trees. The castle's
famous deer park is visible in the foreground.
Archduke Albert (1559-1621) and Isabella Clara Eugenia
(1566-1633) were married on April 18, 1599. Albert was the
youngest son of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II
and Maria, daughter of Charles V, and his career embraced
both rigorous military training and diplomatic service as
viceroy to Portugal (1583-93). Named archbishop of Toledo
in 1594 (a rank he renounced before his marriage), he was
appointed governor general of the Southern Netherlands by
Philip II at the death of his brother, Archduke Ernst, in
1596. He is often depicted as solemn in demeanor and was
described by a contemporary as "not easily moved to laughter."
An equestrian portrait by Rubens, presumably lost but
perhaps reproduced in the Allegory of Sight (see fig. 54), commemorates
his military prowess at the capture of Oostende
in 1604.5
Isabella, the favorite daughter of Philip II of Spain,
was destined to play a major part in the fortunes of the Low
Countries. Upon their marriage, the couple ruled jointly
until Albert's death in 1621, after which the archduchess continued
to govern the region and to rely on the diplomatic
services of Rubens. Evidently of a lively and energetic disposition,
she assumed the habit of the Poor Clares upon the
death of her spouse.6
Albert and Isabella shared a rigorous piety as well as a
dogged commitment to sympathetic governance of the beleaguered
and economically weakened provinces. Upon their
arrival in the Low Countries in 1599, they were received
with hopeful expectations of a prosperous and peaceful new
era.7
The strategy of their rule was, in essence, to establish
themselves as sympathetic resident regents rather than as
a remote, wholly Spanish presence. Emphasizing their strong
historical and familial ties to the region, the archdukes
pursued a domestic policy that featured high public visibility
in the form of attendance at local fetes (see fig. 14). The
couple early on began to refurbish a number of properties
that had formerly been in the possession of Charles V and
Mary of Hungary (regent 1531-55), as part of the process
of establishing their presence in the Low Countries. Foremost
among these projects was the renovation of the beloved
hunting castles of Tervuren and Mariemont.
Tervuren had served as a hunting castle from the twelfth
century, entering the dominions of the duke of Burgundy
in 1406 and the possession of Charles V in 1515.8
Located in
the forest known as the Zoni'enwoud (also the Foret de Soignes)
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 101
102
103
FIGURE 6 0 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The Palace of Isabella Clara Eugenia at
Tervuren, ca. 1621. O i l o n canvas, 126 x 153 c m (495
/s x 60V4 in.). M a d r i d ,
M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1453
FIGURE 61 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The Archdukes Albert and Isabella
Hunting before Castle Mariemont, 1611. O i l o n canvas, 135 x 246 c m (53 Vs x
96% in.). M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1434
southeast of Brussels, it was an easy journey from the
Coudenberg Palace. Brueghel's portrayal of the castle in
Albert's portrait clearly evokes its picturesque situation,
surrounded by water, with the distinctive high roof of the
Gothic great hall clearly visible.9
Major alterations were
carried out at the castle between 1608 and 1617 under the
direction of court architect and accomplished painter
Wenceslas Cobergher (ca. 1560-1632), including the addition
of a Renaissance-style gallery to house a portion of the
archducal collection, which numbered almost two hundred
paintings.1 0
Between 1616 and 1617 a chapel dedicated to
Saint Hubert, a particularly popular local figure (see cat.
no. 7), was refurbished according to designs by Cobergher.
The archdukes themselves repaired to Tervuren for elaborately
staged hunts and other festivities. Brueghel drew the
aspect of the castle seen here, with its complicated rooflines,
prior to this work on the castle11
and included a clearly
later vista in the center background of the Allegory ofTaste
(cat. no. 8) of 1618. The views in the drawing and in Taste,
however, predate the addition of the wooden gallery, visible
in the present painting and in the majestic large canvas of
the castle from about 1621 (fig. 60).
The palace of Mariemont was a favorite residence of
Albert and Isabella. Situated in Hainault, the palace was farther
from the Brussels court than Tervuren and thus suited to
longer summer stays and to hunts staged early in the season,
which began in July. The castle was built with a distinctive
square plan by Jacques Dubrceucq for Isabella's great-aunt,
Mary of Hungary, between 1546 and 1549 and was situated
on a hill at the edge of a forest, with the river Haine below.
Mary used it frequently for hunts, which may explain its
presence in the portrait of the archduchess. The castle was
badly damaged by French troops in 1554 and rebuilt in 1560.
Albert and Isabella first renovated the castle between 1606
and 1608.1 2
Brueghel may have visited the castle on several
occasions, as it appears as both the subject and the setting
for a number of compositions. The Archdukes Albert and
Isabella before Castle Mariemont (1611; Munich, Alte Pinakothek),
which is among the earliest views of the castle, gives a
sense of the main changes to the building, which was now
three stories in height, with a polygonal garden house.1 3
A
much larger painting of 1611, The Archdukes Albert and Isabella
Hunting before Castle Mariemont (fig. 61), demonstrates the
strong connection of the archdukes to the palace and to
its primary function as a hunting lodge. Part of the archducal
104 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
FIGURE 62 Jan M u l l e r after Peter Paul
Rubens, Albert, Archduke of Austria, 1615.
E n g r a v i n g , 418 x 289 m m (16 V2 x 11 Vs in.).
V i e n n a , Osterreichische N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k ,
inv. no. v.s. 190
FIGURE 63 Jan M u l l e r after Peter P a u l
Rubens, Isabella, Infanta of Spain, 1615.
E n g r a v i n g , 418 x 289 m m (16V2 x n V s in.).
V i e n n a , Osterreichische N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k ,
inv. no. v.s. 191
art collection was also housed at Mariemont, although no
inventory from the period around 1620 survives.
Further renovations were carried out between 1611 and
1617, and although one must be wary of assuming that each
depiction of the castle is topographically precise, Brueghel's
highly specific views seem to chart the ongoing changes
to the palace.14
In the Allegory of Spring of 1616 by Brueghel
and Hendrick van Balen (see fig. 49), the castle and its
outbuilding can be seen to have been expanded even further.
Between 1618 and 1621, four distinctive corner towers were
completed under Cobergher's supervision. These elements,
absent from the view of Mariemont in the Allegory of Hearing
of 1617-18 (see fig. 55) but clearly visible in this work and
in An Allegory ofHearing, Taste, and Touch of about 1618 (see
fig. 59), help to date the present painting to the last years of
the second decade.
From the commencement of his appointment as "peintre
de nostre hotel" on September 23, 1609, Rubens was responsible
for establishing the "official" images of the rulers of
the Southern Netherlands.1 5
According to Rubens's biographer,
Francisco Pacheco, "Their Highnesses the archduke
Albert and the infanta Doha Isabel, his wife, always esteemed
him greatly, because having done two famous portraits of
them sitting in chairs shortly after his arrival, the infanta, in
the presence of her husband, fitted a sword around his
waist, and she put a very rich golden chain around his neck,
calling him the honor of his homeland."1 6
Guided by the
wishes of his patrons, Rubens adhered to the conventions of
court portraiture and to types established by previous court
painters Frans Pourbus the Elder (1569-1622) and Otto
van Veen (1556-1629). All of the images convey the decorum
and sobriety in keeping with the restrained magnificence of
the archducal court, where taste reflected the severe Spanish
fashions. Within this rather circumscribed realm, however,
Rubens brought a new freshness and regality to the official
portraits of the archdukes, which were often disseminated
through copies.
Before Albert's death in 1621, Rubens created a number
of portrait types, the relationship and chronology of which
are complex and disputed.1 7
Two types in particular, established
1615-17, provided the precedents upon which the
Museo Nacional del Prado portraits are based. Threequarter-length
pendants of about 1615, apparently lost but
preserved in prints by Jan Muller, show the figures seated
against a neutral textile background (figs. 62 and 63).1 8
The
present portrait of Isabella in particular recalls the print in its
composition, though not in the costume she wears. The formal
pose epitomizes sovereignty and deliberately links these
images with earlier portraits of regents in the Netherlands
by Antonis Mor (ca. 1519-ca. 1575), Van Veen, and Pourbus.
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 105
The archdukes seem somewhat older in the paintings under
discussion than they appear in the prints. In fact, Isabella
more closely resembles the likeness in London (National
Gallery) from Rubens's studio, which is also based upon the
1615 composition, though probably executed about 1 6 2 0 . 1 9
The pendant canvases of the archducal couple in Vienna
(Kunsthistorisches Museum), often described as unfinished,
and certainly painted loosely, portray the subjects with a
certain vividness not found in many of the painted versions
of the 1615 type. Notably, as in the Madrid portraits, the
brilliant red curtain background in the Vienna paintings
served as a vibrant foil for the heads of the sitters and their
rich black garments.20
A second type, for which the original
paintings are presumed lost but which are represented by
copies, provided the precedent for the costumes, and in particular
for the head and hands of Albert.2 1
The prototypes fo
these works may be the portraits referred to by Jan Brueghel
who had by this time grown accustomed to Rubens's help
with his Italian letters: "My secretary Rubens has gone to
Brussels to finish the portraits of their highnesses."22
Bustlength
variations, combined in a single field, appear prominently
in the Allegory of Sight (see fig. 54). Considering all th
different portraits of the couple, the likeness of Albert often
seems the more subtle and slightly modulated of the two
figures. The archduke was thought to have had a close relationship
with Rubens, and it may be that their frequent contact
is reflected in the freer handling of the Madrid portrait.
Rubens and Brueghel's working process in these portrait
appears to have been relatively straightforward. Beginning
in Rubens's studio, the figures were painted, followed by th
curtain and the balustrade. In the case of Archduke Albert, a
small reserve area is visible around the edge of the ruff, whil
in Isabella, a correction was made to the upper left contour
of her ruff and to the upper folds of the red curtain. Chairs
of the type seen in both portraits, with a curled armrest, are
found in other portraits by Rubens and may have been a
studio prop.2 3
The shallowness of Isabella's position in the
chair is closely echoed in her seated pose in the Muller print
Brueghel painted the roses in Albert, and in both canvases
the landscape was painted right up to the edges of elements
such as the balustrade supports, suggesting that they had
already been established. Small adjustments to the outline
of the roof of Tervuren castle are also visible.
Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella represent a statel
development in the Netherlandish tradition of depicting
sovereigns before their palaces, views that virtually required
r
,
e
s
e
e
.
y
a collaborative approach. The tradition of topographical
portraits was splendidly established in manuscript illumination,
notably by the Limbourg brothers in the Tres Riches
Heures (ca. 1411-16), in which the chateaux of Jean, due de
Berry, were incorporated into the depictions of the twelve
months of the year. In Departurefor the Hunt (Month of
March) (ca. 1528-31), one in the series of tapestries known as
the Hunts of Maximilian designed by court painter Bernard
van Orley (ca. 1488-1541), the hunt is set against the commanding
exterior of the Coudenberg Palace, an edifice also
represented by Brueghel in the background of the Allegory
of Sight as well as in other large-scale compositions by his
circle.2 4
Associating the archdukes with the courtly sport of
the hunt was intended to solidify their identification not only
with earlier Habsburg rulers but also with the countryside
over which they now ruled. Interestingly, the formal presentation
of the palaces in the Madrid canvases belied the informal
persona of the archduchess, who is known to have won
local shooting contests hosted by the crossbowman's guild.
Portraits of the archdukes served many purposes. Antoine
Sallaert's Procession in the Place du Grand Sablon at Brussels
(1615; Turin, Galleria Sabauda), for example, shows bustlength
portraits of Albert and Isabella, and perhaps fulllength
images as well, ceremoniously decorating the parade
route.2 5
On October 13, 1615, Rubens received a payment of
300 guilders from Archduke Albert for portraits of the archdukes
to be sent to Spain for the marquis of Siete Iglesias,
Don Rodrigo Calderon.2 6
Vergara has argued that those portraits
were probably the canvases discussed here. However,
the age of the sitters and the configuration of Mariemont
with the four corner towers that were only completed about
1620 preclude that possibility. As Vergara has observed,
Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella would have been very
striking images at the Spanish court, where landscape painting
was unusual.2 7
Perhaps these double portraits served
not only to promote Habsburg jurisdiction of the Southern
Netherlands but also to introduce the particularly Netherlandish
specialties of landscape and portraiture to the Spanish
court audience, A T W
N O T E S
1. " D o s lienzos al oleo, 7 pies de largo p o c o mas 6 m e n o s ; en el u n o el
retrato del senor a r c h i d u q u e A l b e r t o , de m e d i o cuerpo arriba vestido
de negro, la m a n o i z q u i e r d a sobre los guantes y en lejos una casa de
106 R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L
campo. E l otra de la sefiora Infanta d o n a Isabel, su mujer, del m i s m o
taniafio, vestida de negro, asentada en una silla, abriendo u n abianco
c o n ambas manos, y en lejos otra casa de campo. S o n de m a n o de
rubens.": C r u z a d a V i l l a a m i l 1874, p. 364. T h e t w o portraits are ment
i o n e d i n subsequent royal inventories; see D i a z P a d r o n 1975, v o l . 1,
pp. 315-17.
2. A l t h o u g h an early Alcazar inventory attributed the M a d r i d portraits
o f A l b e r t and Isabella to R u b e n s (see note 1 above), recent scholarship
has often ascribed the portraits o f the archdukes to the w o r k s h o p o f
R u b e n s , w i t h the exception o f E r t z (1979, pp. 6 0 8 - 9 ) , w h o accepted
Rubens's authorship and associated the M a d r i d canvases w i t h portraits
m e n t i o n e d by Brueghel i n a letter to E r c o l e B i a n c h i (see note 22
below). V l i e g h e (1987, p. 4 4 ) considered them studio copies made
i n the w o r k s h o p "under his [Rubens's] direct supervision." B r o w n
likewise f o u n d the archducal portraits " d i s a p p o i n t i n g " and difficult
to accept as an o r i g i n a l and separate portrait type by R u b e n s ; see
C . B r o w n , " R u b e n s and the Archdukes," i n Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , p. 123.
H o w e v e r , the portraits were the p r o d u c t o f Rubens's i n v e n t i o n , and
together w i t h the autograph views o f the t w o castles by Jan B r u e g h e l
the Elder, have continued to be attributed to Rubens h i m s e l f i n some
recent Prado publications, notably D i a z P a d r o n 1995, pp. 1076-83;
and Vergara i n M a d r i d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , p. 176, but not i n Balis et al. 1989a.
3. T h e difference i n quality between the heads o f A l b e r t and Isabella
was not n o t e d by R o b l o t - D e l o n d r e (1913, p. 147) but was observed
by Vergara (1999, p. 22).
4. T h e jeweled cross appears i n m a n y portraits o f the archduchess,
notably the standing portrait by Frans Pourbus o f ca. 1599 ( H a m p t o n
C o u r t ) ; see M a d r i d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , p. 150.
5. F o r Albert's career, see M i r a e u s 1621-22; J. Lefevre, Nationaal
Biografisch Woordenboek, v o l . 1 (Brussels, 1964), cols. 1 4 - 2 2 ; D e M a e y e r
1955, pp. 2 0 - 2 7 ; and the essays i n Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , notably Johan
Verbeckmoes, " T h e Archdukes i n T h e i r H u m o u r , " pp. 137-38. Von Albert,
Archduke of Austria on Horseback, see V l i e g h e 1987, pp. 35-37, no. 58.
6. F o r Isabella's life, see D e V i l l e r m o n t 1912 and Terlinden 1943; for
portraits o f Isabella Clara E u g e n i a , see R o b l o t - D e l o n d r e 1913; and
D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 2 0 - 2 7 . F o r Rubens's portrait, Isabella, Infanta
of Spain, in the Habit of a Poor Clare (1625; Pasadena, N o r t o n S i m o n
M u s e u m o f A r t ) , see V l i e g h e 1987, pp. 121-22, no. i n .
7. F o r the government o f the archdukes, see Elias 1931 and W . T h o m a s ,
" T h e R e i g n o f A l b e r t and Isabella i n the S o u t h e r n Netherlands," i n
Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , pp. 1-14. F o r the archducal policies o f C a t h o l i c
reform, see Pasture 1925 and Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 .
8. M e g a n c k 1998, p. 114.
9. Z w o l l o (2000) attributes t w o drawings s h o w i n g a different aspect o f
the castle to Jan Brueghel the Elder.
10. Terlinden 1922 and D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 35-38.
11. F o r the d r a w i n g , see W i n n e r 1972, pp. 150-51, fig. 29.
12. Demeester 1981 and H a m m - M a i n z 2001, pp. 2 2 0 - 2 4 .
13. See R e n g e r and D e n k 2002, pp. 126-27.
14. T h e p r i m a r y images o f M a r i e m o n t as subject and landscape are
discussed i n E r t z 1979, pp. 157-63; and listed i n Demeester 1981,
pp. 2 1 9 - 2 0 . T h e 1659 inventory o f the collection at the Brussels palace
includes " Q u a t r o piecas de Juan B r u g e l , representando las bodas de
M a r i m o n t " : D e M a e y e r 1955, doc. 271, p. 447-
15. D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 96, 2 9 3 - 9 4 , doc. 62; and C . B r o w n , " R u b e n s and
the A r c h d u k e s " i n Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , p. 123. A t the ceremony, he
received a g o l d m e d a l l i o n w i t h the portraits o f A l b e r t and Isabella o n
either side, perhaps similar to those o n the medals that constituted the
first images o f the couple. See M a d r i d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , pp. 233-37.
16. "Sus Altezas del A r c h i d u q u e A l b e r t o i la Sefiora Infanta d o n a Isabel su
muger, le estimaron siempre m u c h o , porque aviendo hecho, rezien
venido, dos famossos Retratos de los dos, sentados en sus Sillas, le
Sefiora Infanta en presencia de su m a r i d o le c i h o la espada, i puso al
cuello una riquis fima cadena de o r o llamadole onra de su Patria":
Pacheco 1649, p. 4 9 ; translated i n Vergara 1999, p- 189.
17. See V l i e g h e 1987, pp. 22-23, 35~47; and C . B r o w n , " R u b e n s and the
Archdukes," i n Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , pp. 122-23.
18. M a d r i d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , pp. 158-59.
19. G . M a r t i n 1970, pp. 2 2 7 - 2 9 , inv. 3818 and inv. 3819.
20. F o r the V i e n n a portraits (inv. 6344 and 6345), see V l i e g h e 1987,
pp. 4 5 - 4 6 ; and V i e n n a 2 0 0 4 , pp. 252-55.
21. Albert, Archduke of Austria ( A l t h o r p , C o l l e c t i o n o f the Earl Spencer)
and Isabella, Infanta of Spain ( V i r g i n i a , T h e Chrysler M u s e u m ) . B o t h
w o r k s have been attributed to Gaspar de Crayer by V l i e g h e (1987,
PP- 39-43)-
22. " M i o secretario R u b e n s e partita per Brussello, per flnire i ritratti d i
sua altezza ser.ma." (letter to E r c o l e B i a n c h i , D e c e m b e r 9, 1616):
C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 241. See also V l i e g h e 1987, p. 41.
23. See, for example, Peter P a u l Rubens, Portrait of a Woman, Possibly Clara
Fourment (ca. 1630, o i l o n panel, 114.5 x 90.5 c m [ 4 5 i n . x 35VH i n . ] ;
T h e H a g u e , M a u r i t s h u i s , inv. 1132).
24. V a n O r l e y was court painter to t w o regents o f the Netherlands,
M a r g a r e t o f A u s t r i a and M a r y o f H u n g a r y . F o r the Departure for
the Hunt (Month of March), see N e w Y o r k 2002, pp. 329-38. F o r
V a n Orley's collaborators and the use o f the palace as a backdrop, see
Balis et al. 1993. V i e w s o f the Brussels palace based o n Brueghel's
studies include: A t t r i b u t e d to Jan B r u e g h e l the Younger, The Royal
Palace in Brussels (ca. 1625-30, o i l o n canvas, 125 x 228 c m [49 Vi x
89V4 i n . ] ; M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1451), and Jan
B r u e g h e l the Younger, The Archdukes Albert and Isabella in the Park of
the Coudenberg Palace in Brussels (1615-21, o i l o n panel, 46.2 x 75 c m
[18 Vs x 29V2 i n . ] ; A n t w e r p , R u b e n s h u i s , inv. S130).
25. C a m p b e l l 1990, p. 201.
26. " . . . E l A r c h i d u q u e . . . que p o r m i m a n d a d o haveis dado a P i c t r o Paolo
R u b e n s , pintor, los 300 fl. por 2 retratos que a hecho, u n o de la
Infanta, m i Sehora, y otro m i o , los quales mane ynbiar a Esparia al
marques de Siete Ygelsias": D e M a e y e r 1955, p. 322, doc. 109.
27. Vergara 1999, pp. 21-23, 204 n . 15.
R U B E N S A N D B R U E G H E L 107
10
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
Diana at the Hunt
ca. 1620
Oil on panel, 57 x 98 cm (223
/s x 38V8 in.)
Paris, Musee de la Chasse et de la Nature, inv. 68.3.1
P R O V E N A N C E
C o l l e c t i o n o f the duke o f R i c h e l i e u , before
1677, p r o b a b l y s o l d before 1681; ca. 1700
acquired by the elector o f Bavaria, M u n i c h ,
transferred to A u g s b u r g , 1869; s o l d i n
1938; Paris (art dealer), 1939; acquired by
H e r m a n n G o r i n g f r o m a B e l g i a n collection;
i n 1961 restored to the Bayerische Staatsg
e m a l d e s a m m l u n g e n (inv. 13182); sale,
C o l o g n e (Lempertz), N o v e m b e r 17, 1966,
lot 489, to Gustav R o c h l i t z , Essen, Fiissen;
J. O . Leegenhoek (art dealer), Paris; i n 1967
acquired by Francois S o m m e r ; i n 1968 donated
to the F o n d a t i o n de la M a i s o n de la Chasse
et de la N a t u r e
L I T E R A T U R E
D e Piles 1677, p. 156; Z o e g e v o n Manteuffel
1923, pp. 14, 18; S p e t h - H o l t e r h o f f 1957, p. 98;
Teyssedre 1963, p. 292; M u l l e r H o f s t e d e
1968, pp. 2 0 0 - 2 0 7 ; W i n n e r 1972, p. 148; E r t z
1979, pp. 3 9 i ~ 9 4 , 4 0 6 , no. 354; Balis 1986,
p. 57; V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , pp. 120-21
E X H I B I T I O N S
Paris 1977-78, cat. no. 131; Paris 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ,
pp. 101, 141; L i l l e 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 49
D
O T H O F T H E S E H U N T I N G S C E N E S E N D E D U P O N
the art market in Paris in 1967, having come from
different collections. They were acquired at that time
by the founder of the Musee de la Chasse et de la Nature in
Paris, who donated them a year later to the museum, where
they now hang side by side as pendants.
It is possible that the paintings came from Rubens's own
collection. The inventory drawn up after his death in 1640
describes one painting as "a Diana riding out to the hunt"
and the next one as "a Diana returning from the hunt," both
painted by Rubens and Jan Brueghel.1
Hunting scenes with
Diana and her nymphs must have been very popular in those
days (see also cat. no. 23).2
The sixty paintings from the
estate of Jan Brueghel the Elder that were sold by his son in
1626-27 included no fewer than seven depictions of Diana,
presumably in part by the hand of the late master: five hunting
scenes—one of which was described by Jan Brueghel the
Younger as a "copy after father's"—and two fishing scenes.3
Diana at the Hunt was reproduced repeatedly in representations
of Antwerp collectors' cabinets—by Frans Francken the
Younger (1581-1642), Willem van Haecht (1593-1637), and
Jan Brueghel the Younger—and must therefore have enjoyed
a certain renown.4
This painting was described by the French
art critic Roger de Piles in 1677, when it was still in the possession
of the duke of Richelieu, an art collector and relative
of the famous cardinal.5
De Piles reported that the painting
was monogrammed P.P.R. on the tree below Diana, and that
Brueghel had signed it at the lower right, though these
inscriptions—both probably spurious—have meanwhile dis­
appeared.6
Furthermore, De Piles drew attention to the pack
of hounds, which he identified—perhaps not incorrectly—as
108 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
11
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs
ca. 1620
O i l on panel., 61 x 98 cm (24 x 38% in.)
Paris, Musee de la Chasse et de la Nature, inv. 68.3.2
P R O V E N A N C E
Collection o f Friedrich II o f Prussia, Potsdam,
Sanssouci; i n 1760, d u r i n g the occupation
o f Potsdam, taken by the Austrians i n the
person o f C o u n t E m m e r i c h Esterhazy to
V i e n n a ; i n 1763, the Empress M a r i a Theresa,
at Esterhazy's behest, returned the p a i n t i n g
to F r i e d r i c h II, w h o gave it to Esterhazy
as a token o f gratitude for having protected
Sanssouci against p l u n d e r i n g ; u n t i l the
Second W o r l d W a r i n the collection o f the
Esterhazy family, R e d e (hunting lodge),
V e s z p r e m , H u n g a r y ; u n t i l 1967 i n a
private collection, Z u r i c h ; J. O . Leegenhoek
(art dealer), Paris; i n 1967 acquired by
Francois S o m m e r ; i n 1968 donated to the
F o n d a t i o n de la M a i s o n de la Chasse et
de la N a t u r e
L I T E R A T U R E
Esterhazy 1901, pp. 212-14; M u l l e r Hofstede
1968, pp. 216-19; E r t z 1979, pp. 394, 395,
398, 4 0 0 , 4 0 6 , no. 355
E X H I B I T I O N S
Paris 1977-78, cat. no. 132; Paris 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ,
p. 15; K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 22
belonging to the Archduchess Isabella, who was a great lover
of dogs.7
In both paintings, the hunting dogs painted by Brueghel
have been lavished with nearly as much attention as the
figures by Rubens. They are fine, well-cared-for purebreds,
all portrayed with alert, wide-open eyes. M a n y o f the animals
are leashed together in pairs. In Diana's Sleeping Nymphs
Observed by Satyrs, two o f the dogs are caparisoned, which
reinforces their status as valuable animals. A winged putto
holds the reins of this pair, cautioning them with his index
finger to be still, so as not to wake the nymphs. Several
dogs are depicted in exactly the same pose in both paintings,
an example being the pair lying together, one resting its
head on the other's neck. The two dogs washing themselves
also occur in both paintings; one of these animals also
appears in The Vision of Saint Hubert (cat. no. 7). The dog to
the right of the personification of Smell in the series of the
Five Senses at the Prado (see fig. 5 7 ) appears in both o f
the paintings discussed here.
That Brueghel based his dogs on preparatory sketches is
confirmed by the study material that has survived. Brueghel's
oil sketch of dogs in the Kunsthistorisches M u s e u m in
Vienna (cat. no. 27) displays several o f the animals seen in
these paintings. Two black-and-white dogs that appear at
the upper left in the sketch are included in Diana's Sleeping
Nymphs Observed by Satyrs, while Diana holds one of these
two by the leash in the other painting. The light brown dog
seen from the back, appearing on the right in the sketch, is
also recognizable at the far right in Diana at the Hunt. In
addition to the oil sketch of dogs, there is also a pen-and-ink
drawing o f hunting requisites (fig. 64).8
Both of the hunting
horns in Brueghel's study occur in these paintings and were
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 109
1 0
1 1 0
11
1 1 1
FIGURE 6 4 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Study
of Hunting Requisites. P e n a n d brush, 18.7 x
29.5 c m (7V8 x 115/8 in.). H a m b u r g , Kunsthalle,
inv. 21652
also used in other compositions, such as the, Allegory of
Hearing (see fig. 55).9
Very little of Brueghel's studio stock
of oil sketches and preparatory designs has survived. This
lack has been compensated for to some extent by Wenceslas
Hollar ( 1 6 0 7 - 1 6 7 7 ) , who copied a number of Brueghel's
studies of dogs, wild game, and hunting requisites in a series
of etchings in 1646.1 0
The etchings of the dog studies display
in reverse various animals seen in the works discussed
here: the two dogs lying together, one resting its head
on the other's neck (fig. 65), the two dogs washing themselves
(fig. 66), and the pair sitting in the right-hand corner in
Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs (fig. 67).
These scenes of Diana and her nymphs, both before the
hunt and afterward—asleep and being spied on by lecherous
satyrs—offer narrative frames for the depiction of hunting
dogs in a wooded landscape. In the first painting, Diana—
sitting beneath a tree, with a spear resting against her
shoulder—holds two of her dogs by the leash while a nymph
ties on her sandals. The goddess of the hunt wears a fur
slung across her shoulder. Her companions arm themselves
with spears and bows, and one of the nymphs blows a horn
to give the signal for the chase. In the other painting, none
of the four sleeping women is immediately recognizable
as Diana. In the left foreground lie the spoils of the hunt—
a still life comprising small game, including hares, pheasants,
and martens.11
The pale skin of the nymphs makes a fine
contrast to the dark complexion of the two satyrs who spy
on them from behind a tree (compare also cat. nos. 5 and 8).
Which of the two masters was the first to paint is difficul
to determine, though some of the details suggest that it was
Brueghel. For example, in Diana at the Hunt, the right leg
of the nymph with the spear, standing in the middle of the
scene, was painted around the nose of the black-and-white
dog, and the forms of Diana and one of her nymphs were
left in reserve by Brueghel when painting his tree. In Diana's
Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs it also seems to have be
Brueghel who made a start, painting around the reserves for
the figures. The reserve for the satyr on the right was not
completely filled in along his back. After the figures had bee
painted in, Brueghel again took the painting in hand to
apply his last retouches, at which time he supplied the putto
with wings and a quiver of arrows. He also applied a last
layer of green paint to the tree, around the arms and hands
of the satyrs, and used the same green hue to apply accents
to the hair and beard of the satyr on the right. It seems
natural to assume that, as with most of the collaborative
works by these two painters, it was Brueghel who initiated
this collaborative effort. That Rubens adapted his figures
to fit the small scale of Brueghel's compositions is obvious
if we compare these works with Rubens's depiction of a
similar subject, Diana Returning from the Hunt (cat. no. 2 3 ) . 1 2
t
en
n
112 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
FIGURE 65 Wenceslas H o l l a r (1607-1677) after Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder,
Study of Hunting Dogs, 1646. E t c h i n g , 135 x 195 m m (sl
A x 75
/s in.).
A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m , Rijksprentenkabinet, Parthey n o . 2050
FIGURE 66 Wenceslas H o l l a r after Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Study of
Hunting Dogs, 1646. E t c h i n g , 130 x 195 m m (5V8 x 75
/s in.). A m s t e r d a m ,
R i j k s m u s e u m , Rijksprentenkabinet, Parthey no. 2046
FIGURE 67 Wenceslas H o l l a r after Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Study of
Hunting Dogs, 1646. E t c h i n g , 130 x 190 m m (sVs x 7V2 in.). A m s t e r d a m ,
R i j k s m u s e u m , Rijksprentenkabinet, Parthey n o . 2048
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 113
FIGURE 68 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and an u n k n o w n figure painter, Wooded Landscape with Nymphs, Dogs, and Hunting Spoils, 1620. O i l o n panel,
63.7 x 97.2 c m (25VB x 38L
A in.). N e u b u r g an der D o n a u , Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Staatsgalerie, inv. 842
The large-scale monumentality of the figures lends this work
of about 1616 a completely different character.
Brueghel's hunting scenes were popular compositions,
and numerous replicas and variations are known, not all
of them autographed.13
His Wooded Landscape with Nymphs,
Dogs, and Hunting Spoils in Neuburg (fig. 68) fits in perfectly
as regards subject and size, with both of the works discussed
here; it is, moreover, signed by Brueghel. An unknown
painter from the circle of Rubens painted the nymph sitting
among the dogs in the right foreground.1 4
In this picture
the focus has shifted from the rendering of the dogs to the
portrayal of a hunting tableau with large game. This painting
is dated 1620, which provides a clear indication for the
dating of the present paintings.1 5
According to an eighteenth-century source, Archduchess
Isabella ordered three hunting scenes from Brueghel for
Tervuren Castle, the archdukes' hunting lodge.1 6
It has
sometimes been assumed that these paintings must have been
the two discussed here and the one in Neuburg;1 7
together
, these works supposedly portray riding out to the hunt, resting
during the hunt, and the spoils of the hunt. Although
it is impossible to prove that these paintings actually
belonged to Isabella's collection,1 8
it is natural to assume
that it was mainly the higher nobility who were interested in
such scenes, since hunting was the preserve of the princely
elite. A law enacted in the Southern Netherlands in 1613
stipulated that only the ruling lords were allowed to keep
hunting dogs.1 9
A v S
114 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
N O T E S
1. " U n e D i a n e allant a la chasse" and " U n e D i a n e revenant de la chasse";
see A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , p. 332, cat. nos. 269 and 270. T h e inventory d r a w n
up i n D u t c h o f all the paintings i n Rubens's estate has been lost. O n l y
E n g l i s h and F r e n c h translations have been preserved (the E n g l i s h version
o f the inventory lists b o t h paintings as " A huntinge o f D i a n a " ) .
2. F o r depictions o f D i a n a by B r u e g h e l , see E r t z 1979, nos. 356-58,
373-77- F o r Brueghel's depictions o f D i a n a made i n collaboration w i t h
H e n d r i c k van B a l e n , see Werche 2 0 0 4 , nos. A 8 0 - 8 5 , 89; see also
nos. E 2 9 - 3 4 .
3. "copye naer vaders": Vaes 1926-27, pp. 2 0 7 - 9 ; and D e n u c e 1934,
pp. 1 4 0 - 4 3 -
4. See, for example, Frans Francken II, Brussels, M u s e u m v o o r Schone
K u n s t e n , inv. 6853; W i l l e m van H a e c h t , T h e H a g u e , M a u r i t s h u i s ,
inv. 266; and Jan B r u e g h e l the Younger, private collection. F o r the
last, see P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , cat. no. 9.
5. D e Piles 1677, p. 156; see also M u l l e r H o f s t e d e 1968, pp. 205-6.
D e Piles 1681 n o longer mentions the painting, so it is likely that the
duke h a d sold it by then; see also Paris 1977-78, p. 178.
6. L i s t e d i n A u g s b u r g 1869, as no. 463, w i t h a transcription o f b o t h
signatures, neither regarded as autograph. I n the subsequent
catalogue, A u g s b u r g 1905, under no. 463, n o m e n t i o n is made o f
Brueghel's signature.
7. M u l l e r H o f s t e d e 1968, p. 206. C o m p a r e the Portrait of Dona Juana de
Lunar and the Dogs of the Infanta Isabella (Brussels, K o n i n k l i j k e M u s e a
v o o r Schone K u n s t e n , inv. 6417) w i t h portraits o f i n d i v i d u a l dogs,
identifiable by the inscriptions; see K o l b 2005, fig. 20. E r t z (1979,
p. 393) even thought it possible that Diana at the Hunt contained an
allegorical portrait o f Isabella.
8. W i n n e r 1972, fig. 27.
9. T h a t this study was done from life is apparent f r o m the way the hunting
h o r n (an object that B r u e g h e l painted several times) is depicted
at the upper left. Its attached c o r d hangs d o w n i n the d r a w i n g ,
p r o b a b l y representing h o w it h u n g over the edge o f a table o n w h i c h
the instrument was l y i n g w h e n it was d r a w n ; i n the paintings, by
contrast, this c o r d is always draped o n the g r o u n d . T h e same h u n t i n g
h o r n is depicted i n the p a i n t i n g reproduced here f r o m the Staatsgalerie
N e u b u r g an der D o n a u (fig. 68).
10. See Z o e g e v o n Manteuffel 1923.
11. E r t z (1979, P- 402) thought these small animals c o u l d have been
painted by Frans Snyders, as was the game i n the p a i n t i n g i n N e u b u r g
an der D o n a u (fig. 68). These passages, however, are perfectly i n keepi
n g w i t h the w o r k o f B r u e g h e l and derive, moreover, f r o m Brueghel's
sketches, as preserved i n H o l l a r ' s etchings (see note 10 above and K .
R e n g e r i n V i e n n a - E s s e n 2002, p. 50).
12. See R o s e n b e r g 1905, pp. 133, 336, 384; compare also Rubens's Cimon
and Iphigenia ( V i e n n a , Kunsthistorisches M u s e u m , inv. 532).
13. See note 2 above.
14. K o n r a d Renger has c o n v i n c i n g l y demonstrated that the figure i n the
right f o r e g r o u n d c o u l d not have been painted by Rubens. T h e n y m p h s
in the b a c k g r o u n d were possibly done by a t h i r d hand, t h o u g h they
c o u l d also have been painted by B r u e g h e l himself; see V i e n n a - E s s e n
2002, pp. 50-51, cat. no. 8 (listed as by Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and
Peter Paul R u b e n s [?]). See also K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 21.
15. See K . Renger i n V i e n n a - E s s e n 2002, p. 50. M u l l e r H o f s t e d e (1968,
pp. 207, 221) dates b o t h paintings to about 1623-24, whereas E r t z
(1979, p. 398), w h o thinks that Isabella c o m m i s s i o n e d the paintings,
dates the w o r k s to about 1620, that is, f r o m before Albert's death
i n 1621.
16. D e M a e y e r 1955, p. 157, n. 5. A c c o r d i n g to D e Maeyer, this source
c o u l d not be verified.
17. E r t z 1979, p. 394, nos. 354 ~56.
18. T h e paintings d o not occur i n any o f the inventories traceable to
Isabella's collections. See D e M a e y e r 1955, doc. 2 6 9 - 7 2 ; see also
K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , p. 153.
19. Welzel 1997, p. 183.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 115
12
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens
Madonna and Child in a Garland of Fruit and Flowers
ca. 1620
Oil on panel, 79 x 65 cm (31 Vs x 25% in.)
Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1418
P R O V E N A N C E
C o l l e c t i o n o f D i e g o M e x i a Felipez de
G u z m a n , marquis o f Leganes, M a d r i d , 1630;
presented by Leganes to K i n g P h i l i p I V o f
S p a i n ; inventory, collection o f K i n g Carlos II,
Alcazar, M a d r i d , 1666
L I T E R A T U R E
C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 272; R a t t i 1910; M u l l e r
Hofstede 1968, p. 225; E r t z 1979, pp. 3 0 4 - 6 ,
311, 320, 620, no. 368; V o l k 1980, pp. 2 5 9 - 6 0 ,
267; Freedberg 1981, pp. 118-19, 121; A . Balis
i n A n t w e r p 1982, p. 4 4 ; Freedberg 1984,
p. 577; Jones 1993, p- 238, no. 36; D i a z P a d r o n
1995, pp. 2 9 0 - 9 1 ; U . K l e i n m a n n i n E s s e n V
i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 54-55, 58-59; V a n
M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , pp. 117-18, 120; W . Prohaska
i n V i e n n a - E s s e n 2002, p. 325, n . 5
E X H I B I T I O N
M a d r i d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , cat. no. 77
A
R I C H L Y D E T A I L E D G A R L A N D O F F L O W E R B L O S soms,
ripe fruit, vegetables, and plants surrounds an
octagonal representation of the Virgin Mary, depicted
as a half-length figure holding the Christ child, who has his
arm around her neck, with two angels holding a small wreath
of flowers above her head. This recently restored painting
from the Museo Nacional del Prado is one of three surviving
collaborative works containing garlands by Jan Brueghel
around a Virgin and Child by Rubens (compare figs. 1 and
69).1
The garland from which the painting within the painting
is suspended is fastened to trees in a landscape with
various animals in the foreground and, in the background,
a herd of deer partly concealed behind the octagon. Numerous
birds and monkeys are discernible—including two South
American silky marmosets below the garland— all feasting on
a profusion of edibles. The foreground features—in addition
to a porcupine, a North American chipmunk, and the usual
rabbits, guinea pigs, and tortoises—a peculiar animal not seen
in any other painting by Brueghel: a hare with horns. Since
the publication in the mid-sixteenth century of this "lepus
cornutus'' (a jackalope, or horned hare), few people doubted
the existence of this animal, which was regularly described
and even depicted by, among others, Joris Hoefnagel (1542-
1601).2
Skeletons of the animal—presumably counterfeit—
were even found in cabinets of curiosities, such as that of
Emperor Rudolf II in Prague.3
In view of Brueghel's extraordinary
fidelity to nature in the rendering of plants and
animals, it seems that he, too, must have been deceived into
believing in the existence of this mythical creature.
It has recently been demonstrated that Brueghel originally
planned to have an oval representation in his garland: the
outlines of the oval he sketched in to demarcate his colleague's
116 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
117
contribution can be seen with the infrared camera.4
Rubens,
however, used as much room as he thought fit, and exceeded
the bounds of this oval, just as he did in the Fruit Garland in
Glasgow (see fig. 83), where he painted right over the border
of the scratched-in oval, and in The Return from War: Mars
Disarmed by Venus in the Getty Museum (cat. no. 2), where
he did not hesitate to paint out part of Brueghel's depiction
to make room for his own figures. The eventual octagonal
framing of Rubens's depiction, which also has an underdrawing,
was painted by Brueghel; this frame is illuminated on
the left and at the top by light falling from the left. Finally,
in the small reserve above Mary's head, Brueghel added a
wreath of flowers held by angels and a few leaves that overlap
Rubens's painting—in the process also removing a couple
of leaves. Even though Brueghel can probably be regarded
as the originator of this painting as well, he found in Rubens
a self-assured collaborator who was evidently capable of
claiming his own space.
As is customary in Brueghel's work, in this garland all
the flowers are in full bloom and all the fruits are fully ripe,
despite the fact that the various species do not blossom
or mature at the same time.5
In this densely conceived and
extremely precise garland, in which each fruit and flower
is identifiable, there is not one wilted flower or worm-eaten
fruit. Nature is thus presented in its ideal form, with no
allusion whatsoever to the transience of earthly things.
Brueghel boasted in his letters that he painted his flowers
from life, without recourse to drawings or other preliminary
studies.6
In 1606, for example, he reported having journeyed
to Brussels to visit the archducal gardens, where he was
able to paint flowers from life that were not to be found in
Antwerp.7
In his letters, Brueghel repeatedly stressed the diligence
required to make his flower paintings,8
partly because
of the constraints placed on him by their flowering times,
all of which occurred within the space of four months.9
Even
so, he must have been taking some poetic license when he
said that he painted everything "from nature" (del naturel),
if only because some species seem to have been based on
examples in prints.1 0
Brueghel also worked from preparatory
studies, despite his assertion to the contrary,11
for his garlands
have many identical elements, one being the white lilies
to the right of Mary's face—a motif appearing in a number
of his garlands—which probably refer to her virginity. It
is obvious that the same preparatory studies of flower ensembles
were used for the garlands in Munich and Paris, as
well as for the fruit-and-flower garland discussed here. Using
those studies, Brueghel created a different garland every
time by adding extra flowers, for example, or by painting
arrangements of fruit and vegetables between the flowers, as
he did in this painting.1 2
The same fruit and vegetables are
recognizable in Brueghel's fruit garlands in Antwerp (cat.
no. 20), the Mauritshuis (cat. no. 21), and Glasgow (fig. 83).
His workshop practices must have been characterized by
far-reaching standardization, in which extensive use was
made of his standard repertoire of drawings and preparatory
studies in color. It is remarkable, in fact, how fresh and
original his paintings look, despite the frequent repetitions.
Unfortunately, the studies he had in stock, which his son
Jan II later made use of, have largely been lost.
As the Milanese cardinal Federico Borromeo wrote in
1625 in his Musaeum, a guide to his Pinacoteca Ambrosiana,
Brueghel was not content to paint common garden flowers.13
He preferred to portray exotic species, some of which
were recent discoveries imported from far-off lands for such
aristocratic collectors as Albert and Isabella, and indeed
Borromeo himself. The exotic animals also elevate the framing
of Rubens's picture to an exceptional level of sumptuousness,
seemingly symbolizing the abundance and richness
of nature and possibly the fertility of the Virgin (compare
cat. nos. 20 and 21). In Musaeum, Borromeo describes his
own garland by Brueghel—probably the painting now in
the Musee du Louvre—as a "garland consisting of so many
flowers, and so varied, that one may well call it a triumphal
arch." That the art lover in him sometimes got the better
of the God-fearing cardinal is apparent from his comment
on the painting of the Madonna: "We need not speak about
the figure surrounded by the garland, because, like a dim
light, it is overwhelmed by the surrounding depiction."1 4
The appreciation of Brueghel's garlands was reflected in
the astronomic prices paid for them by his patrons, most of
whom were members of the highest nobility.1 5
It has often been wrongly assumed that the present
painting was the subject of a spirited exchange of letters in
1621-22 between Brueghel and Cardinal Borromeo and his
agent, Ercole Bianchi.1 6
The work discussed in these letters,
however, is in all likelihood the Madonna and Child in a
Garland of Flowers in the Louvre (fig. 69),1 7
which was stolen
by Napoleon's troops from the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in
1796. An earlier version of this garland is reproduced as a
painting within a painting in the Allegory ofSight (see fig. 5 4 ) . 1 8
In the summer of 1621, Brueghel had of his own accord sent
Borromeo a picture—a flower garland surrounding a Virgin
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 119
FIGURE 69 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and Peter Paul R u b e n s , Madonna a
Child in a Garland of Flowers, 1621. O i l o n canvas, transferred f r o m pan
83.5 x 63 c m (32% x 243
/4 in.). Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. 1764
© R e u n i o n des Musees N a t i o n a u x / A r t Resource, N e w Y o r k
nd
el,
and Child by Rubens—which Brueghel himself praised as
"the most beautiful and rarest thing I have ever made."19
He then heard nothing for a long time. After a distressed
Brueghel had sent several letters to Milan and apparently
received no reply, the archbishop of Antwerp, Laurentius
Beyerlinck, intervened in the spring of 1622, asking his
Italian colleague for news of this masterpiece by Rubens, the
"Belgian Apeiles," enclosed in a flower garland by Brueghel.2 0
The bishop said that he wanted to help Brueghel in this
matter because the famous painter had been plagued by setbacks,
such as the death in 1621 of one of his most important
patrons, Archduke Albert. At last, in the summer of 1622,
Brueghel received his payment, and gave one of the golden
medallions he likewise received to Rubens.2 1
As regards the
collaboration between the two masters, it is interesting to
note that Brueghel was evidently the inventor of this work
and the one who offered it for sale. In his letter to Bianchi of
September 5, 1621, Brueghel said that "the birds and animals
were done from life from several of Her Highness's speci­
mens."22
As emerges time and again from his letters,
Brueghel regarded the fidelity to nature shown by his birds
and animals, and of course his flowers, as one of the best
recommendations of his work.
That the present painting is not the garland sold to
Borromeo in 1621-22—described, incidentally, as a garland
simply of flowers, not of fruit—seems to be confirmed by
its provenance from the collection of the Spanish marquis
of Leganes.23
This nobleman, who had long served as a
page at the court of Albert and Isabella in Brussels, became
an important courtier of the Spanish king Philip IV. He
married a daughter of the supreme commander of the
Habsburg troops, Ambrogio Spinola, and in the 1620s and
'30s regularly stayed in the Southern Netherlands, where he
bought paintings on a grand scale. In 1628 Rubens praised
the marquis as one of the most important collectors of his
time.2 4
In the earliest inventory, dating from 1630, of
LeganeYs extensive collections, this garland was recorded
under number " 4 " (the number at the lower right on the
panel) as a work by both masters.25
At his death in 1655, the
marquis owned more than 1,300 paintings, including The
Vision of Saint Hubert, another work by Brueghel and Rubens
(cat. no. 7).2 6
At the court in Brussels, Leganes had had the
opportunity to admire various paintings made jointly by
these two luminaries from Antwerp, so it is no wonder that
the connoisseur also wanted to enrich his own collection
with several of their collaborative works. A v S
120 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S
O T E S
1. See E r t z 1979, nos. 325-26; R e n g e r and D e n k 2002, pp. 336-41.
Sources reveal that these t w o masters must have collaborated on m a n y
m o r e garlands; see, a m o n g others, Vaes 1926-27.
2. See A . Balis, "Facetten van de V l a a m s e dierenschilderkunst van de
i5de tot de i7de eeuw," in A n t w e r p 1982, pp. 4 4 , 53, n n . 36, 37; for
Hoefnagel's d e p i c t i o n , see K o l b 2005, fig. 39. K o n r a d Forcr's Historia
Animalium Liber I: De Quadrupedibus Viviparis (1563) contains an illust
tration o f a head and a skull o f a h o r n e d hare (Kompanje 2 0 0 4 , fig. 3).
3. K o m p a n j e (2004) suggests that the h o r n e d hare is actually an animal
s h o w i n g s y m p t o m s o f infection by the p a p i l l o m a virus, w h i c h causes
hornlike growths o n the head and elsewhere.
4. T h e p a i n t i n g was examined w i t h an infrared camera i n the spring o f
2005 by A n a G o n z a l e z M o z o and Jaime G a r c i a M a i q u e z o f the M u s e o
N a c i o n a l del Prado. W i t h thanks to A l e j a n d r o Vergara.
5. O n Brueghel's flower paintings and garlands, see, for example, E r t z
1979, pp. 252-326; Brenninkmeyer-de R o o i j 1990; and Welzel 2002.
6. I n a letter o f A p r i l 22, 1611, to E r c o l e B i a n c h i , C a r d i n a l B o r r o m e o ' s
agent, B r u e g h e l explained h o w he set about m a k i n g his flower
paintings: " T h e flowers are troublesome to m a k e . . . but neither i n that
n o r i n other endeavors d o I accept any help. T h e flowers must be
made i n one sitting, w i t h o u t designs or sketches: all the flowers come
[i.e., blossom] i n four m o n t h s . . . . " ( G l i fiori sone fastidioso a f a r l e . . .
i n questa ne i n altre n o n me laisse aiutare. G l i fiori besoigni fae
alle p r i m a , sensa desseigni o boitssaturo: tutti fiori vengeno i n quatra
mesi ): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 168.
7. Letter to B o r r o m e o o f A p r i l 14, 1606: "for w h i c h reason I was i n
Brussels to portray some flowers from nature that are not to be f o u n d
i n A n t w e r p " (per quella io son stata a Brussella per ritrare alcuni
fiori del natural, che n o n si trove i n Anversa): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 63.
8. O n Brueghel's use o f the concept o f " d i l i g e n z a " i n his letters to
B o r r o m e o and his agent, see C u t l e r 2003.
9. See Paris 1979, P- 39-
10. C o m p a r e Brenninkmeyer-de R o o i j 1990, pp. 234-35.
11. See Brenninkmeyer-de R o o i j 1990. Brueghel's surviving flower studies
are extremely rare; see W i n n e r 1961, fig. 47.
2. See also a garland by Jan B r u e g h e l and H e n d r i c k van Balen ( E r t z 1979
no. 367, fig. 384) i n the Prado and The Holy Family in a Garland of
Flowers by Jan B r u e g h e l and Pieter van A v o n t i n M u n i c h (fig. 86 in
this v o l u m e ) .
3. Q u i n t 1986, p. 238.
4.. Q u i n t 1986, pp. 238-39.
5. I n a 1631 letter to the art dealer C h r i s o s t o m o van Immerseel, Jan
B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r praised the w o r k o f his father as extremely
costly: "There is another garland o f flowers, but that one is valued at
1,800 g u i l d e r s . . . the previous one was bought by the duke o f
B u c k i n g h a m for 3,000 guilders" (daer is n o c h eenen Crans van bloem
e n , maer die w o r t ghehauden 1800 gulden .. .den hertoch van
B u c i n g a m heeft de voerge gekocht 3000 gulden): D e n u c e 1934, p- 70.
16. F o r this exchange o f letters, see C r i v e l l i 1868, pp. 272, 275, 283, 2 9 4 -
300. E r t z (1979, pp. 3 0 4 - 6 ) thinks the letters refer to the present
p a i n t i n g i n the Prado, as d o the f o l l o w i n g authors: Jones 1993, p. 238,
no. 36; R a t t i 1910; and Freedberg 1981, p. 119, n. 25. Later Freedberg
(1984, p. 577) corrected his earlier assumption.
17. See also Paris 1979, p- 39-
18. See Jones 1993, p. 238, no. 35. T h e w o r k depicted in the Allegory of
Sight lacks the animals and birds seen i n the L o u v r e painting.
19. " i l p i u bello et rara cosa che habbia fatta in vita m i a " (letter to B i a n c h i
o f September 5, 1621): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 272.
20. F o r the Italian translation o f this letter written i n L a t i n , see Crivelli
1868, pp. 2 8 6 - 9 0 .
21. See Brueghel's letter to B o r r o m e o o f July 8, 1622. T h e payment was
for the garland and an Allegory of Air; for the latter, see Jones 1993,
no. 34d (this painting, w i t h figures by H e n d r i c k van B a l e n , is n o w in
the L o u v r e , inv. 1921). I n a letter o f the same date from Rubens to
B o r r o m e o , the painter thanked the cardinal for the g o l d e n m e d a l l i o n
displaying a likeness o f Saint C a r l o B o r r o m e o , the cardinal's c o u s i n ;
see C r i v e l l i 1868, pp. 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 .
22. " L i oitcelli, et animali son fatto ad v i v o de alcuni delli seren.ma
E n f a n t o " : C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 272. See also cat. no. 4, n. 4 0 .
23. V o l k 1980, pp. 259, 267; and D i a z Padron 1995, pp. 2 9 0 - 9 1 .
24. Letter o f January 27, 1628; see M a g u r n 1955, letter 145.
25. See V o l k 1980, p. 267: "another picture o f another image o f O u r
L a d y w i t h its o r i g i n a l ebony frame by Rubens and a border o f flowers
and animals a r o u n d it, originals by Brueghel the E l d e r " (ottro
quadro de ottra ymagen de nra sr a
c o n su marco de ebano o r i g i n a l de
rubens y una orla de flores y animales alrrededor originales de bruxel
el biejo).
26. Inventory o f the Leganes collection, M a r c h 30, 1642, no. 38; see
V o l k 1980, p. 267.
,
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S 121
13
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Workshop of Peter Paul Rubens
Nymphs Filling the Cornucopia
ca. 1615
Oil on panel, 67.4 x 106 cm (26 V2 x 4.1V4 in.)
The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, inv. 234
Exhibited in The Hague only
I N S C R I P T I O N
O n the reverse, panelmaker's mark R B
[in ligature]
P R O V E N A N C E
H e t L o o , A p e l d o o r n , 1757; Gallery o f
Stadholder W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e , 1774-95;
M u s e e N a p o l e o n (Musee d u L o u v r e ) , Paris,
1795-1815; Gallery o f W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e ,
1815-22; M a u r i t s h u i s , since 1822
L I T E R A T U R E
H o e t and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 3,
pp. 7 0 6 - 0 7 ; Drossaers and L u n s i n g h
Scheurleer 1974-76, v o l . 2, p. 644, no. 103;
v o l . 3, p. 214, no. 54; E r t z 1979, pp. 390,
535, n . 611; E r t z 1984, no. 218; B r o o s and
W a d u m 1993; B r o o s 1993, P- 380; B r o o s 1995,
pp. 2 2 - 2 4 ; W a d u m 1996; H a r t i n g and
B o r m s 2003, p. 42; Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. E 56;
M a u r i t s h u i s 2004, pp. 82-83
E X H I B I T I O N
A n t w e r p 1930, cat. no. 231
he
t
of
?
N A W O O D E D L A N D S C A P E , N Y M P H S F I L L A H O R N O F
plenty (cornucopia) with fruit plucked from the trees
and handed to them by satyrs, putti, and other nymphs.1
The key to the story depicted here is the scene in the left
background, where Hercules can be seen fighting the river
god Acheious, who appears in the form of a bull.2
During
the banquet Acheious lays on for Theseus (see cat. no. 3), t
river god tells how he competed with Hercules for the
hand of Deianira, the daughter of another river god (Ovid,
Metamorphoses 9 . 1 - 9 2 ) . During their struggle, Acheious firs
transformed himself into a writhing snake and then into a
bull. Hercules defeated him, however, by breaking off one
his horns, but, as Acheious relates: "This horn the naiads
took, filled it with fruit and fragrant flowers, and hallowed
it. And now the goddess of glad Abundance is enriched
with my horn."3
N o sooner does he say this than one of his
nymphs brings to the table a richly filled cornucopia—the
second course of the banquet—as depicted on the left in The
Feast ofAcheious from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in
New York (cat. no. 3). The latter work is a splendid example
of the collaboration between the friends Rubens and
Brueghel, whereas the attribution of the present painting
has often been cast into doubt.
In 1757 the painting was listed in the inventory of Het
Loo Palace in Apeldoorn as a work by Rubens; in 1763
this description was correctly emended to say that the landscape
and the fruit had been painted by Brueghel.4
After
Willem V had the painting transferred to The Hague, Pieter
Terwesten—in his 1770 catalogue of the stadholder's cabinet
of paintings—listed it immediately after The Garden ofEden
(cat. no. 4), describing it as a "ditto first-rate piece...being
figures by, or in the manner of, Rubens, and the landscape
122 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S W O R K S H O P
123
FIGURE 70 Peter P a u l Rubens, Studies of a Female Nude. Pen and
b r o w n ink, 27.1 x 17.7 c m (io5
/s x 7 in.). A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m ,
Rijksprentenkabinet, inv. 66:67
with fruit by the aforementioned Brueghel."5
During the
enforced stay of the stadholder's collection in Paris (1795-
1815), this "Triomphe de la Terre" was reattributed to
Brueghel and Hendrick van Balen.6
Since then, doubt has
clung to the attribution of this panel, whose figures have been
assigned alternately to Van Balen, Rubens, and "the manner
of Rubens." From 1949 to 1990, it lay dormant in the storeroom
of the Mauritshuis under the name of Van Balen.
During the same period, there was even doubt cast on the
attribution of the landscape to Jan Brueghel the Elder, and
the names of his pupils Abraham Govaerts (1581-1642)
and Jan Brueghel the Younger were put forward as possible
candidates.7
Since its restoration in 1990, however, the painting has
been reassessed.8
The piece proves to have been beautifully
preserved, unmistakably displaying in the landscape and
fruit the precise style of Jan Brueghel the Elder. The robust
nudes with their well-articulated muscles bear little resemblance
to Van Balen's elegantly polished figures; instead, each
and every one is a quotation from Rubens's oeuvre of the
years around 1615, although the rather hard modeling makes
it unlikely that Rubens is the author. These figures are probably
the work of a collaborator from Rubens's studio, who
was able to draw directly upon the master's repertoire.9
The
seated woman in the middle, for example, who fills the cornucopia
with fruit, is very like Theseus's friend Lelex, seated
on the right in The Feast ofAcheious (cat. no. 3), and also
resembles Adam in The Garden ofEden (cat. no. 4), albeit in
reverse. The classic profile and hairstyle of this nymph relate
her to the nymph bringing in the cornucopia at the far left
in the former painting and to the personification of Sight in
the series of the Five Senses in the Museo Nacional del
Prado (see fig. 54). The crouching female satyr to the left of
the cornucopia clearly resembles a similar, cloven-hoofed
female in Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces by
Rubens and Brueghel in Glasgow (see fig. 83); this figure
harks back to a well-known antique statue of the "crouching
Venus,"1 0
which also inspired Rubens's rendering of the
nymph tying on Diana's sandal in Diana at the Hunt (cat.
no. 10). The satyr in the tree, the tip of whose tongue sticks
out of his mouth, is a variation on Rubens's satyrs in the
above-mentioned painting in Glasgow. The nymph on the
right, seen from the back, who leans rather uncomfortably
against a tree, was also borrowed from Rubens, as evidenced
by a sheet with pen-and-ink studies of female figures by
Rubens's hand (fig. 70), on the verso of which he recorded
his impressions of the Venus Pudica (see fig. 46).1 1
With her
left hand this nymph places an apple in the basket shouldered
by a winged putto; this figure, too, stems from Rubens's
repertoire and appears, among other places, in his Futti with
a Garland ofFruit, in which Frans Snyders painted the fruit
and Jan Wildens (1585/86-1653) the landscape (fig. 71).1 2
The
standing nymph on the left—who is seen in profile, reaching
upward with her right hand—is recognizable from several
of Rubens's representations of the three graces.13
No doubt
one could add to this list of derivations from Rubens's
stock motifs; it is obvious that these figures were plucked
from the master's existing oeuvre and assembled, collagelike,
to form the group seen here.1 4
For the rest, the figures
surrounding Hercules and the bull in the left background
display the short, easily distinguishable brushstrokes characteristic
of Brueghel.
Close examination of the wood from which the panel is
made has yielded important information for the dating
of this work. The wood proves to have originated from the
same tree as several other Antwerp panels, including a
Wooded Landscape with Gypsy Women of 1612 by Abraham
Govaerts (1581-1642) in the Mauritshuis; the grain of the
wood in these panels does not display a regular pattern;
rather, it describes a large arc up to the right.1 5
A n identical
panelmaker's mark (RB in ligature) was found on the back of
both Nymphs Filling the Cornucopia and Govaerts's painting.
This mark—which has not yet been identified—has thus far
124 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S W O R K S H O P
been found on eight paintings dating from the years 1611
to 1613, including Jan Brueghel's Entry of the Animals into
Noah's Ark of 1613 (cat. no. 26).1 6
This allows us to assume
that Nymphs Filling the Cornucopia originated not long after
1612-13, that is, about 1615, which is confirmed by dendrochronological
research.17
The motifs quoted from Rubens
also date from the same period, having originally appeared
in works made about 1615.
The painting thus originated in the period in which the
collaboration between Brueghel and Rubens was flourishing.
It was surely made under the eye of Brueghel's famous
colleague, as also emerges from examination of the painting
technique. Infrared imaging enabled the detection of a
sketchy underdrawing in the landscape that is typical of
Brueghel (compare, for instance, cat. no. 4).1 8
A few perspective
lines were all he needed to mark the depths in the
background, and with a few swiftly drawn lines he indicated
the approximate position of the trees, sometimes adding
undulating lines to suggest the foliage. With only a few
strokes and lines, Brueghel made an underdrawing of
the group in the left background, but this, too, was merely a
rough indication, which he blithely ignored at the painting
stage. The contours of the main figures bear traces—visible
with a microscope—of a preparatory sketch in red-brown
paint, a sketch not discernible with the infrared camera
owing to the absence of carbon in the paint mixture. Indeed,
it seems to have been customary, when Rubens and Brueghel
collaborated, for Rubens to mark out his share of the
composition with a sketch in brownish paint (compare cat.
nos. 5, 6, and 8). In the present painting, the outlines
of the figures have been corrected in places and emphasized
with darker, fairly heavily applied paint that is now largely
obscured by the paint used for the background, but which
could be rendered visible with the aid of the infrared camera.
F I G U R E 71 Peter Paul Rubens, Frans Snyders, and Jan W i l d e n s (1586—1653), Putti with a Garland of Fruit. O i l o n canvas, 120 x 203.8 c m (47 V4 x SoL
A in.).
M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 330
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S W O R K S H O P 125
These corrections are comparable to certain heavily applied
corrections to nudes in several autograph drawings by Rubens,
so it is in fact possible that the master himself intervened
here to make several adjustments to the group of figures.19
Around the red-brown sketch delineating the figures,
Brueghel first painted the background and then his collaborator
executed the figures that slightly overlap the background
in numerous places. The fingers of the female satyr holding
the cornucopia, for example, clearly overlap the skimpy
reserve in the horn. Another interesting detail is the leaf of
the artichoke in the right foreground, which was painted
before the leg of the nymph—against which it stands out;
here, therefore, Brueghel did not apply the leaf over the
figure at the end of the painting process, as more usually
seen. The figures are composed of layers of paint applied in
a technique very similar to that of Rubens, the female nudes
being built up from an undermodeling, while the darkercomplexioned
satyr is painted very thinly with only a
single layer of transparent paint on the light gray ground.
The subject of the present painting naturally offered
an excellent opportunity to depict idealized nudes in a landscape.
The story corresponds closely to that of The Feast of
Acheious (cat. no. 3), in which Rubens rendered nudes based
on classical examples and, on the left, depicted a comparable
group of nymphs filling a horn of plenty. The theme
is also closely related, of course, to Brueghel's fruit garlands
surrounding allegories of abundance and fertility, such
as the Garland ofFruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving
Giftsfrom the Four Seasons by Brueghel and Van Balen
(cat. nos. 20 and 21), in which Ceres is presented with a
cornucopia, and the Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by
the Graces by Brueghel and Rubens (fig. 83).
Regarding the whereabouts of Nymphs Filling the
Cornucopia before it was inventoried at Het Loo Palace in
1757, a partly preserved note in seventeenth-century handwriting
glued to the back of the panel provides an intriguing
indication of its provenance. In the nineteenth century,
when it was still reasonably legible, it was transcribed as
follows: "This painting is to be delivered to the house
of Mr. Samuel Suerius, steward of His Highness's domains,
etc... at B[reda]."2 0
A relative and friend of Constantijn
Huygens, private secretary to the princes of Orange, Samuel
Suerius (1633-1686) was the steward of the Breda domains
of the House of Orange. He was succeeded in this capacity
by his son of the same name, which makes it uncertain
if the painting was delivered to the father or the son. It is
possible, therefore, that the painting was already in the
possession of the Oranges in the late seventeenth century,
but further documentation substantiating this is lacking.2 1
AvS
N O T E S
1. Since the nineteenth century, the p a i n t i n g has been called Naiads
Filling the Horn of Plenty; see, for example, M a u r i t s h u i s 1993,
p. 29. Because this picture contains no direct reference to water
(naiads are water n y m p h s ) , it is m o r e correct to speak o f nymphs.
2. A c c o r d i n g to O v i d (Fasti 5.121-24), the h o r n o f plenty, or cornucopia,
was the h o r n o f the goat A m a l t h e a , w h o suckled the infant Jupiter.
I n his Metamorphoses (9.1-92), O v i d describes the o r i g i n o f the
cornucopia, as seen i n this depiction. See H a l l 1974, pp. 75, 152.
3. O v i d , Metamorphoses 9.87-88 (translation by Frank Justus M i l l e r ,
revised by G . P. G o o l d ) ; see Metamorphoses, Books IX-XV ( L o e b
Classical Library, C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , and L o n d o n , 1984), p. 9-
4. O n M a y 13, 1716, i n A m s t e r d a m , an "Amalthea, a d o r n i n g the h o r n o f
plenty w i t h flowers" (Amaltea, die de H o o r n van overvloet met
B l o e m e n ciert) by Rubens and the "Velvet [Jan] B r u e g h e l " was s o l d
f r o m the collection o f Jan van B e u n i n g e n ; see H o e t and Terwesten
1752-70, v o l . 1, pp. 2 0 1 - 2 , no. 37. Its identification as the w o r k
discussed here was first published by V i c t o r de Stuers (Mauritshuis
1874, p. 203). T h e question mark placed by D e Stuers next to this
provenance was o m i t t e d f r o m all subsequent publications; see,
for example, M a u r i t s h u i s 2 0 0 4 , p. 82. H o w e v e r , the painting s o l d
at this auction was some 20 c m (about 8 in.) larger i n b o t h height and
w i d t h than the present painting, i n w h i c h , moreover, there are n o
flowers to be seen, w h i c h makes this provenance unlikely. R e g a r d i n g
A m a l t h e a , see note 2 above.
5. " d i t o u i t m u n t e n d S t u k . . . zynde de F i g u u r e n door, o f i n de manier
van R u b b e n s , en het Landschap met de V r u g t e n d o o r v o o r n . van
B r e u g e l " : H o e t and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 3, pp. 7 0 6 - 7 .
6. P o m m e r e u l 1798, p. 299.
7. I n a 1774 catalogue o f the cabinet o f paintings, the figures were attributed
to "van der H o e k " and the landscape and the fruit to Brueghel.
T h e artist i n question was perhaps Jan van den H o e c k e (1611-1651) or
Caspar van den H o e c k e (ca. 1585-1659); see Drossaers and L u n s i n g h
Scheurleer 1974-76, v o l . 3, p. 214, no. 54. After the F r e n c h era,
the attribution o f the figures to V a n Balen kept c r o p p i n g u p (see
M a u r i t s h u i s 1874, p. 203), even t h o u g h i n the nineteenth century the
figures were usually described as " i n the manner o f Rubens." Rooses
(1886-92, v o l . 5, p. 339) listed the figures as probably by R u b e n s ;
A n t w e r p 1930, no. 231, as by R u b e n s and B r u e g h e l the Elder.
A c c o r d i n g to M a r t i n (Mauritshuis 1935, pp. 2 9 2 - 9 4 , no. 234), L u d w i g
B u r c h a r d considered them to be by V a n Balen. I n M a u r i t s h u i s
catalogues f r o m 1949 t h r o u g h 1993, the figures are attributed to
V a n Balen. E r t z (1979, p. 390) concurred w i t h this attribution but
subsequently t h o u g h t he recognized the h a n d o f Jan B r u e g h e l the
126 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S W O R K S H O P
Y o u n g e r i n the landscape ( E r t z 1984, no. 218). B r o o s (1993, p. 380, and
an u n p u b l i s h e d text i n the archives o f the M a u r i t s h u i s ) and W a d u m
(1996) rightly place the painter o f the figures i n the studio o f Rubens.
C o m p a r e , finally, H a r t i n g and B o r m s 2003, p. 42 (the landscape as
by Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r or A b r a h a m Govaerts); and Werche 2004,
no. E 56 (figures not by the h a n d o f V a n Balen).
8. T h e painting was restored by E r m a H e r m e n s and Jorgen W a d u m .
9. See u n p u b l i s h e d texts by Jorgen W a d u m and B e n B r o o s i n the archives
o f the M a u r i t s h u i s .
10. H a s k e l l and Penny 1981, pp. 321-23, no. 86.
11. K a s s e l - F r a n k f u r t 2 0 0 4 , cat. no. 17.
12. Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 380-81.
13. See, for example, Peter Paul R u b e n s , The Three Graces ( V i e n n a ,
Gemaldegalerie der A k a d e m i e der bildenden Kiinste, inv. 646).
14. O n the practice o f taking motifs f r o m the w o r k o f others (the term
c o m m o n l y used at that time was rapen, w h i c h means to "gather"
or "collect"), see V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1973, v o l . 2, pp. 388-89.
O n the art o f rapen, see also Samuel van Ho og st raet en (1678, p. 193),
w h o cites the example o f Rub ens : W h e n Rubens was reproached
for " b o r r o w i n g w h o l e figures f r o m the Italians" (geheele beelden uit
dTtaliaenen ontleende), he replied that everyone was w e l c o m e to
imitate h i m , " i f they thought it advantageous" (indien zy'er voordeel
inzagen), thereby suggesting that not everyone was capable o f
benefiting f r o m this exercise.
15. See B r o o s and W a d u m 1993.
16. I b i d . W i t h thanks to Jorgen W a d u m for a l l o w i n g me to inspect his
database o f A n t w e r p panelmakers' marks.
17. R e p o r t c o m p i l e d by D r . Peter K l e i n , U n i v e r s i t y o f H a m b u r g ,
O c t o b e r 20, 1995-
18. D u r i n g restoration o f the painting i n 1990, Jorgen W a d u m examined
it by means o f infrared reflectography u s i n g the H a m a m a t s u camera;
see W a d u m 1996, p. 394, fig. 4. O n D e c e m b e r 24, 2 0 0 4 , the painting
was again examined w i t h the aid o f the stereomicroscope by Sabrina
M e l o n i , A r i a n e van Suchtelen, and Jorgen W a d u m i n the studio o f
the M a u r i t s h u i s . O n January 6, 2005, infrared images were made w i t h
the A r t i s t camera (Art I n n o v a t i o n , H e n g e l o ) m o u n t e d w i t h a C C D
progressive scan image sensor (1360 x 1036 pixels) and a Schneider
K r e u z n a c h X e n o p l a n 1.4/23 m m C C T V - l c n s i n N12 w i t h a 1000 n m
long-wave pass filter.
19. O n this subject, see W a d u m 1996.
20. "Dese schildery sal m e n bestellen ten huyse van de h. Samuel Z u c r i u s
Rentmeester van syn H o o c h e y t s D o m e y n e n e t c . . . tot B[reda].":
M a u r i t s h u i s 1874, p. 203. F o r a d r a w n c o p y depicting the letter, see,
a m o n g others, M a u r i t s h u i s 1935, p. 293.
21. A n s p a c h 1881, p. 172; and Register op de journalen van Constantijn
Huygens Jr. (Amsterdam, 1906), p. 285. See an unpublished text by
B e n B r o o s i n the archives o f the M a u r i t s h u i s .
R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S W O R K S H O P 127
14
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hans Rottenhammer
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt
ja. 1595
Oil on copper, 22 x 29.1 cm (85
/s x 11V2 in.)
The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, inv. 283
P R O V E N A N C E
StacLholder-Khjig W i l l e m III, H e t L o o ,
A p e l d o o r n , 1712; Gallery o f Stadholder
W i l l e m V , The'jHague, 1774-95; M u s e e
N a p o l e o n ( M u s e e d u L o u v r e ) , Paris,
1795-1815; Galljery o f W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e ,
1815-22; M a u r i t s h u i s , since 1822
L I T E R A T U R E
Peltzer 1916, pp. 318, 332, 345, no. 31, p. 348,
no. 74; T o t h - U b b e n s 1968, pp. 10-11;
Drossaers and L u n s i n g h Scheurleer 1974-76,
v o l . 2, p. 645, no. 119; v o l . 3, p. 205, no. 9;
E r t z 1979, pp. 2 0 4 - 6 , no. 1; E r t z 1984,
no. 150; Schlichtenmaier 1988, no. K 3;
E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 111, 112;
P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ,
pp. 149, 150, n . 8; Werche 2 0 0 4 , p. 236,
no. E 7; M a u r i t s h u i s 2 0 0 4 , pp. 8 2 - 8 4 ;
Jonckheere 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 , p. 215
E X H I B I T I O N S
D o r d r e c h t 1955, cat. no. 27; T h e H a g u e
1988-89, cat. no. x i v
15
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hans Rottenhammer
The Descent into Limbo
1597
Oil on copper, 26.2 x 35.4 cm (iol
A x 13% in.)
The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, inv. 285
I N S C R I P T I O N
A t l o w e r right, . B R V E G H E L . 1 5 9 7
P R O V E N A N C E
S t a d h o l d e r - K i n g W i l l e m III, H e t L o o ,
A p e l d o o r n , before 1697; Gallery o f
Stadholder W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e , 1774-95;
M u s e e N a p o l e o n ( M u s e e d u L o u v r e ) , Paris,
1795-1815; Gallery o f W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e ,
1815-22; M a u r i t s h u i s , since 1822
L I T E R A T U R E
H o e t and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 3, p. 693;
Peltzer 1916, pp. 332, 345, no. 32; T o t h U
b b e n s 1968, p. 11; Drossaers and L u n s i n g h
Scheurleer 1974-76, v o l . 1, p. 677, no. 839,
p. 698, no. 69; v o l . 2, p. 479, no. 24, p. 6 4 0 ,
no. 24; v o l . 3, p. 206, no. 16; E r t z 1979,
pp. 116, 119, 124, 135, 501, 519 (nn. 76, 87, 88),
562 (under no. 32); E r t z 1984, pp. 4 4 , 65,
301-2, no. 128; Freedberg 1984, p. 576; B r o o s
1993, pp. 7 9 - 8 7 , no. 7 ( w i t h additional literature);
Costaras 1994; M a u r i t s h u i s 2 0 0 4 ,
p. 84; Jonckheere 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 , p. 215
E X H I B I T I O N S
T h e H a g u e 1988-89, p. 119 (in e x h i b i t i o n ) ;
P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ,
cat. no. 8e
128 B R U E G H E L A N } R O T T E N H A M M E R
s
e
•
O L L A B O R A T I O N S I N W H I C H A S T A F F A G E P A I N T E R
added his figures to a landscape by another artist
were common in Flemish art from the sixteenth century
onward. As a staffage painter, Jan Brueghel made many
contributions to landscapes painted by his friend Joos de
Momper (1564-1635).1
However, in The Rest on the Flight
into Egypt of about 1595 and The Descent into Limbo of 1597 it
was the German figure painter Hans Rottenhammer who
first took the copper plates in hand. In the former work, he
painted the Holy Family and the two flying angels in the
foreground, whereupon Brueghel added the wooded landscape
and the flowers, as well as the ass, whose body is largely
hidden by the imposing tree that closes off the composition
on the right.2
Rottenhammer, who began The Descent into
Limbo by painting the nude figures in the foreground, is the
author not only of the main group—Christ with Adam and
Eve—but also of the righteous whom Christ liberates, the
three devils in the left foreground, and five of the doomed
souls in the abyss on the right. Brueghel then completed
the composition by adding the infernal landscape with its
myriad monsters and devils.3
Hans Rottenhammer, a native of Munich, left for Italy in
1589; after a stay in Venice, he arrived in Rome around 1591.4
There he met the Flemish-Roman landscape painter Paul
Bril (1553/54-1626), as well as Jan Brueghel, first recorded as
being in Naples in 1590 and subsequently active in Rome
until 1595-5
These artists belonged to the circle of Cardinal
Federico Borromeo (1564-1631), a theologian and important
collector of art, and it was in his palace facing the
Piazza Navona in Rome that Brueghel took up residence.6
Karel van Mander wrote the following about Rottenhammer:
"When he arrived in Rome he devoted himself to
painting on plates as is customary with the Netherlanders."7
Italian painters occasionally used copper plates as supports a
early as the first half of the sixteenth century, but this is
first seen among Netherlandish artists when Bartholomeus
Spranger (1546-1611) of Antwerp painted on copper during
his stay in Rome (1566-75).8
It was however the Flemings
Paul Bril and Jan Brueghel, as well as the German Hans
Rottenhammer, who were responsible for the popularity
painting on copper achieved from the early 1590s in Rome.9
All three found the smooth, glossy surface eminently suitabl
as a support for their meticulously detailed paintings. Bril
produced the earliest known landscape on copper in 1592.1 0
He was soon followed by Jan Brueghel, who used copper
almost exclusively for the paintings he made in Italy.11
After
returning to Antwerp in September 1596, Brueghel introduced
this new technique to his native city, where he continued
to paint on copper with great regularity: about half of
his extant paintings—some four hundred altogether—have
copper supports.1 2
The figure painter Hans Rottenhammer collaborated
with both Bril and Brueghel on various paintings on copper,
to which the Flemings contributed the backgrounds.13
After Rottenhammer moved to Venice in the summer of 1595,
his collaboration with Bril and Brueghel continued for a
while, thanks in part to the small size and robust nature of
copper plates, which made them easy to transport.
In The Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Rottenhammer's
smooth, enamel-like brushwork in the figures is clearly distinguishable
from the manner of Brueghel, in which the
individual brushstrokes are plainly visible.1 4
That the background
was painted around the figures is apparent from
the places where the brushstrokes overlap the contours. The
ass displays Brueghel's characteristically precise style, featuring
short, separate brushstrokes.15
Where the ass's head touches
Joseph's tunic, Brueghel retouched the garment, using a
slightly different shade of yellow, on which he painted the
animal's mane wet-in-wet. Joseph's right hand, which holds
some grass up to the beast's mouth, also appears on close
inspection to have been added by Brueghel: this hand is not
modeled as smoothly as Joseph's left hand, which is the
work of Rottenhammer. It is possible that Brueghel was also
responsible for the decoration on the Holy Family's saddlebag,
which displays his characteristic detailing.
Rottenhammer's contribution to The Descent into Limbo
is also obvious: his smooth, polished figures are easily
recognizable. The faces, too-—with their high foreheads and
pronounced eyelids—are characteristic of his style. If one
compares, for example, Christ's naked torso with that of
Brueghel's devil in the sky at the upper left, the differences
are obvious: Rottenhammer's brushstrokes flow together,
whereas Brueghel used short, pastose brushstrokes to apply
hatching within clearly delineated contours. Brueghel filled
in the edges of Rottenhammer's contributions: at the back
left, for example, he added hands reaching out from the
throng of people, and at the front left he added pointed
wings to the devil kneeling in shadow. He supplied Christ's
head with an aureole and also added the cross and the banner
of the Resurrection (a red cross on a white ground) to
the Savior's staff, which Rottenhammer had already indicated
when laying in the composition. Brueghel enhanced the
B R U E G H E L A N D R O T T E N H A M M E R 129
1 4
130
1 5
i3i
F I G U R E 72 Jan Brue:ghe^ l the E l d e r a n d
H a n s Rottenhammer•,. The Rest on the Flight
into Egypt, 1595. O i o n copper, 26 x 35.5 c m
(iol
A x 14 in.). Private collection
group of devils in the left foreground by making their eyes
and mouths spout fire. In the far right foreground, a striking
detail was c iscovered in the figure of the naked woman
being carried o f by two of Brueghel's demons: infrared
reserve in her leg, which means that, when
painting her, Rottenhammer must have taken into account
the demon's arm that was to be painted by Brueghel.
Of the eight to ten known paintings Brueghel and
Rottenhammer made together, no fewer than four depict
the Rest on theFlight into Egypt;1 6
in each case Brueghel
painted a different landscape behind the nearly identical
group consisting of Joseph, the two angels, and Mary breastfeeding
her child. With production-line efficiency, Rottenhammer
supplied copper plates with this motif—evidently
and Brueghel then individualized them
by adding different landscapes. In a painting dated 1595, for
example, he painted a vast mountainous landscape with
the Roman temple of the Sibyl at Tivoli (fig. 72),1 7
whereas
the present painting's forest clearing and pool of water offer
the Holy Family a more secluded resting place. The date
on the former work suggests that the Mauritshuis painting
and the other versions of the same theme ail date from
about 1595.
Paul Bril, who had stayed behind in Rome, also collaborated
with Rottenhammer on a Rest on the Flight into Egypt
(fig. 73), but this work of 1600 shows the Holy Family in
a different constellation and lacks the angels.18
Here, too, it
appears that the figures were painted first: Rottenhammer's
copper plate must have been sent from Venice to Rome,
where Bril added a Flemish landscape with a windmill. This
procedure is confirmed by the artists' biographer Carlo
Ridolfi, who in 1648 reported that various people had commissioned
collaborative works, having Rottenhammer in
Venice paint the figures and then sending the pictures to
Rome, where Bril supplied the landscapes.19
The Descent into Limbo of 1597 fits into a series of scenes
of the Underworld, which Brueghel painted over the course
of about ten years, starting in 1594 in Italy and continuing
in Antwerp.2 0
Against a fire-lit background with a broad
river and high cliffs—dotted with ancient ruins and burning
Catherine wheels—Brueghel indulged himself freely, depicting
gruesome events and fanciful creatures derived from the
tradition of Hieronymus Bosch (ca. 1450-1516). Fuzzy
monsters with cloven hoofs, a helmeted head on short legs,
a horned marmot tending a brazier, a chopped-off head
dangling from a tree, a winged, fire-spewing fish-mouth
132 B R U E G H E L A N D R O T T E N H A M M E R
— the eye can roam endlessly and never fail to discover ne
details.2 1
The subject of this story—Christ's descent into
limbo to liberate the souls of the Old Testament saints—
naturally lent itself to elaborate depictions of the Underworld.
The story, first recorded in the fifth century in the
apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, was later retold in the
thirteenth-century Golden Legend21
Since Byzantine times i
had been a popular subject in art—its depictions include
a print after Pieter Bruegel the Elder (fig. 74)2 3
—but after
the sixteenth century the theme fell into disuse. Brueghel
was probably inspired by his father's design, which contain
similar Boschian beasts as well as the motif of the broken
doors of Limbo.
In the summer of 1595, Federico Borromeo moved
from Rome to Milan, where he had been appointed cardin
Brueghel followed his patron, staying for a year in Milan
before returning to Antwerp with a letter of recommendati
from Borromeo to the Bishop of Antwerp.2 4
Rottenhamme
returned to Venice, where he was active until 1606, after
which he settled in Augsburg. The 1595 Rest on the Flight int
Egypt (fig. 72) could have been made in Rome, although
it is also possible that Brueghel took this and other copper
plates—already begun by Rottenhammer—to Milan and
completed them there. At any rate, Brueghel did not finish
The Descent into Limbo until 1597, after his return to Antwer
In a letter of July 8, 1605, Brueghel wrote to Borromeo:
"Before long I shall be expecting the paintings from Your
Highness, in order to decorate them with landscapes and
other things befitting the figures' stories."25
Apparently it
was not unusual for Brueghel (or Paul Bril, for that matter
to adapt his work to that of a figure painter, as evidenced
by these two paintings made with Rottenhammer. Althoug
Brueghel did not mention the figure painter by name, he
was almost certainly referring in this letter to Rottenhamm
and not to Hendrick van Balen,2 6
since the first figure pain
ing by Van Balen that Brueghel "decorated" was one made
for Cardinal Borromeo in 1 6 0 7 - 0 8 (see fig. 82). Brueghel's
letter perhaps refers to the two Rottenhammer-Brueghel
paintings that Borromeo owned—Music-making Angels wit
Flowers and Winter Landscape with Angels Scattering Flowers—
in which case these would be the last collaborative works b
these two masters.27
These paintings are still to be found in
the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan, the museum Borrom
founded in 1618.2 8
Borromeo describes the Winter Landscap
in his 1625 treatise on art titled Musaeum, an introduction t
w
t
s
al.
on
r
o
p.
)
h
er
t­
h
y
eo
e
o
FIGURE 73 Paul B r i l (1553/54-1626) and H a n s Rottenhammer, The Rest
on the Flight into Egypt, 1600. O i l o n copper, 21.9 x 30 c m (85
/s x nM in.).
Private collection
FIGURE 74 After Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Descent into Limbo, ca. 1561.
E n g r a v i n g , 233 x 287 m m (9V8 x ul
A in.). A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m ,
Rijksprentenkabinet
B R U E G H E L A N D R O T T E N H A M M E R 133
his art collection, in which he philosophizes on the extremes
of nature depicted in that work.2 9
It was the fruitful partnership with Hans Rottenhammer,
begun in Rome, which seemingly inspired Brueghel to seek
the cooperation of other figure painters after his return
to Antwerp in September 1596. It was probably the differing
styles of such masters as Rottenhammer, Hendrick de Clerck,
Van Balen, and Rubens that represented for Brueghel the
added value of artistic collaboration. A v S
N O T E S
1. See, for example, E r t z 1979, pp. 4 7 0 - 9 1 .
2. Brueghel's name is scratched into the center o f the back o f the copper
plate i n the capital letters characteristic o f the painter; see also T h e
H a g u e 1988-89, p. 121. H o w e v e r , the fact that w e k n o w o f n o other
contemporary example o f an artist's name scratched into a copper plate
(letter f r o m Isabel H o r o v i t z to L u u k Rutgers van der Loeff, dated
June 22, 1988, as w e l l as a c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m Jorgen W a d u m ,
N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 ) casts d o u b t o n the authenticity o f this "signature."
E r t z (1979, pp. 2 0 4 - 6 , fig. 248 [on p. 501]) w r o n g l y rejected The Rest
on the Flight into Egypt as the w o r k o f Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r ; i n his
o p i n i o n the painting, done i n the style o f A d a m Elsheimer (1578-1610),
c o u l d n o t have originated before 1600 and must therefore be the w o r k
o f a follower. Later, E r t z (1984, no. 150) attributed it to Jan B r u e g h e l
the Younger, w i t h figures b y H e n d r i c k van B a l e n . F o l l o w i n g E r t z ,
Schlichtenmaier (1988, no. K 3 ) also regarded it as a copy.
3. B o t h paintings were examined o n January 4 and 5, 2005, i n the
restoration studio o f the M a u r i t s h u i s by Sabrina M e l o n i and A r i a n e
van Suchtelen, w h o v i e w e d t h e m under the stereomicroscope
a n d made infrared images w i t h the A r t i s t camera ( A r t I n n o v a t i o n ,
H e n g e l o ) m o u n t e d w i t h a C C D progressive scan image sensor
(1360 x 1036 pixels) and a Schneider K r e u z n a c h X e n o p l a n 1.4/23 m m
C C T V - l e n s i n N12 w i t h a 1000 n m long-wave pass filter.
E r t z (1979, n o . 32) also mistakenly rejected The Descent into Limbo as
a w o r k b y B r u e g h e l and R o t t e n h a m m e r , attributing it instead to
Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r ( E r t z 1984, no. 128). E r t z questioned the
authenticity o f the signature (in his o p i n i o n j B R U E G H E L 1597).
H o w e v e r , d u r i n g the restoration carried out i n 1992 it became clear
that the signature ( w i t h o u t the letter j before the name) was indeed
authentic. Schlichtenmaier again f o l l o w e d Ertz's rejection (Schlichtenmaier
1988, no. K 4 0 ) ; a c o p y o f The Descent into Limbo i n Aschaffenb
u r g was regarded by Schlichtenmaier as an autograph w o r k by
R o t t e n h a m m e r and B r u e g h e l (ibid., no. G 1 11). O n the provenance o f
the t w o paintings f r o m the E n g l i s h royal collection, see T h e H a g u e
1988-89, pp. 119-22.
4. O n R o t t e n h a m m e r , see Peltzer 1916, Schlichtenmaier 1988; and
K . A n d r e w s i n Dictionary of Art, J. Turner, ed., v o l . 27 ( N e w Y o r k ,
1996), pp. 2 2 7 - 2 9 .
5. See W i n n e r 1961 and E r t z 1979, p. 14.
6. O n the R o m a n palaces i n w h i c h B o r r o m e o offered a c c o m m o d a t i o n
to artists and p i l g r i m s alike, see Vaes 1926-27, pp. 171-72 ( w i t h a
reference to G i u s e p p e R i v o l a , Vita di Federico Borromeo [ M i l a n , 1656]).
F o r the contact between these a r t i s t s — B r i l , R o t t e n h a m m e r , and
B r u e g h e l — a n d B o r r o m e o , see, a m o n g others, B e d o n i 1983, pp. 3 8 - 4 9 ;
and Jones 1993.
7. "Te R o o m g h e c o m e n wesende/ begaf h e m o p platen te schilderen/
gelijck de wijse der Nederlanders is": V a n M a n d e r 1604, f o l . 296r
(Van M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1994-99, v o l . 1, pp. 4 4 2 - 4 4 ; see also v o l . 6,
p. 70).
8. See E . Peters B o w r o n , " A B r i e f H i s t o r y o f E u r o p e a n O i l P a i n t i n g o n
C o p p e r , 1560-1775," i n P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 ,
pp. 9 - 3 0 .
9. See P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , pp. 146-58, 2 6 6 - 6 9 .
10. Landscape with Saint Jerome; see P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e
1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , p. 147, n . 3.
11. See E r t z 1979, nos. 1-32, the earliest o f w h i c h (nos. 4 - 5 ) are dated
1594. O f this group, o n l y nos. 17, 20, 21, and 23 are painted o n
panel. M o s t o f Brueghel's Italian copper plates measure ca. 25 x 35 c m
(about 10 x 14 in.).
12. E r t z 1979 includes 390 paintings, o f w h i c h 183 are painted o n copper,
175 o n panel, and the rest o n canvas, paper, or parchment. F o r a
critical discussion o f Ertz's selection, see Freedberg 1984. K l a u s E r t z
is preparing a revised e d i t i o n o f his 1979 m o n o g r a p h .
13. R e g a r d i n g collaborations between R o t t e n h a m m e r and B r i l , see Pijl
1998 and P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , cat. no. 6;
Schlichtenmaier (1988) does not m e n t i o n any collaborative paintings
by R o t t e n h a m m e r and B r i l . F o r the collaboration between
R o t t e n h a m m e r and B r u e g h e l , see Schlichtenmaier 1988, pp. 32-34,
8 6 - 9 6 . See also E r t z 1979, pp. 4 9 9 - 5 0 4 , 552 (sources 588-97) and
nos. 10, 15 (see A n t w e r p 1998, cat. no. 69), 19a, 27, 4 2 , 121, and 124
(for the last t w o , see Jones 1993, nos. I A 29b and I A 100); E r t z 1984,
no. 148; and A n t w e r p 1998, cat. no. 30. O n relations between B r i l
and B r u e g h e l , see Pijl 1996, pp. 7 4 - 7 6 , 78, n . 41.
14. C o m p a r e , for example, H a n s Rottenhammer's Rest on the Flight into
Egypt i n S c h w e r i n (Staatliches M u s e u m ) ; see Pijl 1998, fig. 2.
15. T h e A r t i s t camera (see note 3) revealed that the ass's m u z z l e was at
first placed l o w e r and m o r e to the right.
16. I n a d d i t i o n to the present painting, these include t w o w o r k s i n private
collections (one o f w h i c h is reproduced here as fig. 72) and one
i n V i e n n a (Kunsthistorisches M u s e u m ) . F o r the first t w o , see A n t w e r p
1998, cat. nos. 29 (Schlichtenmaier 1988, no. G 1 6) and 30; for the
V i e n n a painting, see E r t z 1979, no. 19a; and Schlichtenmaier 1988,
no. G 1 7. A c o p y o f the last-mentioned p a i n t i n g is to be f o u n d i n the
St. A n n e n - M u s e u m , Liibeck. F o r a c o p y after the p a i n t i n g i n the
M a u r i t s h u i s , see E r t z 1979, under no. 10; E r t z 1984, no. 151; and
T h e H a g u e 1988-89, p. 122, fig. b (sale, Sotheby's, L o n d o n , A p r i l 11,
1990, lot 38). See also Schlichtenmaier 1988, nos. G I 6 - 1 0 , K 2-11.
134 B R U E G H E L A N D R O T T E N H A M M E R
17- See A n t w e r p 1998, cat. no. 29. T h e d e p i c t i o n o f the classical temple
is based o n Brueghel's d r a w i n g o f 1593 (Paris, F o n d a t i o n C u s t o d i a ) ;
see E r t z 1979, fig. 199.
18. See P h o e n i x - K a n s a s C i t y - T h e H a g u e 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , cat. no. 7.
19. See Pijl 1998, p. 6 6 0 , n . 7. T h e close relations between B r i l and
R o t t e n h a m m e r were d o c u m e n t e d i n 1610; i b i d . , n. 4.
20. See E r t z 1979, PP- 116-36, nos. 5, 9, 25-27, 32, 65-67, 80, 81, 99,
and 107.
21. B r u e g h e l sometimes used the same motifs i n his H e l l scenes; see
B r o o s 1993, pp- 7 9 - 8 7 .
22. C o m p a r e , a m o n g others, R e a u 1955-59, v o l . 2, pp. 531-37; see also
H a l l 1974, p- 100. Jacobus de Voragine's Legenda aurea (Golden Legend)
(ca. 1280) was a popular v o l u m e treating the lives o f the saints; the
first D u t c h translations appeared i n 1505 and 1516.
23. H o l l s t e i n 1 9 4 9 - , v o l . 3, p. 268, no. 115.
24. See Crivelli 1868, pp. 3 - 4 .
25. " F r a tanto io staro aspettando g l i quadri de V S 111.mo per ornare de
paiesi et altri cosi seconde l'istori delli figuri.": C r i v e l l i 1868, pp. 50-51
Between 1596 and 1625, Jan B r u e g h e l wrote at least eighty letters to
.
Federico B o r r o m e o and to his agent, the M i l a n e s e n o b l e m a n Ercole
B i a n c h i . These letters are kept i n the Biblioteca A m b r o s i a n a i n M i l a n ;
see Cardinal Federico Borromeo, arciv. di Milano: Indice delle lettere a
lui dirette, conservate alVAmbrosiana ( M i l a n , i 9 6 0 ) . Brueghel's letters to
B i a n c h i , w h i c h ended u p i n the A m b r o s i a n a i n the late seventeenth
century, are b o u n d together i n one v o l u m e ( M S . G28oinf). A l m o s t
all these letters were p u b l i s h e d i n C r i v e l l i 1868. Brueghel's first letter
to the cardinal is dated O c t o b e r 10, 1596; the next surviving letter
dates from July 8, 1605, f o l l o w e d by extant letters from every year
up to 1625.
26. See C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 51. R o t t e n h a m m e r is not actually m e n t i o n e d by
name i n any o f Brueghel's surviving letters.
27. See E r t z 1979, nos. 124 and 121; and Jones 1993, nos. I A 100 and I A 29b
(as ca. 1605-06). T h e angels i n the Winter Landscape were attributed
by Schlichtenmaier (1988, pp. 34-35) to H e n d r i c k van Balen, f o l l o w i n g
Jost (1963, p. 92). R o s s i and R o v e t t a (1997, pp. 124, 127-28) date b o t h
paintings i n the Pinacoteca A m b r o s i a n a to 1594-95.
28. I n the deed o f gift (dated A p r i l 28, 1618) preserved in the Pinacoteca
A m b r o s i a n a , Music-making Angels is attributed to R o t t e n h a m m e r and
Brueghel; see Jones 1993, p. 352, no. I A 100.
29. See also B e d o n i 1983, p. 45; and Q u i n t 1986.
B R U E G H E L A N D R O T T E N H A M M E R 135
16
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick de Clerck
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man
ca. 1597-98
Oil on copper, diam. 27.4 cm (io3
/4 in.)
Neuburg an der Donau, Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen,
Staatsgalerie, inv. 1274
P R O V E N A N C E
Galerie Diisseldorf, 1730 inventory, no. 88
L I T E R A T U R E
Terlinden 1952, p. 102; Laureyssens 1967,
p. 175; Renger and Schleif 2005, pp. 28-31
•
' H I S P A R A D I S E L A N D S C A P E W I T H T H E F A L L O F M A N
—painted on a round copper plate—has traditionally
been seen as a collaborative creation by the Brussels
painters Denis van Alsloot (ca. 1570-ca. 1626) and Hendrick
de Clerck, the latter being responsible for the figures.1
As
regards the rendering of the animals and the landscape, however,
the picture is so closely related to several early paradise
depictions by Jan Brueghel that there can be little doubt
that these passages were painted by the Antwerp master.2
Of importance is this painting's similarity to one
of BrueghePs earliest-known paintings, a Paradise Landscape
with the Creation ofAdam^ signed and dated 1594, which he
painted during his stay in Rome (fig. 7s).3
On that copper
plate, Brueghel combined a wooded landscape and numerous
animals and birds with a stream full of fish and a view to
a sea with whales in the left background. Because the work
was made without the help of a figure painter, the biblical
story is depicted on a small scale and in the distance, not
prominently in the foreground. The lion—seen from the
side and turned toward the right—is identical in both
paintings, and other animals, such as the cats and the rabbits,
correspond very closely. The style of foliage in both these
works also points to the same hand, as does the use of
fine, nearly white brushstrokes for the detailing in the distant
background, where several animals (including a llama)
are depicted in silhouette. When Brueghel painted this
paradise scene, he had apparently never seen a live guinea
pig. The animal depicted here does not look particularly
lifelike—its head seems simply stuck onto its body—and
must have been based on knowledge gained from prints.
An identical lion occurs in a Paradise Landscape with the Entry
ofthe Animals into Noah's Ark, signed and dated 1596,4
in
136 B R U E G H E L A N D D E C L E R C K
137
FIGURE 75 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Paradise Landscape with the Creation of Adam, 1594. O i l o n copper, 26.5 x 35 c m (io3
/s x i^A in.). R o m e , Galleria D o r i a
Pamphilj, inv. F C 274
which the same sheep—with its curiously close-set eyesis
recognizable in the right foreground. In the context of
the present picture, this animal can perhaps be interpreted
as a reference to the Lamb of God, whose sacrifice redeemed
humankind from the original sin of Adam and Eve.
A striking detail to the left of Adam and Eve is the ass
with antlers, which was originally depicted somewhat larger
and in profile, as revealed by infrared imaging.5
It is not
clear how Brueghel hit upon the idea of including this mythical
beast, which neither he nor anyone else seems subsequently
to have depicted. Its source was possibly the Greek
writer Herodotus, who in the third century before Christ
wrote about the "horned ass" of Africa. His mention of
this animal is in fact regarded as the source of the legend
of the unicorn; a creature that appears, among other places,
in the background of BrueghePs Paradise Landscape with
the Creation ofAdam (fig. 75). In contrast to BrueghePs
two above-mentioned paradise scenes dating from 1594 and
1596, there are practically no birds in the Neuburg painting,
which means that the wooded landscape makes a less
crowded—and hence more natural—impression.6
138 B R U E G H E L A N D DE C L E R C K
In making this small painting, Jan Brueghel sought the
collaboration of the Brussels court painter Hendrick
de Clerck, who, like Brueghel, had worked for several years
in Italy.7
De Clerck's somewhat mannered nudes are recognizable
by their elegant poses, the smooth modeling of their
bodies (the painted surface of which seems almost enameled),
their elongated proportions and small heads, and
such details as their long toes, of which the second is the
longest.8
De Clerck was recorded in Rome in 1586-87, but
by 1590 he was already back in Brussels, before Brueghel
had even set foot in the holy city. After returning from Rome,
De Clerck painted large altarpieces for churches in Brussels
and its environs, as well as small cabinet pieces depicting
mythological and biblical subjects, which were popular
among high-placed collectors, including Emperor Rudolf II.
In 1596 the emperor recommended De Clerck to Archduke
Albert; indeed, De Clerck had already worked for Albert's
predecessor, Ernst of Austria (Rudolf, Albert, and Ernst
were brothers).
Given its strong similarities to Brueghel's earliest paradise
scenes, this collaborative painting depicting Adam
and Eve in the Garden of Eden must have been painted early
on, probably not long after Brueghel returned from Italy in
the autumn of 1596. The few known collaborative paintings
by Brueghel and De Clerck are generally dated 1 6 0 6 - 0 8
and include an ambitious portrayal of The Wedding ofPeleus
and Thetis (Paris, Musee du Louvre) and an Allegory of
the Tour Elements (Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado).9
The
present painting—which, as far as we know, is the first the
masters made together—proves that they were acquainted as
much as a decade before collaborating on the two abovementioned
paintings. Even so, they collaborated only
occasionally, which probably had to do with the distance
between their respective places of residence. Brueghel often
worked with his fellow townsmen Hendrick van Balen
and Rubens, whereas De Clerck regularly asked Denis
van Alsloot, who also lived in Brussels, to execute the landscape
settings for his figures.10
This small painting from Neuburg shows the same
episode in the story of the Creation as The Garden ofEden by
Rubens and Brueghel in the Mauritshuis (cat. no. 4), with
Eve reaching up in similar fashion to take the apple offered
to her by the serpent in the tree.11
It is remarkable that
at this early stage in his career Brueghel collaborated with
another artist on a Fall of Man, some twenty years before
he portrayed the subject with Rubens. A v S
N O T E S
1. See N . Schleif i n Renger and Schleif 2005, pp. 28-31. F o r a variant in
a m u c h larger scale o f the painting discussed here, see E s s e n - V i e n n a
2003, cat. no. 104 (as by D e n i s van A l s l o o t and H e n d r i c k de C l e r c k ) ;
the execution is too weak, however, to justify this attribution.
2. I n Schleissheim 1905, p. 216, no. 1001, the painting is assigned to
H e n d r i c k de C l e r c k and the animals to Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder.
In Schleissheim 1914, p. 56, no. 4001, the b a c k g r o u n d is attributed
to D e n i s van A l s l o o t . Terlinden (1952, p. 102) likewise considers the
w o r k a collaborative effort o f H e n d r i c k de C l e r c k and Jan Brueghel
the Elder.
3. E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, cat. no. 36.
4. Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Paradise Landscape with the Entry of the Animals
into Noah's Ark (inscribed at lower left, B R V E G H E L 1596, o i l o n copper,
27 x 35.5 c m [io5
/s x 14 i n . ] ; private collection); see A n t w e r p 1998,
cat. no. 35.
5. See Renger and Schleif 2005, p. 30.
6. O n the importance o f B r u e g h e l and Paul B r i l (1553/54-1626) for the
development o f the w o o d e d landscape in F l e m i s h art, see Pijl 2005,
p. 560.
7. O n H e n d r i c k de C le rc k , see W. Laureyssens i n Dictionary of Art,
J. Turner, ed., v o l . 7 ( N e w Y o r k , 1996), pp. 413-15.
8. Infrared i m a g i n g has s h o w n an elaborate u n d e r d r a w i n g o f the figures;
see Renger and Schleif 2005, p. 30.
9. H e n d r i c k de C l e r c k and Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, The Wedding ofPeleus
and Thetis (signed at lower left H . D . C . , o i l o n copper, 54.5 x 76.5 c m
[21V2 x 30 Vs i n . ] ; Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. R . F . 1945-17); sec
E r t z 1979, no. 148, fig. 4 9 9 ; H e n d r i c k de C l e r c k and Jan B r u e g h e l
the Elder, Allegory of the Four Elements (oil o n copper, 51 x 64 c m
[20 Vs x 2514 i n . ] ; M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1401); see
E r t z 1979, no. 145, fig. 438; Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k
de C le rc k , Diana andActaeon (oil o n panel, 51 x 89.5 c m [20 Vs x
35V4 i n . ] ; Prague, N a r o d n i Galerie, inv. D O - 4 1 3 0 ) ; see E r t z 1979,
no. 146, fig. 626. See also D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 155-56, 437; Terlinden
1952, pp. 1 0 5 - 0 6 ; Laureyssens 1967, pp. 1 6 4 - 6 6 ; and E r t z 1979, p. 513
and figs. 627 and 628.
10. O n the collaboration between H e n d r i c k de C l e r c k and D e n i s
van A l s l o o t (eight collaborative paintings dated between 1608 and
1612 are k n o w n ) , see Laureyssens 1967 and Brosens 1998. C o m p a r e ,
for example, Paradise Landscape with the Four Elements, by D e C l e r c k
and V a n A l s l o o t i n the A l t e Pinakothek, M u n i c h (inv. 2890), w h i c h
is signed by both painters; see Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 138-40.
11. R e g a r d i n g this gesture, see Frans Pourbus's Garden of Eden o f 1566
(Broos 1993, P- 93, % 5).
B R U E G H E L A N D DE C L E R C K 139
17
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen
Allegory of Fire
ca. 1 6 0 8 - 1 0
Oil on panel, 53.8 x 94.3 cm (21 Vs x 37Vs in.)
Rome, Galleria Doria Pamphilj, inv. 332
P R O V E N A N C E
I n the Galleria f r o m 1819
L I T E R A T U R E
T o n c i 1794, pp- 132-33; Sestieri 1942,
pp. 238-39; E e m a n s 1964, p. 84; Torselli
1969, no. 24; E r t z 1979, pp. 364, 368,
369, 372, 599, no. 251; Safarik and Torselli
1982, p. n o ; B e d o n i 1983, pp. 116-17;
P a r i s - L y o n 1991, p. 30; G e n o a 1996,
pp. 76, 78
????
l
= H E S P L E N D I D V A U L T E D I N T E R I O R W I T H A F O R G E
was one of BrueghePs most effective and versatile
inventions. Inspired by his own experience of the
ancient monuments of Rome and by the artistic responses of
other Northern artists to the city's ruins, Brueghel created a
magnificent stage set suitable for a variety of related allegorical
themes.1
In this work, the element of Fire is represented
by Vulcan's forge. At left, the muscular god of fire and
metalworking hammers out the shield of Aeneas on an anvil,
observed by Venus, his wife and the mother of Aeneas, and
Cupid. The dramatic setting portrays the "underground
cavern and galleries leading from [Mount] Etna" on the
island of Vulcania, site of Vulcan's forge as described in The
Aeneid (8.370-453), where the terrible arms of war were
made by the Cyclopes and where "bronze and pure gold-ore
flowed along the conduits, and wounding steel melted in a
great furnace," and "the cavern rumbled under the anvils
planted on its floor."2
Allegories of the elements were part of Flemish pictorial
tradition, popularized in the late sixteenth century through
print series.3
Brueghel and Hendrick van Balen transformed
the symbolic vocabulary of these scenes into delightfully
lush and abundant landscapes. Brueghel first undertook
allegorical subjects in Antwerp during the first years of the
seventeenth century, painting the atmospheric and primal
Allegory of Tire (fig. 76) for Cardinal Borromeo in 1608,
one of his first treatments of the vaulted interior. Perhaps as
a result of the success of this panel, he created a series of
elements, painting three additional panels for Borromeo,
with allegorical figures by Van Balen, completing the group
in 1621.4
140 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
141
FIGURE 76 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Allegory of Fire, 1608. O i l o n panel, 4 6 x 66 c m (18 Vs x 26 in.). M i l a n , Pinacoteca A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 68
The panel in the Doria Pamphilj collection is related to
another treatment of the element of Fire, which employs
a more insistent, three-part, vaulted interior with a lower
viewpoint and smaller-scale still life. Brueghel's first version
of the composition, Allegory ofFire ( 1 6 0 6 ; Lyon, Musee
des Beaux-Arts) may have been conceived as an independent
panel, the subject of which was Venus and Cupid in the
Smithy of Vulcan.5
Brueghel and Van Balen subsequently
executed the elements of Earth, Air, and Water to form a
series of the Four Elements.6
Virtually identical to the Lyon
panel, the Doria Pamphilj Allegory of Fire was probably completed
slightly later, about 1 6 0 8 - 1 0 , and was also part of
a series of Elements.7
In the Doria Pamphilj Allegory of Fire,
the top, right, and lower edges of the composition have
been extended, and small implements have been added to
the foreground.
The elegantly disposed architecture of the Allegory of Fire,
overgrown in places with foliage, recalls Brueghel's drawings
of the immense interiors of the Roman Colosseum, with
its flickering dark corners and textured masonry (see fig. 7).
A detailed drawing of an antique ruin on the Palatine Hill
(fig. 77) demonstrates the powerful impact these architectural
remains had on Northern artists and has often been
seen as the direct source for the Rome and Lyon panels and
their variants.8
However, a recently discovered drawing
(fig. 78) reveals that Brueghel based his overgrown ruined
setting, and the subject of Venus in the Forge of Vulcan
within it, on a composition by Paolo Fiammingo ( 1 5 4 0 -
142 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
1596), an Antwerp painter active in Venice.9
That he may
have known the composition only in the form of a print
is indicated by the fact that the angle of the main tunnel and
the bay with the forge as well as the placement of the stepped
display of objects and the large wooden waterwheel opposite
are reversed in Brueghel's paintings. Notably, Brueghel
included a number of the small elements that refer to the
theme of metalworking, including the precious objects displayed
on shelves and the mysterious chandelier. Fiammingo
was adept at devising detailed and clever mythological landscapes
for his patrons, who included the German banker
Hans Fugger.1 0
It is not surprising that Brueghel, aware of
other Venetian innovations, such as the paradise landscapes
of Jacopo Bassano (ca. 1510-1592), was also interested in
the lively and detailed compositions of his older colleague.
While Fiammingo's ideas for the Forge of Vulcan stimulated
Brueghel, the imposing distant landscape and particularly
the dazzling array of objects strewn across the floor of
the cavern in the Allegory ofFire were the product of his own
lively imagination. In its prolific detail, the vaulted interior
was ingeniously and even conscientiously conceived. An
entire industry takes place around the main figures. On the
left, several men are seen working around a second anvil,
while another tends the forge. Still farther into the interior,
a worker chases a cannon with a hammer and chisel and a
horse moves a large windlass, turning a drill for boring cannon.
In the right foreground, two men work molten metal
into a sheet beside a water-powered battering mill, while
two others polish finished objects on small buffing wheels.1 1
Details such as the little footbridge over the stream and the
rickety wood bridge at the right invite the viewer to meander
through the forge and into the formidable landscape. In
the foreground, the still-life items represent the diversity of
fire's products. Precious gold and pewter items cascade
over a rough-hewn sideboard. Spread across the foreground,
appropriately adjacent to Vulcan, are pieces of steel armor,
elegant damascened armor, a crossbow, sword, and rapier, as
well as the copper pots used in the armorer's craft.12
In front
of the foreground trough, bench shears sit upright in a
vice, while Vulcan's anvil, and the anvil used by the Cyclopes
in the background, sit correctly on a wood support.1 3
In
the corridor behind the Cyclopes stand the main products of
the foundry and the source material for ordnance: a cannon
and a bell.
Brueghel was immensely proud of his inventive allegories
of Fire. In a letter to Ercole Bianchi, agent for his patron
FIGURE 77 U n k n o w n N o r t h e r n artist, View of'AntiqueRuins, ca. 1595.
Pen and ink, 19.3 x 27.1 c m (75
/s x i o 5
/ s in.). A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m ,
Rijksprentenkabinet, inv. 1989-187
FIGURE 78 Paolo F i a m m i n g o (1540-1596), The Forge of Vulcan, ca. 1575.
Pen and b r o w n ink over black chalk, 14.6 x 20.8 c m (5V4 x 8V4 in.).
L o c a t i o n u n k n o w n
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 143
FIGURE 79 S t u d i o o f Jan Brueghel the Elder,
Venus in the Smithy of Vulcan, ca. 1608. Pen and
ink w i t h wash, 21.4 x 36 c m (83
/s x 14 Vs in.).
D r e s d e n , Kupferstichkabinett, inv. c 3775
Cardinal Borromeo, the artist stated (referring, perhaps,
to the 1608 Allegory ofFire) that he had a painting of Fire of
"various devilish invention and painstakingly made." A few
months later, he wrote to Cardinal Borromeo, noting that
in a few days he will send a painting of the element of Fire
in which "one sees every sort of arms, gold silver metals
and fire, also alchemy and distillation, everything done from
nature with the greatest diligence."14
Some of the relationships between still-life elements
in the Allegory ofFire may have been planned in advance. A
sheet of birds apparently served as a starting point for the
arrangement of birds in the Allegory ofAir in the Lyon and
Doria Pamphilj series.15
Though none are known today,
when composing the still-life elements Brueghel may have
relied on drawn studies of certain pieces of armor, tools,
and other objects that would have been similar to an existing
sheet of hunting gear (see fig. 64).1 6
Many pieces of armor
and other objects recur in other compositions, sometimes
in similar arrangements, but more often rearranged (see
cat. no. 16). The sideboard, bench, and stool were part of
his initial campaign on The Return from War: Mars Disarmed
by Venus (cat. no. 2) but were later obscured by Rubens.
Brueghel delighted in meticulously described surfaces and
in contrasting volumes, creating a visual counterpoint of
protrusions and recesses in the central pile of accouterments.
Hendrick van Balen, Brueghel's primary collaborator
in these years, painted the main trio of figures in this work
and the female personifications in the rest of the series.17
Van Balen's elegant, polished forms contrast with the
minute, textured brushwork of his colleague and served to
set the gods subtly apart from other figures in the interior.
A drawing often considered a preparatory sketch for
the Doria Pamphilj allegory (fig. 79) is neither the work
of Jan Brueghel the Elder nor Hendrick van Balen and may
simply record the relationship of the figures to the forge
interior and the primary features in it.1 8
A T W
N O T E S
1. See pp. 6 - 9 i n this v o l u m e .
2. V i r g i l , The Aeneid, W . F. Jackson, trans. ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1956),
pp. 213-14.
3. F o r example, Frans Floris (1516-1570), The Elements, ca. 1568; see
V a n de V e l d e 1975, v o l . 1, pp. 4 2 2 - 2 3 , no. P103-106.
4. F o r the M i l a n Allegory of Fire, signed and dated B R V E G H E L 1608, see
E r t z 1979, pp. 374, 589, no. 190; Jones 1993, pp. 7 9 - 8 0 , 86, 237 (noting
that Fire may have been returned to B r u e g h e l for changes); and R o s s i
and Rovetta 1997, p. 138. T h e Element of Water ( M i l a n , Pinacoteca
A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 65) was the second piece i n the series to be c o m pleted
and was sent to the cardinal i n the spring o f 1614; see E r t z 1979,
pp. 374, 607, no. 302. T h e Element of Earth (ca. 1618) and the Element
of Air (dated 1621) are today i n the c o l l e c t i o n o f the Musee d u L o u v r e
inv. 1092 and 1921; see E r t z 1979, pp. 614-15, no. 342, and p. 620,
no. 372, respectively. B o r r o m e o already o w n e d the B r u e g h e l - V a n Balen
144 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
collaboration, Ceres with the Four Elements ( M i l a n , Pinacoteca
A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 74 -16), w h i c h may be the "Ceres" mentioned by
the artist i n a letter to B o r r o m e o dated July 8, 1605; see Crivelli
1868, p. 50. See E r t z 1979, pp. 3 6 3 - 6 4 (not an autograph w o r k by Jan
Brueghel the E l d e r ) ; and B e d o n i 1983, p. 108. F o r Brueghel's treatment
o f the F o u r Elements theme and its relationship to the paradise
landscape, see K o l b 2005, pp. 52-59.
5. S i g n e d and dated o n the side o f the table at left: B R V E G H E L / 1606, o i l
on panel, 46 x 83 c m (18Vs x 32V8 in.); L y o n , M u s e e des Beaux A r t s ,
inv. 75-78.
6. Air is signed and dated B R V E G H E L 1611; Earth is signed and dated
B R V E G H E L 1610. T h e series appears i n the 1659 inventory o f the
collection o f A r c h d u k e W i l h e l m L e o p o l d ; see Buijs i n P a r i s - L y o n
1991, pp. 26-31; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , pp. 191-93, nos. A 1 3 6 - A 139.
7. T h e other three paintings in the series are all in R o m e , Galleria
D o r i a Pamphilj: Allegory of Earth, o i l o n panel, 54.2 x 94.5 c m
(21V8 x 371
/4 in.), inv. 322; Allegory of Water, o i l o n panel, 54 x 94 c m
(21V4 x 37 in.), inv. 348; and Allegory of Air, o i l o n panel, 50.3 x 80.1:
cm (19V4 x 31V2 in.), inv. 328. See E r t z 1979, p. 599, nos. 2 4 8 - 5 0 ; and
Safarik and Torselli 1982, p. 22. Several versions o f the L y o n - R o m e
Allegory of Fire are k n o w n ; see Paris 1977-78, p. 50; E r t z 1979, nos. 252,
254; and Werche 2004, p. 192. F o r later versions by Jan Brueghel the
Younger and his studio, see Vaes 1926-27, p. 184; and Paris 1977-78,
p. 50.
8. F o r m e r l y V o s m a e r C o l l e c t i o n , L e i d e n . G e r s o n considered the d r a w i n g
to be the w o r k o f Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r ( G e r s o n and Ter K u i l e i 9 6 0 ,
p. 59), an attribution d o u b t e d by W i n n e r (1961, pp. 194-95). E r t z
(1979, p. 373, fig. 4 4 4 ) tentatively attributed the d r a w i n g to Paul B r i l .
T h e d r a w i n g does not appear i n R u b y 1999. See also Buijs i n
P a r i s - L y o n 1991, p. 30, n. 17.
9. S o l d Sotheby's, A m s t e r d a m , N o v e m b e r 4, 2003, lot 7-
10. F o r F i a m m i n g o ' s drawings, see Meijer 1975 and Meijer 1983; for his
commissions for the Fugger, see F u c i k o v a and K o n e c n y 1983.
ri. Ffoulkes 1911, pp. 42, 47.
12. T h e apothecary bottles i n the L y o n Fire are labeled: T I N T V R A
C O R A L O R V ; A R A M P O T A B I ; A Q V A P A R A D I S I ; see Buijs in P a r i s - L y o n
1991, p. 26. F o r discussion o f the Milanese-style parade armor, see
cat. no. 2.
13. T h e w o o d support increases the spring o f the anvil; see Webber 1972,
p. 53-
14. " . . .che ha in mane i l quadro del fuoco qual sera de uario invencion
diabolica peina de lauor." (letter o f June 13, 1608, to B i a n c h i ) : Crivelli
1868, p. 104; and B e d o n i 1983, p. 115; " I n p o c h i g i o r n i mandera i l
quadro E l e m e n t a del fuoco, en quael e de vedere o i g n i sorte d armeria,
metali o r o argento e fuoco, ancho 1'alchimio et distilattioni, tutti fatti
del natural c o n grandismo diligenc." (letter o f September 26, 1608, to
C a r d i n a l B o r r o m e o ) : see Crivelli 1868, p. 112; and B e d o n i 1983, p. 116.
15. Jan Brueghel the Elder, Bird Study for an Allegory of Air (Braunschweig,
H e r z o g A n t o n U l r i c h - M u s e u m , inv. K K 79). W i n n e r (1972, p. 159,
fig. 38) believed this sheet was a preparatory sketch for the D o r i a
Pamphilj Allegory of Air.
16. See W i n n e r 1972, pp. 1 4 6 - 4 8 .
17. Werche (2004, pp. 193-94, nos. A 1 4 0 - A 143) dates the D o r i a Pamphilj
panels ca. 1 6 0 6 - c a . 1611 o n the basis o f V a n Balen's figure style.
18. T h e sheet does not correspond to any o f the k n o w n versions o f this
c o m p o s i t i o n . G e r s o n (Gerson and Ter K u i l e i 9 6 0 , p. 59) considered
the D r e s d e n sheet a preparatory d r a w i n g for the D o r i a Pamphilj
panel, but the attribution o f the sheet to Jan Brueghel the E l d e r was
questioned by W i n n e r (1961, p. 231) and E r t z (1979, p- 372).
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 145
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen
The Prophes y of Isaiah
ca. 160 9
O i l o n copper , 40. 2 x 50. 4 c m (15 % x 19 % in.)
M u n i c h , Bayerisch e Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alt e Pinakothek , inv . 199 9
INSCRIPTIONS LITERATURE
O n th e table t h e l d b y Isaiah , I V D I C A B I T / Schleifiheim inventor y o f 1775 , no . 79 7
G E N T E S , E T A R: / G V E T P O P V L O S M V L T O S ; / (Brueghel w i t h V a n B a l e n ) ; Rittershause n
ET / C O N F L A B V N T / G L A D I O S SVO S / I N 1788, p . 305 ; M u l l e r Hofsted e 1962 , p . 119 ;
V O M E R E S , / E T / L A N C E A S / SVA S / I N F A L C E S . Jost 1963 , pp . 119-20 ; Baumstar k 1974 ,
/ ISAIAE . 11 ; beneat h th e putto , P A X ; a t fa r pp. 136-37 , 1 4 6 - 4 7 ; E r t z 1979 , p . 383 , 59i ,
right, beneat h seate d female , F O E L I C I T A S ; no. 202 ; D i e m e r 1980 , pp . 16 4 (no . 16) , 233 ;
o n th e cross , PIETAS ; o n th e cornucopia , M u l l e r Hofsted e 1984 , p . 246 ; Renge r an d
D e n k 2002 , pp . 7 8 - 7 9 ; Werch e 2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1 ,
A B U N D A N T I A
pp. 83-85 , 140 , no . A 14 ; v o l . 2 , p . 32 4
P R O V E N A N C E
EXHIBITIONSPrince E l e c t o r M a x i m i l i a n I , Kammergalerie ,
Residenz, M u n i c h , b y 162 8 (no . 16) ; i n th e M u n i c h 1980 , v o l . 2 , cat . no . 264 ; M u n i c h
Electoral inventorie s o f 1641/42 , 1775 , 1885 , 1993, cat . no . 3 2
and 190 5 (Schlof i Schleifiheim )
T
H E S P A C I O U S , A R C H E D I N T E R I O R O F A R U I N P R O vides
th e settin g fo r a complex and unusua l allegor y
of Peac e tha t unite s biblica l prophes y wit h th e classica l
accouterments o f concord. Standin g ami d a profusion o f
metal item s produce d i n the smithy , includin g armor, coppe r
vessels, an d swords , th e O l d Testament prophe t Isaia h hold s
a table t bearin g th e Lati n tex t o f his prophes y o f peace: "an d
he shal l judge amon g th e nations , an d shal l rebuke man y
people: an d the y shal l beat thei r sword s int o plowshares ,
and thei r spear s int o prunin g hooks : natio n shal l not lif t u p
sword agains t nation , neithe r shal l they lear n wa r an y
more."1
I n th e forg e behin d him , muscular workme n refash ion
sword s t o mor e peaceabl e purpose s o n a n anvil . W i t h hi s
left hand , Isaia h gesture s towar d th e discarde d implement s
of wa r tha t li e before him , emphasizing their disuse . A
putto a t hi s feet , identifie d by a n inscriptio n as Pax (Peace) ,
holds a n oliv e branc h i n his lef t han d an d a n ornat e helme t
over th e flames o f a smal l fire— a motif fro m antiquit y
signifying th e en d o f war.2
At the right , thre e femal e figure s
personify th e reward s tha t accompan y freedo m fro m strife :
Felicity, seate d an d holdin g Mercury's caduceus, th e tradi tional
attribut e o f peace, embodie s divin e happiness. Behin d
her stan d Piet y in blue, holdin g a radiant cross , an d Abun dance,
wh o embrace s a brimmin g cornucopia and hold s
a shea f o f wheat.3
A solitar y artichoke, a n additiona l symbol
of fruitfulness , visuall y bridge s th e spac e betwee n th e tw o
groups o f figures, whil e a spaniel an d a basket o f flower s
signify faithfulnes s an d th e flourishin g of concord. Th e
allusive visua l languag e almos t certainl y refers t o th e Twelv e
Years' Truce signe d i n Antwerp on Apri l 9 , 1609 , bringing
hostilities betwee n th e Norther n Netherland s an d Spai n t o
halt.4 The combination o f the O l d Testament subject with
146 B R U E G H E L A N D V AN B A L E N
18
147
symbols and personifications drawn from classical and emblematic
sources reflects not only the intertwined facets of
Counter-Reformation politics in the Southern Netherlands
but also the erudite clientele for such cabinet pictures in
Antwerp.5
As the only overtly political subject in Brueghel
and Hendrick van Balen's joint oeuvre, The Prophesy of Isaiah
offers a refined counterpoint to large-scale treatments of
the theme of Peace.
This beautiful work on copper is one of Brueghel's most
imposing conceptions of the familiar arched interior with
its long, receding corridor. The ruins served as the setting
for the subject of Venus in the Forge of Vulcan, first painted
in 1606 and executed with Van Balen,6
and several variations
from 1608, along with Brueghel's Allegory of Tire (see fig. 76).
The structure represents an amalgam of Brueghel's own
observations while in Rome and the fantastic compositions
of other artists, particularly those of Paolo Fiammingo
(1540-1596), who also included the incongruent chandelier
motif (see fig. 78).7
Here, the perspective is from a somewhat
lower vantage point, and the distant reaches of the corridor
are more luminous than in previous works by Brueghel
and Van Balen, while the foreground has been closed in on
the right side to form an alcove similar to the one seen in
Rubens and Brueghel's The Return from War: Mars Disarmed
by Venus (cat. no. 2). A number of the still-life objects hanging
on the wall nearby—including the lamp, the quiver,
and the bridle—appear in both works. As in his other forge
interiors, Brueghel littered the foreground with an astonishing
array of metal items produced by the busy forge in
the background, as well as wonderfully detailed weapons
and their parts, such as the crossbows on the wall, and their
winders and the musket with its ornate crutch just visible
behind Felicity. Many of the implements, such as the pincers,
hammers, and shears, reflect the armorer and metalworker's
craft. In the left foreground are the tools and products
of the goldsmith and the mint master. This highly successful
and evidently popular setting was Brueghel's own invention,
and thus places the origins of this work in his studio about
1608.8
As in his collaborations with Van Balen on similar
themes, Brueghel painted the men around the forge and in
the passage. The prophet Isaiah, as well as Felicity and
her companions, are characteristic of Van Balen's style about
1608, with its more elongated figures, an approach that
would change with the influence of Rubens, who arrived in
Antwerp later that year.9
Isaiah resembles the tall, bearded
saint in Van Balen's SaintJohn the Baptist Preaching from 1608
and reverses his pose.1 0
While in other compositions of the forge by these two
artists, such as the Allegory of Tire (cat. no. 17), Van Balen's
figural contribution was a relatively straightforward addition
to an elaborate landscape, the Munich painting was a somewhat
more complex matter. There is a strong possibility
that the subject was altered at a late stage. Close inspection
reveals that drapery was added to all of the main figures.
Brown legs are visible through the yellow hem of Isaiah's
robe, and there appear to be objects beneath or behind him,
while creamy skin is visible through the garments of Felicity
and Abundance. A pentimento in the proper right hand of
Felicity indicates that it was once open in an outward pointing
gesture. Significantly, the sensuous seated figure of
Felicity resembles that of Venus in the 1608 Feast of the Gods
(fig. 8 0 ) . 1 1
The Prophesy ofIsaiah may have initially been conceived
and executed as a Venus in the Smithy of Vulcan or
perhaps as Venus Preparing Mars for War (see, for example,
fig. 81), subjects Brueghel and Van Balen painted in collaboration
and later modified either at the behest of a patron or
to appeal to a specialized market for subjects related to the
Twelve Years' Truce.1 2
The additional drapery would have
been required by the transition of the theme from a sensuous
scene of Mars and Venus to that of elevated political discourse.
The unusual inclusion of Isaiah may also have been specified
by a patron. The subject of the prophet Isaiah, while
unusual, is compatible with the ancient interior. Moreover,
an earlier episode in the life of the prophet, not directly
alluded to in this scene, when the seraph pressed a glowing
ember to his lips, links him with the element of fire.1 3
Although the additions of draperies and attributes need not
have been made in early 1609 (other treatments of the theme
of peace were executed by other painters within a few years
of the signing of the truce), their careful integration into
the scene suggests that they were made by Van Balen him­
self.14
In contrast to The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by
Venus, with its sensuous and playful treatment of the themes
of Peace and the sense of Touch, The Prophesy ofIsaiah has
a didactic quality, perhaps reflecting a concern to emphasize
the revised content over the captivating setting.1 5
As Renger has recently suggested, the appearance of The
Prophesy ofIsaiah in the collection of the Wittelsbach prince,
later elector of Bavaria, Maximilian I (1573-1651), may offer
some insight into its early history and significance.16
Deeply
religious and morally rigorous, Maximilian organized the
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 149
FIGURE 8 0 H e n d r i c k van Balen and Jan Brueghel the Elder, The Feast of the Gods, 1608. O i l o n copper,
34.5 x 46.5 c m (i35
/8 x 18 V4 in.). C o p e n h a g e n , Statens M u s e u m for K u n s t , inv. Sp. 225
FIGURE 81 Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k van Balen, Venus Preparing Mars for War, 160(8 ?).
O i l o n copper, 51 x 77 c m (20V8 x 3 0 i n . ) . F o r m e r l y K o n i g s Wusterhausen, Schlofi; n o w at
St. Petersburg, State Heritage M u s e u m ©Stiftung Preufiische Schlofter u n d Garten B e r l i n - B r a n d e n b u r g
150 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
Catholic League of German states and was almost constantly
engaged in war during his reign.1 7
He was also an ardent
collector who expanded the princely collection and established
the Kammergalerie in 1611.1 8
The Prophesy ofIsaiah
accompanied another Old Testament scene in the gallery,
Jan Brueghel the Elder's Jonah Emerging from the Whale of
about 1595-96 (Munich, Alte Pinakothek).1 9
A T W
N O T E S
1. Isaiah 2:4.
2. F o r a discussion o f the m o t i f o f Peace b u r n i n g arms and its sources,
see Baumstark 1974, pp. 131 -37- T h e m o t i f o f the b u r n i n g o f arms,
t h o u g h relatively u n c o m m o n in A n t w e r p p r i o r to Rubens's return in
1608, was k n o w n to sixteenth- and early-seventeenth-century A n t w e r p
artists w h o were familiar w i t h Italian Renaissance examples, notably
the fresco Peace Burning Arms by Francesco Salviati (1510-1563) i n
the Sala dell' U d i e n z a , Palazzo Vecchio, Florence; see W o o l l e t t 2 0 0 4 ,
pp. 4 5 - 4 6 .
3. I n Cesare Ripa's e m b l e m representing Peace {Iconologia, 1603,
PP- 375-78), the elements o f the earth's fruitfulness i n times o f peace,
the olive and grain, and the s y m b o l o f abundance, the c o r n u c o p i a ,
are u n i t e d w i t h the personification o f Peace, a y o u n g w o m a n h o l d i n g
a torch to a pile o f arms.
4. Jost (1963, p. 119) first suggested a connection w i t h the Twelve Years'
Truce. See also Renger and D e n k 2002, p. 79. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f the
subject o f V u l c a n beating swords into ploughshares w i t h Pax and
Justitia occurred i n the decorations for the t r i u m p h a l entry o f A l b e r t
and Isabella into L e u v e n i n N o v e m b e r 1599, w h e n similar hopes for
peace and prosperity were expressed by the city's inhabitants u p o n
the accession o f the couple to the governorship o f the Southern
Netherlands. See Werner T h o m a s , " A n d r o m e d a U n b o u n d : T h e R e i g n
o f A l b e r t and Isabella in the S o u t h e r n Netherlands, 1598-1621," in
Brussels 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , p. 2.
5. T h e theme o f Peace remained central for A n t w e r p artists i n the decades
f o l l o w i n g the Truce, particularly after its failure and the r e s u m p t i o n o f
hostilities in 1621 and in light o f Antwerp's o w n labored e c o n o m i c
recovery. Rubens's inventive allegories a b o u n d e d w i t h b o t h sacred and
secular elements. A l m o s t three decades later, the personifications o f
fruitfulness (Abundantia), Felicity, and Piety f o u n d i n The Prophesy of
Isaiah recur i n Rubens's design for the Temple o f Janus i n his p a i n t i n g
o f the t r i u m p h a l entry o f A r c h d u k e F e r d i n a n d into A n t w e r p i n A p r i l
1635 (on the right side o f the arch devoted to Peace and its attributes);
see M a r t i n 1972, pp. 1 6 4 - 6 6 , 169-73.
6. Allegory of Fire (1606, o i l o n panel, 46 x 83 c m [18 Vs x 32V8 i n . ] ;
L y o n , M u s e e des Beaux A r t s , inv. 75); see Werche 2 0 0 4 , pp. 191-93,
no. A 136.
7. See pp. 8, 142-43 and fig. 76 in this v o l u m e .
8. M i i l l e r Hofstede (1984, p- 246) disagreed w i t h E r t z (1979, p. 383) and
argued that V a n Balen devised the subject.
9. T h e m a i n figures were identified as the w o r k o f V a n Balen as early as
1775 and were later attributed to Frans Francken the Y o u n g e r and
H a n s Rottenhammer, before their reattribution to V a n Balen i n 1962
by M i i l l e r Hofstede (1962, p. 119). See Renger and D e n k 2002, p. 79,
and Werche 2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1, p. 140, for references to previous attributions
in gallery catalogues between 1775 and 1963.
10. L o c a t i o n u n k n o w n . See Jost 1963, p. 117; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1,
p. 141, no. A 17; v o l . 2, p. 326.
11. See Jost 1963, p. 101; E r t z 1979, pp- 4 0 9 , 586, no. 170; and Werche
2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1, p. 183, no. A 117; v o l . 2, p. 401.
12. F o r Venus Preparing Mars for War, see E r t z 1979, pp. 383, 5 8 9 - 9 0 , no.
191, fig. 455; Werche 2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1, p. 200, no. A 164; v o l . 2, p. 436; and
Bartoschek and V o g t h e r r 2 0 0 4 , pp. 102-3.
13. Isaiah 6:607.
14. G i v e n its prophetic subject, The Prophesy of Isaiah c o u l d also have
been executed i n the m o n t h s leading u p to the s i g n i n g o f the Truce.
See cat. no. 2 for a discussion o f other allegories o f Peace.
15. It is n o t e w o r t h y that all o f the m a i n figures are identified by inscriptions,
despite their clear attributes.
16. Renger and D e n k 2002, p. 79. T h e p a i n t i n g appears i n the 1627/30
inventory o f paintings i n the K a m m e r g a l e r i e as "ein K u p f e r 1 Schuech
5 Z o l l h o c h , u n d 1 Schuech 9V4 Z o l l braitt, darauffPax, pietas u n d
abundantia, i n der mitten stehet der Prophet Isaias m i t volgender
inscription. Iucdicabit gentes et arguet p o p u l o s multos, et conflabunt
gladios suos i n vomeres, et lanceas suas in fakes. Isaiae 11. W i c dann
Kriieges u n d andere Waffen, v o r u n d u m b ihne h e r u m b l i n g e n , alles gar
miihesam, u n d vleissig v o n obgedachtem Priigel gemalt, m i t N o . 16":
D i e m e r 1980, p. 164. Werche (2004, v o l . 1, p. 14) notes that the painting
must date after 1609 because it does not appear in the inventory
o f that year.
17. Pius W i t t m a n n , " M a x i m i l i a n I," The Catholic Ency lopedia, v o l . 10 (1911),
PP- 75-77-
18. M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 1886; see D i e m e r 1980, pp. 129-174.
A l s o discussed in Werche 2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1, pp. 140, 262. M a x i m i l i a n c o m i
s s i o n e d four hunt scenes f r om Rubens, i n c l u d i n g The Hippopotamus
Hunt (ca. 1616; M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 4797), for his palace at
Schleifiheim; see Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 4 4 8 - 5 1 .
19. N u m b e r e d 16 and 14 respectively i n the 1629/30 inventory o f the
Kammergalerie, the t w o paintings may have h u n g i n p r o x i m i t y ; see
D i e m e r 1980, p. 164.
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 151
19
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen
Fruit Garland with Angels
ca. 1615
Oil on panel, 25.3 x 21.2 cm (10 x 83
/s in.)
Private collection
P R O V E N A N C E
B r o d Gallery, L o n d o n , 1979
L I T E R A T U R E
E r t z 1979, p p . 318-19, no. 352a; Freedberg
1984, p . 577; Werche 2 0 0 4 , p . 155, no. A 56
E X H I B I T I O N
A m s t e r d a m - B r a u n s c h w e i g 1983, cat. no. 23
????
L
' H E M A D O N N A A N D C H I L D ( P E R H A P S I N T H E C O M pany
of Joseph or Saint John the Baptist) are missing
in this Fruit Garland with Angds by Jan Brueghel the
Elder and Hendrick van Balen. A rectangle with an arched
upper edge has been sawn out of the panel, and it was this
very piece that must have contained a little painting, most
likely by Van Balen. The garland of fruit and vegetables
is suspended from ribbons held up by angels emerging from
the clouds. Two other angels are poised to crown the nowmissing
Madonna with a wreath of flowers. Yet another two
sit in the garland at the bottom, turned toward each other:
one angel holds a bunch of grapes—possibly referring in this
context to the Eucharist—while the other strokes a parrot.
About 1 6 0 5 - 0 6 Brueghel painted his first flower pieces,
depicting numerous species and varieties of flowers—often
exotic ones—in full bloom.1
Two years later he executed his
first flower garland around a small painting on a silver plate
of the Virgin and Child by Hendrick van Balen (fig. 82).2
By
1607 that composite work was already in the possession of
Cardinal Federico Borromeo in Milan,3
but Brueghel's letters
to Borromeo and his agent, Ercole Bianchi, reveal that the
cardinal sent the picture back to Antwerp at the beginning of
1608 to have Brueghel paint a small landscape behind the
Madonna.4
The foundation charter of Borromeo's Pinacoteca
Ambrosiana of 1618 records that the work had "a frame and
cover illuminated with gold,"5
offering protection worthy
of a precious jewel. Unfortunately, the cover has been lost.
Brueghel informed his Maecenas of the expenses he had
incurred: "I spent a few scudi on the golden frame and the
painting of the Madonna."6
Brueghel praised his own flower
garland as "exceedingly precise" and rendered "completely
from nature."7
The Milan work is the only surviving, intact
152 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
153
FIGURE 82 Jan Brueghel the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k van Balen, Madonna and
Child in a Flower Garland, 1 6 0 7 - 0 8 . O i l o n panel and silver, 27 x 22 c m
(io5
/8 x 85
/8 in.). M i l a n , Pinacoteca A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 71
Einsatzbild by Brueghel, who from then on painted garlands
mainly around seemingly separate paintings by such artists
as Van Balen and Rubens (see cat. no. 12 and figs. 1, 69, and
84). The work discussed here—Brueghel's smallest fruit
garland—is the only other example of a garland made to
surround a picture on a separate support.
The restoration of Catholicism in Antwerp in 1585 (still
referred to in the North as the "Fall of Antwerp") did much
to revive the worship of the Virgin Mary.8
New brotherhoods
were dedicated to her, and there was renewed interest
in miraculous images. This reaction was provoked in part
by the fact that it was precisely such images of the Blessed
Virgin that had fallen victim to the iconoclastic furies that
raged periodically in the Netherlands between 1566 and the
early 1580s. The archdukes Albert and Isabella, demonstrating
their stout defense of the Catholic faith, had a basilica built
in Scherpenheuvel—a place of pilgrimage in the Southern
Netherlands—to house a statue of the Virgin said to possess
miraculous powers.
In Italy there was a long tradition of Einsatzbilder: holy
or miraculous images inserted into works of art specially
designed to enclose them. The best-known example is
undoubtedly the altarpiece Rubens made in 1606-08 for the
Madonna della Vallicella in the Chiesa Nuova in Rome:9
the final version of the altarpiece features the miraculous
image of the Virgin and Child (originally painted on the wall
of a house), borne by angels forming a garland (compare
cat. no. 29). The holy image—which was covered by another
depiction of the Virgin and Child, this one painted by
Rubens—was shown only on high feast days.
While Rubens was working in Rome on his largest
Italian commission, Brueghel painted his first flower garland
around Van Balen's small painting of the Virgin and Child,
probably in close consultation with his patron, Cardinal
Borromeo, and perhaps with Rubens's work on the Madonna
della Vallicella in his mind's eye, for it is not only the depiction
of Mary as a half-length figure that recalls miraculous
images of the Virgin but also Brueghel's splendid flower
garland, which strengthened the impression—as surely as
did the costly golden cover that once protected the whole—
that the image was holy. The effect of a special painting
within a painting, whose significance is reinforced by the
garland surrounding it, continues to crop up in Brueghel's
later garlands and also in, for instance, the work of Daniel
Seghers (1590-1661).
From about 1615 Brueghel expanded his repertoire to
include garlands of fruit, vegetables, and sheaves of grain
(see fig. 83), at times combined with flowers (see cat. no. 12
and fig. 86). When used to frame a representation of the
Virgin and Child, fruit symbolizes the fertility of the mother
of God and the abundance of God's creation (see fig. 85).
These garlands, too, were painted with the utmost exactness,
as evidenced by the panel displayed here, in which sundry
varieties of fruit and vegetables are rendered with painstaking
precision. Remarkably, not one of the fruits or plants
appearing in this painting is to be found in other garlands
by Brueghel—as, for example, parts of the Mauritshuis
fruit garland appear identically in the Madonna and Child in
a Garland ofEmit and Flowers from the Museo del Prado
154 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
(compare cat. nos. 21 and 12). After all, Brueghel generally
used his stock motifs—with only small adjustments and
variations—again and again. This is not the case here, however,
which suggests that this fruit garland is one of Brueghel's
earliest, and that while executing it he was not yet able
to draw upon an extensive store of preparatory studies.
The angels in this garland recall Rubens's altarpiece for
the Madonna della Vallicella—in which the holy image
is supported by angels fashioned into a garland—as well as
the large flower garland surrounding the Virgin and Child
in Rubens and Brueghel's Madonna in a Flower Garland
in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich (see fig. 1), which can be
regarded as an adaptation of the Italian altarpiece. The
angels—perhaps somewhat sentimental in our eyes—were
especially popular in the art of the Counter-Reformation,
because they were considered capable of inducing in the
viewer a state of pious rapture.10
A v S
N O T E S
1. R e g a r d i n g Brueghel's earliest flower piece o f 1605, see Segal 1982.
F o r Brueghel's flower paintings, see E r t z 1979, pp. 252-56.
2. See Falchetti 1969, pp. 132-33; E r t z 1979, no. 187; Freedberg 1981,
pp. 116-17; Jones 1993, pp. 8 4 - 8 7 , p. 233, no. 26; and Werche 2 0 0 4 ,
no. A 33.
3. T h e p a i n t i n g is m e n t i o n e d i n the c o d i c i l to B o r r o m e o ' s w i l l , w h i c h is
dated September 15, 1607; see Jones 1993, appendix 1, p. 341.
4. T h e p a i n t i n g is m e n t i o n e d i n letters w r i t t e n by B r u e g h e l to B o r r o m e o
and B i a n c h i o n February 1 (two letters), June 13, and A u g u s t 1, 1608;
see C r i v e l l i 1868, pp. 92, 99, 104, 107. B r u e g h e l wrote to B o r r o m e o o n
February 1, "I shall not fail to do m y best as regards the small p a i n t i n g
w i t h the compartments o f flowers, i n w h i c h I shall accommodate a
M a d o n n a w i t h a landscape, according to the instructions o f Y o u r
Illustrious H i g h n e s s [alternatively: i n w h i c h I shall insert, according
to the instructions o f Y o u r Illustrious H i g h n e s s , a M a d o n n a w i t h a
landscape]. I hope and believe that, i f any w o r k o f m i n e has ever
pleased Y o u r Illustrious H i g h n e s s , this w i l l surpass t h e m all." ( N o n
m a n c h o d industriarme i n t o r n o al quadretto del compertemento
delli fiori: nel quale secondo l'ordine d v s I L L . m a accomedero dentro
una M a d o n n a c o n paiesetto. Spero et credo che, si alcuna opera m i a
habbia piaceuto a v s I l l . m dato gusto, che questa habbia da supportare
tutte.): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 92. T h i s passage is ambiguous, but
since C r i v e l l i (1868, p. 100), it has been taken to mean that it was
B o r r o m e o ' s idea to paint a garland o f flowers a r o u n d V a n Balen's
painting. H o w e v e r , the p a i n t i n g was already i n the cardinal's possession
i n 1607, as emerges f r o m the c o d i c i l to his w i l l , where it is listed
as " F l o w e r G a r l a n d with M a d o n n a " (see note 3 above). It seems likely,
therefore, that Brueghel t o o k the initiative to supply V a n Balen's
p a i n t i n g — w h i c h he h i m s e l f had purchased (see note 6 b e l o w ) — w i t h
a garland. I n the letter quoted above, Brueghel seems simply to
be saying that he is f o l l o w i n g B o r r o m e o ' s instructions and a d d i n g a
landscape to the existing picture.
5. " c o n cornice e c o n coperta miniata d'oro": Jones 1993, appendix 11,
P- 353-
6. " i o ho spesa alle cornici orefri et a le pittura delle M a d o n a alcuni
scudi" (letter f r o m Brueghel to Bianchi o f June 13, 1608): C r i v e l l i 1868,
p. 104. I n his letter to B i a n c h i o f A u g u s t 1 o f that same year, Brueghel
wrote that he had p a i d four filipi for the frame and twelve filipi for
the small painting o f the M a d o n n a , w h i l e the cardinal had given h i m
300 filipi for the w h o l e . It is not entirely clear what he meant w h e n
he w r o t e that he was considering the m o n e y "as a small present, but
not as payment" (per una gentilezza m a n o n per pagamento): C r i v e l l i
1868, p. 107.
7. "fastidioso" and "tutto del naturel" (letter from Brueghel to Bianchi
o f A u g u s t 1, 1608): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 107.
8. W h a t follows is based largely o n Freedberg 1981.
9. R e g a r d i n g this c o m m i s s i o n , see cat. no. 29.
10. See Freedberg 1981, pp. 133-34..
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 155
20
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres
Receiving Gifts from the Four Seasons
ca. 1617
Oil on panel, 104 x 68.9 cm (41 x 27Vs in.)
Antwerp, Dexia Bank, inv. 1291
Not exhibited
P R O V E N A N C E L I T E R A T U R E
C a p t a i n M o n t a g u e T h o m a s collection, A n n u a l R e p o r t M a u r i t s h u i s 1895, p- 97; Jost
W e y m o u t h , sale, L o n d o n , July 13, 1895, 1963, p. X L ; E r t z 1979, pp. 316, 614, no. 341;
lot 82; S a l o m o n van B e r g collection, N e w Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. A 98
Y o r k ; Bart van B e r g collection, N e w York,
E X H I B I T I O N S
1950; sale, L o n d o n (Sotheby's), June 25, 1969,
L o n d o n 1979, cat. no. 37; Brussels 1997-98,lot 86; D u i t s (art dealer), L o n d o n ; acquired
cat. no. 4 9 ; A n t w e r p 1998, cat. no. 871969
A
G A R L A N D O F F R U I T , V E G E T A B L E S , A N D B L O S S O M S
depicted against a landscape background surrounds
an oval medallion containing an allegorical representation
of agriculture. At the upper right, winged putti
fasten the garland to a tree; at the upper left, others bear the
long garland up to the heavens, where Jupiter and his eagle
are seated. In the foreground, two kneeling nymphs and
their little helpers put the finishing touches on the garland,
which consists of melons, grapes, lemons, plums, apples,
strawberries, and cherries, as well as cabbages, beans,
artichokes, carrots, and sheaves of wheat. Birds, monkeys,
squirrels, rabbits, and guinea pigs feast on the rich pickings.
In the medallion, four figures personifying the Four Seasons
present the fruits of the earth to Ceres, the goddess of
agriculture and abundance, who is seated beneath a red baldachin.
Spring crowns the goddess with a wreath of flowers;
Summer, kneeling at her feet, presents her with a cornucopia;
Autumn offers her grapes; the old man representing
Winter brings her a plate of dried corncobs. The putti
around them represent the signs of the zodiac; their attributes
are depicted on their wings and on the objects they
hold. They likewise symbolize the cycle of nature.1
Both
versions of this composition by Jan Brueghel and Hendrick
van Balen are autograph paintings, but small differences
between the two suggest that the panel in Antwerp was the
"principaeP (i.e., the original, or first version), and that
it was this painting which is depicted in the 1618 Allegory of
Taste by Brueghel and Rubens in the Museo Nacional del
Prado (cat. no. 8).2
The Mauritshuis painting was probably
made slightly later, about 1621-22, as confirmed by the brand
marks on the back of the panel.3
156 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
21
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres
Receiving Gifts from the Four Seasons
ca. 1621-22
Oil on panel, 106.5 x
70 cm ( 4 1 % x 27V2 in.)
The Hague, Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, inv. 233
I N S C R I P T I O N S
O n the reverse, panelmaker's mark M V
[in ligature], A , and A n t w e r p city mark
P R O V E N A N C E
Johan A n t h o n y van K i n s c h o t sale, Delft,
July 21, 1767, lot 29, w i t h d r a w n ; s o l d
to Stadholder W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e , 1767;
Gallery o f Stadholder W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e
1774-95; M u s e e N a p o l e o n ( M u s e e d u
L o u v r e ) , Paris, 1795-1815; G a l l e r y o f
,
W i l l e m V , T h e H a g u e , 1815-22; M a u r i t s h u i s ,
since 1822
L I T E R A T U R E
H o e t and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 3, pp. 606,
692; T h o r e - B u r g e r 1858-60, v o l . 1, p. 287;
A n n u a l R e p o r t M a u r i t s h u i s 1895, p. 97; Jost
1963, pp. 94, 121; Drossaers and L u n s i n g h
Scheurleer 1974-76, v o l . 3, p. 2 0 4 ; E r t z 1979,
pp. 313, 323, no. 340; D i a z P a d r o n 1995,
p. 314-15; Werche 2 0 0 4 , pp. 8 0 - 8 1 , 173-74,
no. A 97
E X H I B I T I O N S
G h e n t i 9 6 0 , cat. no. 38; Brussels 1965,
cat. no. 25; A m s t e r d a m - B r a u n s c h w e i g 1983,
cat. no. 22; E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98,
cat. no. 9 0 ; A n t w e r p 1998, cat. no. 86;
A m s t e r d a m - Cleveland 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 ,
cat. no. 4 ; D e n B o s c h - L e u v e n 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ,
cat. no. 78
Since 1767 the Hague painting has been described as a
depiction of Cybele,4
the ancient Phrygian goddess of the
earth and nature. It must be said, however, that the specific
attributes of this goddess are lacking.5
We do see, rather,
the attributes of Ceres, or Demeter as she was known to
the Greeks, such as the scythe held by a putto on the right.6
In the Antwerp painting, the enthroned goddess wears a
crown of wheat—another of Ceres' attributes—but in the
Mauritshuis painting she is bare-headed, which is possibly
what caused the confusion as to her identity, for in this
painting the crown of wheat is worn by the woman presenting
the cornucopia. At any rate, both Cybele and Ceres
personify the abundance of nature and are sometimes combined
in one figure.
The estate of Jan Brueghel the Elder contained a "large
fruit garland with Ceres in the middle,5
'7
which Jan Brueghel
the Younger sold after his father's death for 588 guilders,
making it the costliest painting in his father's estate. Jan II
recorded this in the account book he had kept since 1625,
which has been partly preserved in an eighteenth-century
transcription.8
This notation might refer to one of the
fruit garlands discussed here, of which there is also an extant
copy by Jan Brueghel the Younger.9
It could also be the
Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces in Glasgow
(fig. 83), in which Rubens painted the figures to accompany
an identical fruit garland by Brueghel.1 0
With no other artist did Brueghel work so intensively as
he did with Van Balen.1 1
Brueghel seems to have collaborated
with Rubens only on special occasions, but he worked
with his friend and colleague Van Balen—his junior by
eight years—on almost a daily basis. Indeed, a considerable
part of both their oeuvres was produced in collaboration.1 2
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 157
20
158
21
159
F I G U R E 8 3 J a n B r u e g h e l t h e E l d e r a n d P e t e r P a u l R u b e n s , F r u i t G a r l a n d
with Nature Adorned by the Graces, ca. 1615. O i l o n panel, 106.7 x 72.4 c m
(42 x 28 V2 in.). G l a s g o w A r t M u s e u m s , K e l v i n g r o v e , inv. 609
The fact that in 1604 both painters moved to the Lange
Nieuwstraat in Antwerp no doubt simplified their collaboration,1
3
since their panels and copper plates could now be
carried back and forth with ease. The earliest known painting
in which the hands of both masters can be recognized dates
from 1600,1 4
presumably just after Van Balen's return from
an Italian sojourn of several years. Their first allegory, Ceres
and the Four Elements, was painted in 1604.1 5
In their collaborative
paintings—allegories, mythological and biblical
scenes, and garlanded compositions—Van Balen was responsible
for most of the figures, while Brueghel painted the
landscapes, flowers, fruit, animals, and precious objects.
After Brueghel's death in 1625, Jan Brueghel the Younger
took over his father's studio and continued to run it in the
same way, as evidenced not only by the surviving paintings
in the style of his father but also by the uninterrupted collaboration
with such artists as Rubens and Van Balen. Jan IPs
account book for the years 1626-31 contains such passages
as "made for Mr. van Balen a ground [background] behind
a piece," "completed a ground... the little figures are by
Mr. van Balen," and "made... a ground behind a Madonna
by Mr. van Balen."1 6
Because the working methods of
both the elder and younger Brueghel must have been nearly
identical, these passages suggest that Van Balen usually
painted the figures first, after which Brueghel added the
backgrounds. This order was not rigidly adhered to, however,
and was perhaps different when painting garlands;
in the medallion of the painting from the Mauritshuis,
Van Balen actually painted the figures first, after which
Brueghel added the landscape and flowers. Remarkably, the
order appears to have been reversed in the rest of the painting,
with Brueghel painting his garland first and Van Balen
his figures afterward. This sequence of events could be established
only by close examination with a stereomicroscope.17
It was difficult to unravel this working procedure because
Brueghel had deliberately obscured the transitions between
the two hands with numerous final retouches. It has not
yet been possible to determine the order in which the artists
worked on the Antwerp painting.1 8
The Hague panel was begun by Brueghel, who paintetd
the garland and probably also the frame around the medallion.
He depicted the fruit and vegetables so precisely around
the reserves that we may assume Van Balen's figures had
already been sketched in. In several places there are traces
of an underdrawing in the figures that could not be detected
with the infrared camera, such as that seen along the thigh
of the putto at the upper right, who touches the medallion
with his foot. This preparatory line in red-brown paint
partially disappears underneath the flesh color. Beneath the
paint of the belly and foot of this same figure, several leaves
were painted out; in the Antwerp version, however, these
same leaves were applied over the flesh color. This suggests
that the artists might have worked on the latter painting
in the opposite order. Moreover, it confirms that Brueghel
scrupulously followed his own example when painting
the Mauritshuis garland. That he worked very close to the
reserves is evidenced, for instance, by the fruit above the
160 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
head of the nymph in the left foreground: with great precision
he painted only half a peach along the contour of
her head. The reserve left for the head of the nymph on the
right was so small that Van Balen was forced to overlap
Brueghel's fruit when painting her cheek. With regard to
the little boy on the right, who drags the branch of an apple
tree into the picture, the working procedure appears to
have been different—this figure was painted first and only
afterward was the greenery added by Brueghel, who presumably
also applied the final touches of flesh color bordering
the leaves.
After Van Balen had painted the two nymphs in the foreground,
the putti in the reserves in the garland, and the
figures in the medallion, Brueghel again took the Mauritshuis
painting in hand and finished it. He completed the representation
in the medallion by adding the background, the
flowers, and a few other details, such as the scale. Finally, he
integrated Van Balen's figures into his garland by means
of detailing and retouches. He painted the cutting from a
plum tree that the winged putto holds against the body
of the nymph in the left foreground. With the same greenish
paint he used for the plums to the left above this nymph,
he added—over his background—some curly strands to her
hair. He also added some curly strands to the hair of the
nymph on the right.
The versions in The Hague and Antwerp display a number
of differences in the composition, some of which confirm
that the Antwerp painting is the older version. In this
painting the nymph in the left foreground is blonde instead
of dark-haired, wears a white veil around her shoulders,
and has a large fruited branch running along the right side
of her body. This branch is missing in the Hague painting.
Curiously, the same nymph's left leg—which in the Antwerp
version is half hidden in the garland—was not painted at
all: sloppiness of this kind occurs only in copies or variations,
not in first versions. In the Antwerp painting, the same
nymph's blue drapery was applied (carefully worked around
the green leaves) over an underlying pink layer, whereas
the drapery in the Hague version was blue from the start,
in imitation of the Antwerp example. The kneeling putto in
the left foreground has no wings in the Antwerp painting
and holds a stalk of rhubarb instead of a plum-tree cutting.
Another oversight in the Hague version is the lack of a
cord with which to fasten the garland to the tree on the right,
causing one of the putti to reach out and grasp nothing
but thin air. Numerous small differences are discernible in
the medallion as well. The putti holding the baldachin,
for instance, scatter flowers in the Antwerp painting, and the
zodiacal attributes are depicted differently.19
The scale held
by one of the putti at the top seems to fly through the air,
whereas in the Hague variation it hangs down stiffly, conveying
no sense of motion. There are different birds in the sky
in the two versions, making it clear that the Hague painting
is not a slavish copy: indeed, Brueghel painted out two owls
in the latter work.2 0
A striking addition to the Mauritshuis
version is the suspension of the medallion on cords attached
to rings. In the Antwerp version a kneeling figure offers
the garland to Jupiter in the clouds, a detail which is missing
in the Mauritshuis picture.
In the Antwerp painting the frame around the medallion
was originally painted about a centimeter more to the
right; a compositional adjustment of this kind is yet another
indication that this is the first version. In this work the
transitions between Van Balen's and Brueghel's contributions
are somewhat more abrupt: for example, the strands
Brueghel added to the figures' hair in the Mauritshuis
version are missing in the Antwerp painting. Moreover, the
cheek of the nymph in the right foreground was not painted
over the background, as it was in the Hague painting, but
the fruits do overlap her cheek somewhat, which suggests
that in this case the figures were painted first.
The fact that it was not the Hague panel but the Antwerp
version that was included in the Allegory of Taste of 1618
(cat. no. 8) emerges from small similarities in detail: the
painting within a painting also displays the left leg of
the blonde nymph in the foreground, the wingless putto at
the front left holds a stalk of rhubarb, and the medallion
is not suspended on cords. Obviously this allegorical representation
of abundance and fertility was eminently suited
to an Allegory of Taste, possibly featuring the rich yields of
the lands of the archdukes Albert and Isabella. In the
1617-18 series of the Five Senses, Brueghel mostly depicted
the pick of the crop produced by contemporary Antwerp
painters, i.e., paintings by himself and by his co-court
painter Rubens. In the Allegory of Taste, Brueghel seems to be
advertising, as it were, the result of his latest collaboration
with Hendrick van Balen, a composition that he executed at
least twice and most likely numerous times.
Brueghel combined the same fruit garland with depictions
by Van Balen of the Holy Family, in which the Mother
of God stands in for Mother Earth, and the superabundant
garland symbolizes the richness of God's creation (fig. 8 4 ) . 2 1
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 161
FIGURE 84 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and H e n d r i c k van Balen, The Holy Family in a
Garland of Fruit and Flowers, late 1620s. O i l o n panel, 104.8 x 74.9 c m (41L
A x 29V2 in.).
R i c h m o n d , V i r g i n i a M u s e u m o f F i n e A r t s , T h e A d o l p h D . and W i l k i n s C . W i l l i a m s
F u n d , inv. 6 6 - 1 6
In similar fashion, Cornells Galle—in his print after Ceres
Garlanded by Angels by Rubens and Frans Snyders in the
Hermitage2 2
—replaced Ceres with the Virgin and Child
(fig. 85), who in the caption are compared with, among othe
things, the Tree of Life that "brings forth everlasting abundance."
Cardinal Borromeo praised the fruit and vegetables
in another of Brueghel's garlands, which "show us the
wisdom and refinement of divine providence; their profu­
r
sion, abundance and great variety will open our eyes to the
liberality and generous heart of this so magnanimous and
glorious Creator."23
In the painting Brueghel made with
Rubens that is now in Glasgow (fig. 83), the fruit garland
encloses an allegorical image of the all-nurturing primeval
mother,2 4
endowed with multiple breasts, crowned by
putti, and adorned with drapery by the Graces; the pedestal
bears a vaguely legible inscription: M A G N A E M A T R I /
162 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
T E R R A E O M N I S P A R E N T I (To the Great Mother, Parent of
All Earth). Countless satyrs betraying various degrees of
beastliness were added by Rubens, whose contribution
makes this picture truly spectacular. In the face of Rubens's
brilliance, Van Balen seems like a lesser light. Although in
this painting, too, it has not yet been possible to say with
any certainty which of the two masters began to paint first, it
seems that Brueghel adapted himself to Rubens's contribution.
He thus made the garland a bit thicker or stretched it
slightly to accommodate the figures, and he painted the
melon around the fingers of the female satyr in the left foreground,
for example. Viewing the painting in raking light
makes it possible to discern the double and sometimes triple
outline of an oval that was scratched into the middle of this
panel.2 5
Rubens, for his part, paid no attention whatsoever
to this oval and painted well over its contours. Evidently,
however, another type of painting had initially been planned:
an image in a medallion surrounded by a garland of fruit,
very comparable to the two paintings with Van Balen discussed
here.
The existence in Antwerp and The Hague of two nearly
identical paintings clearly shows that it was part of Jan
Brueghel's daily routine to make repetitions of popular compositions,
if only in order to meet the great demand for
his work (see also cat. no. 7).2 6
This was common practice
in seventeenth-century Antwerp. Indeed, the fact that the
painter Sebastian Vrancx (1573-1647) was opposed to copying
as a matter of principle was considered very odd by his
contemporaries.27
Jan Brueghel the Younger, who took over
the business from his father, frequently mentioned the making
of copies, even for such prominent patrons as the "prince
of Poland,"2 8
although he always made a clear distinction—
also in price—between originals and copies. It was not only
entire compositions, however, that were repeated: Brueghel
also drew upon a repertoire of motifs that he used over
and over again. Parts of the fruit garland discussed here, for
example—the ensemble with the artichokes and cabbages,
the ears of wheat, and the arrangement consisting of lemons
and bunches of grapes—can be detected in the Madonna
and Child in a Garland of Fruit and Flowers from the Prado
(cat. no. 12). Moreover, The Holy Family in a Garland of Fruit
and Flowers by Jan Brueghel and Pieter van Avont in Munich
(fig. 86) also contains parts of the same garland, augmented
with flowers.2 9
Some of these flowers, in turn, have exact
counterparts in the large garland surrounding the Virgin and
Child by Brueghel and Rubens, also in Munich (seefig.i ) . 3 0
FIGURE 8 5 C o r n e l l s G a l l e after Peter Paul Rubens a n d Frans Snyders,
The Virgin in a Niche Adorned by Angels with a Garland. E n g r a v i n g ,
555 x 4 0 7 m m (21% x 16 in.). A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m , Rijksprentenkabinet,
inv. R P P - O B - 6 7 . 6 7 4
It seems almost certain that Brueghel based his flower and
fruit ensembles on fairly detailed preparatory studies. Only a
few examples have survived, however, one of which is a
study sheet depicting the left-hand part of Brueghel's garland
in the above-mentioned work made with Van Avont (fig. 8 7 ) . 3 1
Furthermore, Brueghel's manner of painting seems to have
been extremely standardized. A typical example of this can be
seen in the Mauritshuis garland, namely the white cabbage
with the long, trailing root on the right. A few of the leaves
have been painted over the cabbage and the carrots next to
it, but the white root was painted first and only afterward
the medlar tree behind it: in the garland surrounding
Van Avont's Holy Family, Brueghel did this in exactly the
same order. To prevent the disturbing effect caused by underB
R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N 163
F I G U R E 86 Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r and
Pieter van A v o n t (1600-1652), The Holy Family
in a Garland of Fruit and Flowers, ca. 1620-23.
O i l o n panel, 93.5 x 70.7 c m (363
/4 x 27% in.).
M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 149
FIGURE 87 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Part of a
Garland of Fruit and Flowers. Pen i n b r o w n ink,
b r o w n wash, 29.6 x 11.7 c m (n5
/s x 4 % in.).
A n t w e r p , M u s e u m P l a n t i n - M o r e t u s ,
inv. D.ix.23
lying paint layers shining through the surface, Brueghel
frequently took the trouble to paint from foreground to
background, as demonstrated by this detail.3 2
Whenever he
found a satisfactory way to realize a distinct element in
paint, he repeated this method exactly—to whatever extent
possible—the next time he had need of the motif. A v S
N O T E S
1. O n the personification o f A g r i c u l t u r e , see Cesare R i p a , Iconologia
( D u t c h e d i t i o n , 1644), p. 280 (first e d i t i o n , 1593).
2. See V a n M u l d e r s i n Brussels 1997-98, p. 108. C o m p a r e also E r t z i n
A n t w e r p 1998, p. 270.
3. T h e M a u r i t s h u i s panel consists o f three vertical planks. B u r n e d into
the back o f the panel is the mark ( M V interlaced) o f the panelmaker
M i c h i e l V r i e n t (active 1615-37), as w e l l as the brand o f the city o f
A n t w e r p and the letter A . T h i s last mark—perhaps d e n o t i n g the
year—appears o n a series o f panels dating f r o m 1621-22. See W a d u m
1998, pp. 192, 198. D e n d r o c h r o n o l o g i c a l analysis o f the panel carried
out b y D r . Peter K l e i n ( U n i v e r s i t y o f H a m b u r g , A p r i l 11, 2005)
points to 1612 as the earliest possible dating but suggests a dating after
1618 as m o r e plausible. T h e p a i n t i n g i n A n t w e r p consists o f one plank;
the thick layer o f wax o n the back obscures any marks it m i g h t contain.
4. See Johan A n t h o n y van K i n s c h o t sale, Delft, July 21, 1767, lot 29;
and H o e t and Terwesten 1752-70, v o l . 3, pp. 606, 692. O n C y b e l e , see
H a l l 1974, p. 89.
5. A s n o t e d i n A m s t e r d a m - C l e v e l a n d 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , p. 113.
6. O n Ceres, see H a l l 1974, pp. 6 2 - 6 3 .
7. "grooten fruyt crans met Ceres i n ' t m i d d e n " : Vaes 1926-27, p. 209.
8. See Vaes 1926-27 and D e n u c e i 9 3 4 5 pp. 1 3 9 - 6 0 . T h e o r i g i n a l account
b o o k kept by Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r has not survived, but its
contents have been preserved i n part i n a copy made i n 1770 by Jacob
van der Sanden.
9. T h i s c o p y is n o w i n M a d r i d ( M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado, inv. 1414);
see D i a z P a d r o n 1995, pp. 314-15. C o n s i d e r i n g the small differences
between the H a g u e and the A n t w e r p versions, Jan B r u e g h e l the
Y o u n g e r must have c o p i e d the version i n the M a u r i t s h u i s (only the
cords attached to the m e d a l l i o n are lacking).
10. F o r this painting, see G l a s g o w 1961, pp. 117-20; and E r t z 1979,
no. 349. A s to the possibility that Prince Vladislas Z y g m u n t o f P o l a n d
164 B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N
once o w n e d this painting, see D e n u c e 1934, p. 81; and M u l l e r
Hofstede 1968, p. 225, n . 52.
11. See B . Werche, " D i e Zusammenarbeit v o n Jan Brueghel d . A . u n d
H e n d r i c k van Balen," i n E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 6 7 - 7 4 .
12. I n Klaus Ertz's 1979 m o n o g r a p h o n Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, 64 o f the
384 catalogued paintings were done i n collaboration w i t h H e n d r i c k
van Balen. (It is indeed curious that E r t z d i d not devote a separate
chapter to their w o r k i n g friendship.) I n her 2 0 0 4 m o n o g r a p h o n
V a n Balen, Bettina Werche regards 78 o f the 192 catalogued cabinet
pieces as collaborations w i t h Jan Brueghel.
13. See D e n u c e 1934, pp. 21-22; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , doc. no. 15, pp. 252-53;
both documents are dated D e c e m b e r 20, 1604.
14. See Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. A 106.
15. See E r t z 1979, no. n o ; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , no. A 128.
16. "ghemaeckt v o o r S.[ignor] van Balen eenen gront acter een stuc...";
"voldaen eenen g r o n t . . .de figurkens d o o r S. van B a l e n " ; "ghemaect
.. .eenen g r o n d t agter een L i v r a u k e n van S. van Balen": Vaes 1926-27,
pp. 210, 213, 215; and D e n u c e 1934, pp. 147, 151, 154. M o r e examples
c o u l d be quoted. Remarkably, B r u e g h e l often m e n t i o n e d that he had
p r o d u c e d w o r k for an art dealer—"for G o e t k i n t " ( A n t h o n i e G o e t k i n t ,
his wife's uncle), "for H a n s van M e c h e l e n , " "for Peer van L i e n d e r " —
w h i c h suggests that art dealers were instrumental i n b r i n g i n g about
these collaborative efforts. See also H o n i g 1995, pp. 2 5 9 - 6 0 .
17. T h i s p a i n t i n g was examined w i t h a stereomicroscope o n D e c e m b e r 21
and 23, 2 0 0 4 , in the restoration studio o f the M a u r i t s h u i s by Sabrina
M e l o n i , A r i a n e van Suchtelen, and Jorgen W a d u m . Infrared images
were made w i t h the Artist camera (Art I n n o v a t i o n , H e n g e l o ) m o u n t e d
w i t h a C C D progressive scan image sensor (1360 x 1036 pixels) and
a Schneider K r e u z n a c h X e n o p l a n 1.4/23 m m c c r v - l e n s i n N12 w i t h a
1000 n m long-wave filter.
18. T h e D e x i a B a n k p a i n t i n g was examined o n A p r i l 12, 2005, i n A n t w e r p
w i t h the aid o f a stereomicroscope by Sabrina M e l o n i and A r i a n e
van Suchtelen. Infrared images were made w i t h the Artist camera (see
previous note). W e are grateful to Patricia Jaspers for her efforts o n
o u r behalf.
19. A d r a w n copy o f the scene in the m e d a l l i o n (Weimar, GoetheN
a t i o n a l m u s e u m , inv. Schuchardt I, s. 314, no. 931) seems to f o l l o w
the A n t w e r p painting, because the angels h o l d i n g the baldachin also
scatter flowers; see A n t w e r p 1998, p. 268, fig. 86c.
20. See also A n t w e r p 1998, p. 266, cat. no. 86, fig. 86b.
21. See E r t z 1979, no. 350. C o m p a r e also variations attributed to Jan
Brueghel the Y o u n g e r ; see E r t z 1979, fig. 389; E r t z 1984, no. 302
(Antwerp, K o n i n k l i j k M u s e u m v o o r Schone K u n s t e n , inv. 813, as
w i t h Pieter van A v o n t ) ; and sale, Sotheby's, A m s t e r d a m , M a y 9, 1995,
lot 42.
22. St. Petersburg, H e r m i t a g e State M u s e u m , inv. 504 ( H o l l s t e i n 1 9 4 9 - ,
v o l . 7, no. 106). See Freedberg 1981, pp. 128, 132, fig. 17.
23. Jones 1993, p. 86 (after Federico B o r r o m e o , I tre libri delle laudi divine
[ M i l a n , 1632], p. 158).
24. See, for example, Werche 2 0 0 4 , pp. 8 0 - 8 1 .
25. T h i s was first m e n t i o n e d i n V a n M u l d e r s 2 0 0 0 , pp. 119-20. T h e triple
oval, w h i c h is scratched into the g r o u n d , is approximately the same
size as the oval m e d a l l i o n i n the present paintings (thanks to R o b e r t
Wenley for this information). T h e contours o f an oval m e d a l l i o n are
also scratched into the Madonna and Child in a Garland of Flowers
by B r u e g h e l and Rubens i n the L o u v r e (fig. 69). T h i s is not the case in
the t w o paintings by B r u e g h e l and V a n Balen discussed here.
26. T h e d e m a n d for paintings by Jan Brueghel the E l d e r was greater than
the supply. H i s paintings were often sold even before he began w o r k i
n g o n them; see Vaes 1926-27, p. 181.
27. O n this A n t w e r p c u s t o m o f c o p y i n g paintings, see, a m o n g others,
H o n i g 1995, p. 269.
28. A n o t h e r version o f the "large fruit garland w i t h the image o f M a r y "
(grooten fruytcrans met het M a r i e n b i l d ) , w h i c h Jan Brueghel the
Younger s o l d f r o m his father's estate to A n t o n i e Cornelissen Cheeus
for 512 guilders (see Vaes 1926-27, p. 209), had previously been sold
by his father for " 4 0 0 escudi" to the prince o f P o l a n d . See a letter f r o m
Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r to C a r d i n a l B o r r o m e o , dated A u g u s t 22,
1625, regarding his father's death and several interesting paintings f r o m
his estate (Crivelli 1868, pp. 339-41).
29. See Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 9 2 - 9 5 , no. 149 ( w i t h additional
literature).
30. See Renger and D e n k 2002, pp. 336-43, no. 331 ( w i t h additional
literature).
31. See W i n n e r 1961, fig. 50; and E r t z 1979, fig. 39. T h i s pen-and-ink wash
d r a w i n g seems more like a d r a w n copy than a preparatory study.
C o m p a r e a study sheet displaying animals and f r u i t — i n c l u d i n g c o l o r
indications by Jan Brueghel the E l d e r — i n the British M u s e u m ; see
K o l b 2005, fig. 5. T h i s sheet contains motifs b o r r o w e d f r o m Joris
Hoefnagel's i l l u m i n a t e d books o n the elements, Earth, Air, Water and
Fire (1575-82) from the collection o f E m p e r o r R u d o l f II; see H e n d r i x
1984, p. 333; and K o l b 2 0 0 0 , pp. 141-43. O n Brueghel's drawings,
see, a m o n g others, W i n n e r 1961 and 1972; most o f these drawings are
studies for his landscapes and village views.
32. See also the essay by D o h e r t y , L e o n a r d , and W a d u m in this v o l u m e .
B R U E G H E L A N D V A N B A L E N l 6 5
22
Peter Paul Rubens and Frans Snyders
Prometheus Boun d
ca. 1611-1 2
Oil o n canvas, 24 3 x 21 0 cm (95V 2 x 82 Vi in. )
Philadelphia Museum of Art,
purchased with th e W. P. Wilstach Fund, 1950 , inv . w-1950-3-1
P R O V E N A N C E
Traded b y R u b e n s t o S i r D u d l e y C a r l e t o n ,
1618;1
offere d t o th e k i n g o f D e n m a r k i n
September 1618 , bu t no t s o l d ; 2
possibl y
transferred f r o m C a r l e t o n t o K i n g Charle s I ;
perhaps w i t h th e A n t w e r p deale r Matthij s
M u s s o n , 1658 ; i n th e collectio n o f Charles ,
fourth ear l o f Manchester , K i m b o l t o n Castle ,
H u n t i n g d o n s h i r e , b y Septembe r 28 , 1687; 3
i n th e collectio n o f th e earl s an d duke s o f
Manchester u n t i l it s sal e a t auctio n a t
K i m b o l t o n Castl e ( K n i g h t , Fran k & R u t l e y ) ,
July 18 , 194 8 (a s no . 8 ) ; 4
acquire d b y th e
dealer M a r t i n B . Asscher, L o n d o n , f r o m
w h o m acquire d b y th e Philadelphi a M u s e u m
o f A r t fo r th e W . P . W i l s t a c h C o l l e c t i o n , 195 0
L I T E R A T U R E
Baudius 1616 , p . 578 ; Roose s 1886-182 , v o l . 3 ,
pp. 152-53 , no . 671 ; v o l . 5 , pp . 3 4 0 - 4 1 ;
K i m b a l l 1952 ; P o p h a m 1952 ; R a g g i o 1958 ,
pp. 58 , 6 1 - 6 2 ; H e l d 1963 , pp . 17-32 ; D e m p s e y
1967, pp . 4 2 0 - 2 5 ; S t e c h o w 1968 , pp . 4 0 - 4 1 ;
M a r t i n an d B r u n o i n M a r t i n 1972 , pp . 17 ,
19; S u t t o n 1983 , pp . 270-75 ; Bali s 1986 ,
pp. 67 , 70 , 77 , 83 , 93 ; Robel s 1989 , pp . 35 ,
119, 354-56 , no . 261 ; S u t t o n 1990 , pp . 251-61 ,
no. 91 ; C . va n d e V e l d e i n B a u m a n an d
L i e d t k e 1992 , pp . 184-85 ; K o s l o w 1995a ,
pp. 18 , 303-307 ; B i k k e r 2 0 0 4
E X H I B I T I O N S
L o n d o n 1850 , cat . no . 142 ; Mancheste r 1857 ,
cat. no . 534 ; L o n d o n 1867 , cat . no . 126 ;
C l e v e l a n d 1956 , cat . no . 41 ; Philadelphi a
M u s e u m o f A r t , " P h i l a d e l p h i a : 10 0 Year s o f
A c q u i s i t i o n s " ( M a y 3 - J u l y 3 , 1983 ) (n o
catalogue); B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94 , pp . 35 ,
238-41, cat . no . 10 ; L i l l e 2 0 0 4 , pp . 8 8 - 8 9 ,
cat. no . 4 3
R
U B E N S ' S E A R L Y Y E A R S , A F T E R H E S E T T L E D A G A I N
in Antwerp, were an exceptionally fertile period
in whic h he implemented highly innovative compositions
that demonstrate hi s knowledge of ancient and
Renaissance precedents. Prometheus Bounds an extraordinary
depiction of torment an d contained corporeal energy,
epitomizes Rubens's forceful artisti c ambition, which trans formed
Flemis h painting. Shackled to the rock y side of
Mount Caucasus , the Titan Prometheus contort s hi s muscular
body in a heroic but vai n effort t o evade the probing
beak of a great eagle , whose talons also tear a t his face and
groin an d which return s dail y to consume his regeneratin g
liver. A joint effort betwee n Rubens and Frans Snyders,
Prometheus Bound is among the best-documente d collaborations
of the earl y seventeenth century . In correspondenc e
with Si r Dudley Carleton, British ambassado r t o the Unite d
Provinces residing in The Hague, Rubens described Prometheus
Bound among a group of paintings he was offering
Carleton in exchange for the latter's collectio n of antique
marbles, "at presen t I have in the house the flowe r of
my stock, particularly some pictures which I have kept for
my own enjoyment; som e I have even repurchased for
more than I had sold them to others,"5
an d placed it at th e
top of a list of twelve paintings for Carleton's consideration:
"500 florins —A Prometheu s boun d on Mount Caucasus ,
with a n eagle which pecks his liver. Original b y my hand,
and the eagl e done b y Snyders—9 x 8 ft." The nature o f the
collaboration in the Prometheus is crucial to understandin g
the work's significance. Rubens' s relationship with Snyder s at
this time, while less reciprocal and perhaps mor e business like
than his association with Brueghel , should nonetheless
166 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
167
be considered an artistic partnership, one in which Rubens
played the dominant role.
Frans Snyders was only two years younger than Rubens
and a close acquaintance of Jan Brueghel the Elder.6
The
latter introduced Snyders to potential patrons in Italy, where
Snyders traveled between the spring of 1608 and 1609. In
two letters dated September 26, 1608, Brueghel enthusiastically
described Snyders to Cardinal Federico Borromeo,
bishop of Milan, recommending him as "a young man of
good morals." He further attests that "I am indebted to this
youth by a true act of friendship," referring to the support
Snyders had shown him during a difficult period, perhaps
following the death of his first wife.7
When Snyders suddenly
left Milan for Antwerp in the spring of 1609, Brueghel
apologized to the cardinal for his friend's behavior.8
Once
settled in Antwerp, Snyders established himself a specialist in
still life. Rubens may have encountered Snyders in Italy or
more likely within the circumscribed community of artists in
Antwerp who had made the same journey.
Prometheus was among the first joint works Rubens
executed with Snyders. Their relationship may have begun
when Rubens engaged him to paint a large still life in The
Recognition ofPhilopoemen^ a composition depicting a subject
from Greek history (see fig. 26). Rubens devised the
composition, including the major elements of the game
and vegetable still life, as demonstrated by an oil sketch (see
fig. 27). As the sheets of drawn motifs from some years later
suggest, Snyders may have made studies or sketches for
particular elements.9
After the still life had been painted,
Rubens returned to integrate and adjust certain elements.10
It was characteristic of their partnership from this point on
that Snyders adopted the expressive, large scale of his partner,
along with lively brushwork, and often a high-keyed palette.
In the Philopoemen, as in Prometheus^ the concept, design,
and final integrative contributions were all made by Rubens.
Prometheus occupies a pivotal place in Rubens's oeuvre.
Unfortunately, we cannot know whether it was a work that
he painted as an investigative trial and "kept" for himself,
or a commission that he "repurchased." However, it is one
of several mythological and historical subjects from about
1611 in which Rubens explored figures in violent action.
After 1609 Rubens increasingly pushed the boundaries of
corporeal description and strove to generate a visceral reaction
in the viewer. The Beheading of SaintJohn the Baptist
(1609; private collection), notable for the extreme muscularity
of the figures, andJudith Killing Holofernes ( 1 6 0 9 - 1 0 ; Frankfurt,
Stadelsches Kunstinstitut), a scene of intense nocturnal
violence, reveal Rubens's study of the robust figures of
Michelangelo and the physiognomies of antique sculptures
such as the Laocoon (Vatican City, Vatican Museums, Museo
Pio-Clementino) and the Torso Belvedere.11
In particular,
Rubens was fascinated by the challenges of depicting falling
figures. The inverted figure of Hippolytus in The Death
ofHippolytus (1610; Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum;
see also an oil sketch in London, Courtauld Institute
of Art Gallery) and the outstretched Argus in Juno and Argus
(1611; Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Museum), both provide
antecedents for the figures of Prometheus. Many of these
works are animated by innovative compositions. The diagonal
arrangement of figures in Prometheus follows Rubens's
earlier implementation of figures placed on transverse orientations,
for example in Saint George (1608; Madrid, Museo
Nacional del Prado). Painted in Genoa, Saint George is
made up of several different pieces of canvas and, like the
Prometheus, was kept by Rubens in his studio.1 2
It was in the context of such artistic challenges that
Rubens turned to the subject of Prometheus. The subject was
well established in classical texts and was associated by the
early seventeenth century with a range of conflicting moral,
philosophical, and religious interpretations.13
Hesiod
portrayed Prometheus as a rogue who deceived the gods and
destroyed the golden age of mankind by stealing fire and
giving it to humans, a sacrilege for which he was deservedly
punished by being shackled to the top of Mount Caucasus,
where a voracious eagle perpetually devoured his regrowing
liver until he was freed by Hercules.1 4
Aeschylus saw
Prometheus as providing mankind with both real and figurative
fire, the flame of reason and wisdom that serves as the
basis of civilization. His punishment, while just, was evidence
of a tragic imbalance between the order of the gods
and humanity.15
Plato conceived of fire as a creative force
and Prometheus's act of stealing fire from the forge of Vulcan
as a moral failing.1 6
In the medieval period, the Titan was
portrayed as an inventor and linked to the story of Genesis
by the church fathers. Renaissance emblems portrayed
Prometheus under a tree, attacked by an eagle, as an example
of punished pride and as "knowledge acquired with care."17
The sheer physicality of the Philadelphia canvas, while
not precluding allegorical interpretations, suggests that
Rubens was primarily seeking to evoke the horror of Prometheus's
suffering.18
Dominicus Baudius, a professor at the
university of Leiden and a friend of Rubens's brother Philip,
168 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
extolled the vividness of Prometheus and the terror it generated
in onlookers in his Poematum.19
The date of these
verses, April 7, 1612, helps date the canvas, which must have
been finished or nearly so by that time. It may have been
started early in 1611, following the Juno and Argus, which was
finished by May 11, 1611.2 0
Rubens's debt to antique sculpture for his powerful male
figures of about 1611 has long been appreciated. His numerous
drawings, several known today through copies by students,
attest to his study of the Laocoon, the most influential
antique portrayal of suffering and violent motion.2 1
The
manner in which the chest of the central figure of the antique
group, the priest Laocoon, projects is very similar to that
of the inverted Prometheus, which may also reflect Rubens's
study of the projecting torso of the Centaur Tormented
by Cupid (Paris, Musee du Louvre).2 2
The vitally important
inventions of Raphael's Stanze (the series of rooms the
artist and his assistants decorated for the popes Julius II and
Leo X), notably the reclining figure of Heliodorus in the
Expulsion ofHeliodorus fresco, were a key inspiration. As
Held observed, Prometheus's bent leg probably derives from
this source.2 3
Both the Heliodorus and the Laocoon figure
prominently among the quotations from the antique in the
early Rubens and Brueghel collaboration The Battle ofthe
Amazons (ca. 1 5 9 8 - 1 6 0 0 ; cat. no. 1). However, it was Michelangelo's
drawing of Tityus (1532; Windsor Castle, Royal
Library)—the elongated pose and outstretched arm of the
figure, and particularly the parallel arrangement of the figure
and the bird—that was the foundation for Prometheus.24
The story of Tityus was a closely related myth, in which the
son of Earth was punished for ravishing Latona by being
chained to a rock in Hades where a vulture attacked his perpetuating
liver. Even knowledgeable observers were often
confused when distinguishing between the two myths.2 5
Rubens, however, portrayed his subject very specifically, and
even without his own identification of the scene, it could
not be mistaken. The Titan is clearly chained outside,
beneath a massive tree and beside a rocky overhang. The site,
Mount Caucasus, is specified by the sharp vertical surface
to which he is chained, the crevasse beneath him over which
his torso and drapery hang, and by the distant landscape.
Prometheus's torch, by which he sought to elevate mankind,
burns brightly in the lower left corner. Titian's large Tityus
( 1 5 4 8 - 4 9 ; Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado), dramatic in
scale and conception, may have been the primary inspiration
for Rubens's cascading figure. Titian's canvas, painted for
F I G U R E 88 C o r n e l l s C o r t after T i t i a n , Tityus, 1566. E n g r a v i n g ,
380 x 308 m m (15 x i2]
/8 in.). San Francisco, F i n e A r t s M u s e u m s , Palace
o f the L e g i o n o f H o n o r , A c h e n b a c h F o u n d a t i o n for G r a p h i c A r t s ,
inv. 1963.30.36756
Mary of Hungary when she was regent of the Netherlands,
depicts one of the "Quattro Dannati" (the four damned,
Tantalus, Sisyfus, Ixion, and Tityus) who are mentioned in
Ovid's Metamorphoses. It decorated the Grote Zaal of
her palace at Binche, where it was observed and described
(as Prometheus!) by Juan Cristoval Calvete de Estrella,
secretary to Philip II, in 1549. The painting was later transferred
to Madrid.2 6
While Rubens may have seen it there,
the print after Titian's canvas by Cornells Cort (fig. 88) could
equally have served as a point of departure.27
In contrast to the precedents discussed above, Rubens
gave the eagle a prominent role in Prometheus Bound. In
order to strengthen the fierce intensity of the Titan's struggle,
Rubens expanded the size of the tormenter and engaged
Snyders to follow his design. We can only speculate as
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 169
F I G U R E 8 9 P e t e r P a u l R u b e n s , R e c l i n i n g M a l e ,
ca. 1611. C h a l k a n d heightening, 55 x 42.6 c m
(2i5
/8 x 163
A in.). Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e ,
inv. 20207
to the reasons for this curious decision. Rubens was himself
an accomplished painter of animals and of eagles in particular,
as can be seen in Cupid SupplicatingJupiter (1610; New
York, Forbes Collection) and Ganymede (1611-12; Vienna,
Prince Karl zu Schwartzenberg Collection [on loan to the
Liechtenstein Museum, Princely Collection, Vienna]).2 8
The
eagle in Ganymede, for example, shows a fastidious, refined
treatment in keeping with the elevated mythological subject.
Snyders may have been engaged simply because he wasn't
Rubens. That is, his technique, descriptive and painterly, was
compatible but nonetheless distinct from Rubens's brushwork,
thereby providing visual emphasis to this part of the
composition. Eagles feature among the stylized illustrations
in Ulisse Aldrovandi's Ornithologia (1599), along with a
fulsome description of the bird's observed and mythical char­
acteristics.29
Rubens recorded an antique statue of an eagle
(Rome, Vatican Museums) in a drawing (now lost, but
known through a student's copy, Two Views of an Eagle^
Copenhagen, Royal Print Room) and used its perched form
for Cupid SupplicatingJupiter.30
Perhaps, as Martin and Bruno
proposed vis-a-vis the Forbes canvas, Rubens studied a
live eagle and "grasped the particulars of its appearance and
sensed the ferocity of the bird of prey."31
Rulers of the
Netherlands had long kept aviaries, which included small
birds of prey such as sparrow hawks and, apparently, royal
eagles.32
It is certainly clear that, in contrast to the schematic
Renaissance depictions of eagles, Rubens and Snyders's
bird is based in reality; the two artists were aware not only
of the specific physical characteristics of the golden eagle,
including variations in the types of feathers in its plumage,
but also the true extent of its wingspan, which can reach
225 cm (seven and a half feet)—in this case just smaller than
the writhing figure of a Titan. The relationship between
the noblest of birds, Jove's companion, and Prometheus
is expressively portrayed through the placement of the two
figures in parallel alignment, the dark form of the eagle
hovering menacingly over the illuminated nude form. It
has long been assumed that Rubens planned the composition
in a drawing or oil sketch which has been lost.3 3
Rubens's drawing of a male torso (fig. 89) relates both to
Hippolytus and Prometheus.34
A drawing of an eagle (fig. 90)
was probably Snyders's working drawing, made after Rubens's
presumptive oil sketch. Faint chalk outlines indicate the
placement of the torso and, notably, the liver.3 5
Comparison
170 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
of the Snyders drawing with the finished painting shows
that additional adjustments were made to the contour
of the right wing and the distance between the left foot and
head, presumably the result of discussions between the
two artists.36
The process of execution was subsequently relatively
straightforward. Rubens painted the figure of Prometheus
with his usual economy: the proper right side of the Titan's
face, for example, was never elaborated and instead was
treated as a reserve for the eagle's left foot, while small
reserves on the face and torso anticipated the insertion
points of the talons. After Snyders painted the eagle, Rubens
added highlights to its feet and beak and may also have
enhanced the bloody effects of beak and talons with additional
daubs of red.
Sutton has shown that the strip of canvas on the left
side, approximately seventeen inches wide, which includes
the landscape and the torch, was added when the ground
and paint layers of the main canvas were dry and has argued
persuasively that this area could have been added at the
time of Rubens's negotiations with Dudley Carleton in the
spring of 1618.3 7
We should, however, reconsider the possibility
that the addition represents another example of
Rubens's additive working method. Carleton, an avid collector
who admired Rubens, approached the artist with an
offer to exchange his collection of antique marbles for paintings
by the artist. They had recently negotiated the sale of
a hunt scene, an exchange that revealed Carleton's interest in
work by Snyders.3 8
After stating his preference for "brief
negotiations, where each party gives and receives his share at:
once," Rubens attached a list of twelve paintings, specifying
which were "by my hand" and which had been begun by a
pupil and had been or would be retouched by Rubens. One
painting, Leopards, was described as "by my hand except a
most beautiful landscape, done by the hand of a master skillful
in that department."39
The dimensions given in the list
are thought to be general, but in the case of Prometheus, they
roughly correspond to the current size of the painting, rather
than to the first, more vertical, format. Carleton chose only
the "originals," including Prometheus, all of which Rubens
promised to retouch before sending them to Carleton.4 0
It is difficult to imagine that the addition of the canvas strip,
which also involved the inclusion of an important iconographic
element, the torch, would have been considered part
of the finishing touch (Pultima mano) Rubens says he has
given to the greater part of the paintings.4 1
While we cannot
FIGURE 9 0 Frans Snyders, Study for an Eagle, ca. 1611. Ink and wash,
28.1 x 20.3 c m (nVfe x 8 in.). L o n d o n , British M u s e u m , inv. 1946-7-13-176
© Trustees o f the British M u s e u m
be entirely certain when the strip was added, it seems more
likely that Rubens expanded the composition while he was
working on it in 1611 or early 1612. Among Rubens's oeuvre,
many examples of panels with additions are known, as
are an increasing number of canvases that show the same
phenomenon, including the Saint George and The Recognition
ofPhilopoemen.42
The tightly formulated composition of
Prometheus Bound, with its powerful downward diagonal
momentum, may have appeared too extreme in the first, narrow,
format; the sense of the figures sliding precipitously
was ameliorated with the addition of the foreground torch,
which serves to visually counterbalance this effect, and the
view into the distance.
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 171
Rubens and Snyders's Prometheus Bound evidently sparked
new interest in the subject in the Netherlands, where Jacob
Jordaens (1593-1678), Dirck van Baburen (ca. 1590/95-1624),
and others painted their own versions.4 3
It has been suggested
that if the Prometheus remained in Dudley Carleton's
collection in The Hague following his unsuccessful sale
to the King of Denmark, the stadholder's influential secretary
Constantijn Huygens, who had a particular appreciation
of Rubens and Snyders (see cat. no. 24), would have had
firsthand acquaintance with the composition.4 4
If so, it
seems fitting that Rembrandt later presented to Huygens his
Blinding ofSamson (1636; Frankfurt, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut),
in which the figure of Samson strongly recalls that
of Prometheus. Although Rembrandt may have seen Rubens
and Snyders's original while it hung in The Hague, as an
avid collector of prints, he could also have received his
inspiration for the violent figure of Samson from Cornells
Cort's engraving.4 5
ATW
N O T E S
1. Sale c o n c l u d e d by June 1, 1618, w h e n R u b e n s wrote to C a r l e t o n
" . . . I have delivered to M r . Frans Pieterssen all the pictures [(in the
m a r g i n ) : the D a n i e l , the Leopards, the H u n t , the St. Peter, the
Susanna, the St. Sebastian, the Prometheus, the L e d a , Sarah and
H a g a r ] , i n g o o d c o n d i t i o n and packed w i t h care. I believe Y o u r
Excellency w i l l be completely satisfied w i t h them." F o r Rubens's
o r i g i n a l Italian text, see Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2,
pp. 181-83; the translation is f r o m M a g u r n 1955, p. 67, letter 34.
2. T h e Prometheus appears as the first p a i n t i n g o n the " L i s t o f m y pictures
given the first o f 7 b e r
st°. vet. to the K : o f D e n m a r k ' s marchant,
b r o u g h t u n t o m e by M r . H u g g i n s . . . 9 p i e d i a l t o — 8 p i e d i largo U n
P r o m e t h e o legato sopra i l m o n t e Caucaso c o n una aquila che l i becca
il fegato, i l P r o m e t h e o d i R u b e n s , l ' A q u i l a fatta dal Snyders": Rooses
and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2, p. 185; and Fiske K i m b a l l 1952, p. 67.
3. A c c o r d i n g to an inventory o f that date; see Fiske K i m b a l l 1952, p. 67.
4. F o r eighteenth-century viewers' accounts o f the p a i n t i n g at K i m b o l t o n
Castle, see Fiske K i m b a l l 1952, pp. 6 7 - 6 8 .
5. "Io m i r i t r o v o al presente fior d i r o b b a i n casa p a r t i c o l a t e
alcuni
q u a d r i che h o tenuti per gusto m i o ansi ricompratone alcuni p i u d i
quello l i aveva v e n d u t i al altri" (letter o f A p r i l 18, 1618): Rooses
and Ruelens 1887-1909, p. 136; translation f r o m M a g u r n 1955, P- 60,
letter 28.
6. Snyders was b o r n i n A n t w e r p i n 1579 and became a free master i n the
A n t w e r p G u i l d o f Saint L u k e i n 1602, w h e n O t t o van V e e n and
Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r were co-deans; see R o m b o u t s and V a n L e r i u s
1 8 6 4 - 7 6 , p. 418. F o r his family history and training w i t h Pieter
Bruegel the Y o u n g e r and possibly also H e n d r i c k van B a l e n , see R o b e l s
1989, pp. 4 7 - 4 8 ; and K o s l o w 1995a, pp. 13-16.
7. C r i v e l l i 1868, pp. 113-14 (Brueghel to C a r d i n a l B o r r o m e o ) and
pp. n o - 1 2 (Brueghel to B i a n c h i ) ; see K o s l o w 1995a, p. 14.
8. Literally for "d'importunente (sua) familiarita" (letter o f M a y 14,
1609): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 135.
9. F o r example, the sheet o f studies o f dead deer (Berlin,
Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 8497); see R o b e l s 1989, pp. 416-17, no. Z43.
10. See G a y o G a r c i a and Vergara 2 0 0 4 , especially fig. 22. F o r Rubens's o i l
sketch, see H e l d 1980, v o l . 1, pp. 374-75, no. 278; and R o b e l s 1989,
pp. 353-54.
11. F o r the antique m o n u m e n t s , see B o b e r and R u b i n s t e i n 1986,
pp. 151-55 ( L a o c o o n ) and pp. 166-68 (Torso Belvedere). F o r drawings
by and after Rubens o f these w o r k s , see V a n der M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 2,
pp. 9 3 - 1 0 4 , nos. 7 6 - 9 3 ( L a o c o o n ) and pp. 56-59, nos. 37-39 (Torso
Belvedere).
12. See H . V l i e g h e i n Balis et al. 1989a, pp. 1 4 8 - 4 9 , ill. T h e Saint George
appears i n the inventory o f the artist's estate; see M u l l e r 1989, pp. 77,
122, no. 155.
13. See R a g g i o 1958; H e l d 1963, pp. 25-26; S u t t o n 1990, pp. 256-57; and
B i k k e r 2004.
14. Works and Days, v. 4 2 - 8 9 ; T h e o g o n y , v. 507-616 (discussed i n R a g g i o
1958, pp. 4 4 - 4 5 ) .
15. Prometheus Bound, v. 4 3 6 - 5 0 6 (discussed i n R a g g i o 1958, p. 45).
16. Plato, Works, v o l . 2 (Protagoras) ( L o e b Classical Library, C a m b r i d g e ,
M a s s . , and L o n d o n , 1967), pp. 129-37.
17. F o r example, A l c i a t i , Emblematum Liber (1531) and Emblematum Liber
( L y o n , 1549); see D a l y 1985, v o l . 2, e m b l e m 103; and R a g g i o 1958,
pp. 55-56.
18. A s D e m p s e y (1967, p. 421) noted, "cruelty is the true subject o f his
painting."
19. "Flere, w i t h h o o k e d beak, a monstrous vulture digs about i n the liver
o f Prometheus, w h o is given n o peace f r o m his torments as ever and
again the savage b i r d draws near his self-renewing breast and attacks it
punishingly. H e is not content w i t h his i n h u m a n sacrificial feast, but
w i t h his claws lacerates, here the agonized face, there the man's thigh.
H e w o u l d fly m u r d e r o u s l y o n the spectators, d i d not his chained prey
detain h i m . H e can d o n o m o r e than terrify the frightened onlookers
by t u r n i n g his flaming eyes f r o m one to the other. B l o o d flows f r o m
the chest and every part where his claws leave their mark, and his
piercing eyes dart savage flames. Y o u m i g h t t h i n k that he moves, that
his feathers tremble. H o r r o r grips the onlookers." ( H e i c rostro adunco
vultur i m m a n i s fodit / Jecur P r o m e t h e i , nec datur quies malis, Sic
usque et usque rabidus ales i m m i n e t / Faecunda poenis appetens
praecordia. / N o n est eo contentus infandae dapis/ Pastu, sed u n g u e
laniat insuper fero / H i n c ora palpitantis, hinc femur veri. / Ipse
involaret i n necem spectantium / N i vincla tardent; q u o d potest u n u m
tamen/ F l a m m a t a torquens hue et illuc l u m i n a , / Terret timentes;
pectore ebullit cruor, / E t parte ab o m n i qua pedes signant n o t a m , /
172 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
Trucesque flam mas vibrat acies l u m i n u m / Rapidae volucris; hanc
m o v e r i , hanc t u putes / Quassare pennsas; h o r r o r adstantes habet.):
D . B a u d i u s , Poematum, nova editio (1616), p. 578. Translation and
L a t i n text f r o m D e m p s e y 1967, pp. 4 2 1 - 2 2 ; see also Rooses 1886-92,
v o l . 5, p. 341; and S u t t o n 1983, p. 274.
2 0 . A s stated by Rubens i n a letter to Jacob de B i e ; see M a g u r n 1955,
p. 55, letter 22.
21. V a n der M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 2, pp. 9 3 - 1 0 4 , nos. 7 6 - 9 3 .
22. F o r the recently discovered drawings by Rubens o f the Centaur
T o r m e n t e d by C u p i d , see N e w Y o r k 2005, pp. 1 0 8 - n , cat. nos. 20, 21
(dated ca. 1 6 0 6 - 0 8 ) ; and B r a u n s c h w e i g 2 0 0 4 , pp. 2 8 9 - 9 1 ; other
drawings o f the g r o u p are discussed i n V a n der M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 2,
pp. 83-89.
23. H e l d 1963, p. 28.
24. Inv. R L 1 2 7 7 1 (recto); see Fiske K i m b a l l 1952; and H e l d 1963, pp. 26-27.
F o r Michelangelo's drawing, see P o p h a m and W i l d e 1949, p. 429, p i . 2 1 .
25. Baudius, for example, identified the b i r d o f prey i n Prometheus Bound
as a vulture.
26. See U t r e c h t - ' s - H e r t o g e n b o s c h 1993, p. 337, cat. no. 233; and Wethey
1969-75, v o l . 3, pp. 156-60.
27. C o r t added a torch to the c o m p o s i t i o n , thereby changing Tityus into
Prometheus; see S u t t o n i n B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 240.
28. See J o h n R u p e r t M a r t i n and C l a u d i a L a z z a r o B r u n o , "Rubens's ' C u p i d
Supplicating Jupiter'," in M a r t i n 1972; and V i e n n a 2004, p. 68. Similarly,
in Juno and Argus (1611), Rubens executed the peacocks, a b i r d w h i c h
features p r o m i n e n t l y i n both The Recognition of Philopoemen (see fig. 26)
and Larder with Game Birds (1614; C o l o g n e , Wallraf-Richartz M u s e u m ,
inv. W R M 2894) (the latter also includes a dead eagle).
29. First noted i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Rubens's Ganymede by Evers (1942,
pp. 1 0 6 - 7 ) ; see also M a r t i n and B r u n o (note 28 above), p. 13.
30. M a r t i n and B r u n o (note 28), p. 13, fig. 9. F o r the antique statue and
the copy drawings, see V a n der M e u l e n 1994, v o l . 2, pp. 112-14,
nos. 1 0 3 - 4 ; v o l . 3, figs. 181-83.
31. M a r t i n and B r u n o (note 28), p. 13.
32. Saintenoy 1932-35, v o l . 1, pp. 73, 76; and K o l b 2005, p. 15. G o l d e n
eagles are f o u n d i n the m o u n t a i n o u s regions o f Spain, where Faibens
may have observed them i n 1 6 0 3 - 0 4 .
33. H e l d 1963, p. 2 1 ; and S u t t o n 1990, p. 255.
34. L u g t 1949, no. 1029; and S u t t o n 1983, pp. 257-58.
35. T h e indications o f the torso and liver are difficult to see in reproduct
i o n , and I o w e this observation to K o s l o w 1995a, p. 306.
36. A l s o the c o n c l u s i o n o f K o s l o w 1995a, p. 306.
37. P r o p o s e d by S u t t o n (1983, p. 275), w h o affirmed his p o i n t i n S u t t o n
1990, pp. 254-55; and B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 241, this c o n t e n t i o n
was subsequently reiterated i n most sources, i n c l u d i n g Robels 1989,
p. 355; C . van de V e l d e in B a u m a n and L i e d t k e 1992, p. 184; and
H . V l i e g h e i n L i l l e 2 0 0 4 , p. 88.
38. See Rubens's letter to C a r l e t o n o f M a r c h 17, 1618 (their correspondence
over the exchange c o n t i n u e d d u r i n g the course o f the spring):
Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2, pp. 130-83. D u r i n g the course
o f earlier discussions concerning Carleton's interest in a large hunt
scene, w h i c h was sold to the duke o f Aarschot (Carleton acquired the
second version, Wolf and Fox Hunt [ N e w York, M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m
o f A r t , inv. 10.73]), Rubens was said to c o m m e n t that "the talent
o f Snyders, is to represent beasts but especiallie Birds altogether dead,
and w h o l l y w i t h o u t any action," as reported by T o b y M a t t h e w to
Sir D u d l e y C a r l e t o n (letter o f February 25, 1617): Rooses and Ruelens
1887-1909, v o l . 2, p. 99. See cat. no. 24.
39. " L e o p a r d i . . . O r i g i n a l e de m i a mano, eccetto u n bellissimo paese
fatto per m a n o d i v a l e n t h u o m o i n quel mestiere." (letter o f A p r i l 28,
1618): Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2, p. 137; translation f r o m
M a g u r n 1955, pp. 6 0 - 6 1 , letter 28. F o r the Leopards, see cat. nos. 4
and 26; a p a i n t i n g n o w i n M o n t r e a l is likely a later copy; see fig. 132.
4 0 . A s n o t e d by Rubens i n his letter to C a r l e t o n o f M a y 12, 1618:
" . . . havendo lei cappato soli l i originali de che io sono contentissimo."
(Your Excellency has taken o n l y the originals, w i t h w h i c h I am perfectly
satisfied.): Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2, p. 149, no.
168; translated i n M a g u r n 1955, pp. 6 1 - 6 2 , letter 29.
41. "Io ho gia fra tanto si trattava dato l'ultima m a n o all m a g g i o r parte
delle pitture cappate da lei e ridotte a quella perfettione che m i e stata
possibile, d i maniera che spero V . E . sia per haverne intiera sodisfattione,
finit sono d i tutto p u n t o i l Prometheo, la L e d a , l i L e o p a r d i , i l
Sebastiano, et i l Pietro et D a n i e l i , l i quali io sono p r o n t o a consegnarc
a quella persona che lei con ordine espresso m i ordinara per ricevcrli."
(I have already, d u r i n g the negotiations, given the finishing touch to
the greater part o f the pictures chosen by y o u , and b r o u g h t them to
what perfection I am able, so that I hope y o u r Excellency w i l l be
completely satisfied. I have entirely finished the Prometheus, the L e d a ,
the Leopards, the St. Sebastian, the St. P e t e r . . . , and the D a n i e l , and
I am ready to deliver them to the person w h o has Y o u r Excellency's
express order to receive them): Rooses and Ruelens, 1887-1909, v o l . 2,
pp. 161-62; translated i n M a g u r n 1955, p. 63.
42. S u t t o n (1983, pp. 272-74) enumerated some o f the panels and canvases.
43. Jacob Jordaens, Prometheus Bound (ca. 1640; C o l o g n e , WallrafRichartz
M u s e u m , inv. 1044; see Bikker 2004) and D i r c k van Baburen,
Prometheus Being Chained by Vulcan (1623; A m s t e r d a m , R i j k s m u s e u m ,
inv. sic A 1606); for other contemporary treatments o f the theme,
see S u t t o n 1990, p. 258, n n . 37, 4 0 - 4 1 . A later copy o f Rubens and
Snyders's canvas, then i n the collection o f the M u s e e O l d e n b o u r g
( n o w i n the R i j k s m u s e u m collection) was considered by Rooses and
Ruelens (1887-1909, v o l . 2, pp. 140-41) and O l d e n b o u r g (1921, p. 74)
to be the original, although the dimensions (189 x 240 c m [743
/s x
94V2 in.]) are considerably different f r o m the P h i l a d e l p h i a p a i n t i n g ;
see also H e l d 1963, pp. 22, 24 ( w i t h subsequent provenance).
4 4 . V a n G e l d e r 1950/51, p. 132; and S u t t o n 1990, p. 258.
45. F o r Rembrandt's debt to R u b e n s , see H e l d 1963, pp. 31-32; and
Reznicek 1977, pp. 8 8 - 9 1 .
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 173
23
Peter Paul Rubens and Frans Snyders
Diana Returnin g from the Hun t
ca. 161 6
Oil o n canvas, 13 6 x 182.5 cm (5 3 V2 x 71 % in. )
Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemaldegaleri e Alte Meister, N O . 962 A
p r o v e n a n c e
A c q u i r e d f r o m d e W i t , A n t w e r p , i n 170 9 fo r
A u g u s t u s I I " T h e Strong, " electo r o f Saxon y
and k i n g o f P o l a n d (reigne d 1694-1733); 1
first m e n t i o n e d i n th e inventor y o f hi s collec t
i o n o f paintings , 1722-28, 2
thenc e i n th e
R o y a l C o l l e c t i o n , 3
an d the n Stat e C o l l e c t i o n ,
D r e s d e n
l i t e r a t u r e
S m i t h 1829-42 , v o l . 2 , p . 82 ; H i i b n e r 1872 ,
p. 202 , no . 826 ; Roose s 1886-92 , v o l . 3 ,
pp. 7 9 - 8 0 , no . 597 ; W o e r m a n n 1905 , p . 312 ,
no. 962 ; G l i i c k 1933 , PP - 16 0 (no . 133) , 185 ,
360, 395 ; Ever s 1942 , pp . 196-201 , no . 137 ;
Balis 1986 , pp . 57 , 161 ; Robel s 1989 , pp . 121 ,
149, 362-63 , no . 268 ; D r e s d e n 1992 , p . 332 ;
B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94 , p . 30 ; K o s l o w 1995a ,
pp. 2 4 0 - 4 1
e x h i b i t i o n s
A n t w e r p 1977 , p . 103 , cat . no . 4 0 ; B e r l i n
2 0 0 2 - 0 3 , pp . 126-27 , cat . no . 47 ; L o n d o n
2003, pp . 132-35 , cat . no . 43 ; Jackso n 2 0 0 4 ,
pp. 25-26 , cat . no . 1.1 1
s
B
e t w e e n a b o u t 16 l 5 a n d 1 6 2 0 , r u b e ns d e v i s e d
new imagery around the theme o f the hunt. The
physicality and drama of his large-scale combats
between men, their mounts, an d exotic beasts transformed
ancient and Renaissance traditions for the depictio n of hunting
scenes.4
At the sam e time, Rubens developed idyllic
subjects tha t celebrated nature's abundanc e an d the sensua l
aspects o f the mythologica l chase. While Rubens and his
studio executed the hunts, includin g the animals , the magnificence
an d expressiveness o f the mythologica l subject s
were enhanced b y the contribution s of eminent colleagues,
notably Jan Brueghel the Elder, Frans Snyders, and Jan Wilden
(1585/6-1653). Diana Returning from the Hunt i s Rubens's
seminal portrayal of Diana—in i t he established both th e
erotic tone an d the descriptiv e visual vocabulary for subse quent
treatment s o f the huntress. Th e fruit, dead game ,
and hunting dogs painted by Snyders are sumptuous attri butes
tha t demonstrate hi s skillful renderin g of diverse textures
whic h complement the figures' richly colored draperies.
The important, though subsidiary, role played by Snyders in
major figur e pictures like this one contrasts wit h Brueghel's
principal share i n the treatments o f Diana an d her nymphs
from abou t 162 0 (cat . nos. 10 and 11) , where he was not onl y
the painter of the animal s and accouterments bu t als o the
creator o f the landscape .
In Diana Returning from the Hunt, th e goddes s an d
her companions encounter a gregarious ban d of satyrs who,
in keeping with thei r mischievous and lascivious nature ,
tempt th e virgina l huntresses wit h offering s of fruit i n the
hope of seducing them. The scene is a delightfully imagined
encounter i n keeping with description s in Ovid (Metamorphoses)
an d Virgil (The Aeneid, Georgics) o f the goddess Dian a
174 r u b e n s a n d s n y d e r s
175
F I G U R E 91 Peter Paul R u b e n s , Two Satyrs, ca. 1617-19. O i l o n panel,
75.5 x 61 c m (293
A x 24 in.). M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 69
(Greek: Artemis), who was extolled for her fair beauty,
strength of character, and chastity. In the Dresden painting,
a formidably athletic Diana wears her red chiton over one
shoulder, breast exposed like an Amazon (see cat. no. 1), and
her hair pulled back (in this case, elegantly decorated with
pearls), as she was portrayed in antique sculpture and on
Roman sarcophagi.5
In one hand she carries a long spear and
in the other holds her bounty of colorful song- and game
birds. Behind her are three nymphs, one of whom carries a
dead hare on the shaft of her spear and looks out at the viewer.
The satyrs, bearded with short, turned horns, are wrapped in
goatskins, which also serve to support the overflowing array
of fruit clasped by the satyr in the foreground. His grapevine
crown (also the work of Rubens) and laughing visage
convey the associated theme of bacchic revelry. Rubens portrayed
the same bearded, wily satyr squeezing a bunch of
grapes in a bust-length portrait from this period (fig. 91).6
While the mythological themes of Diana's Punishment
of Callisto and the Hunt of Actaeon had been frequently
depicted by painters in the sixteenth century, particularly at
the French court of Fontainebleau,7
Rubens established the
subject of Diana's Return from the Hunt with the present
painting. He drew on his empathy for the world of classical
mythology to breathe life into well-known mythological
characters, in this case portraying the charged interaction
between opposite types: the lusty, earthy personification of
nature, the satyr, and the aloof virgin goddess. The friezelike
composition, with the robust figures placed close to the
picture plane and almost no landscape visible behind them,
underscores the allusion to an antique past. Diagonal
elements, such as Diana's spear, which separates the bands
of nymphs and satyrs, and even the leaning stance of the
foreground satyr, moderate the vertical formality of the procession
of nymphs and continue through Snyders's grape
stems, the beak of the curlew, and the muzzles of the inquisitive
greyhounds. Witty details pervade the scene: one of the
hounds warily sniffs at the (presumably malodorous) interloper,
while the satyr in the background uses his horns to
balance the overflowing basket of fruit on his head as he
offers a bunch of grapes to a nymph. The appeal of the Diana
theme for Rubens was the opportunity to portray the beautiful
seminude goddess and her band as well as the boisterous
companions of Bacchus. While the outcome of the encounter
between the two groups in Diana Returning from the Hunt is
provocatively indeterminate, the licentious aspects of the
subject were emphasized in the caption on the print after the
Dresden painting by Schelte Bolswert (ca. 1586-1659) dating
from the early 1620s: "May the weary young women be a
favorable prize for you: together fruit and game make a suitable
feast.59
*
Despite his concurrent absorption in vigorous hunt
subjects, in this period of his career Rubens never portrayed
the goddess actively pursuing her quarry. He began to
depict her engaged in her favorite pastime only in the late
1 6 2 0 s . 9
The relieflike character of the scene, profile treatment
of the female heads, and vertical division of the composition
into two halves make this one of the most balanced
and restrained Diana compositions painted by Rubens and
Snyders between 1615 and 1620. In Diana Returning from
the Hunt, the artists created a decorum appropriate to the
176 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
mythological subject, in which each figure behaves in accordance
with their rowdy or chaste character. Rubens and
his studio expanded the scene into a full-length format with
additional figures (fig. 92), a format that undercuts the
monumentality achieved in the present painting with halflength
figures but elaborates on the interactions between
the satyrs and nymphs.1 0
Rubens's attention to decorum would have resonated
in courtly circles, where hunting was a royal prerogative
pursued seriously by the archdukes and by Isabella in particular.1
1
The hunting law issued by the archdukes in 1613
specified the rights, rules, and regulations of the hunt and
underscored the traditional regional view of appropriate
behavior, which required participants to hunt "fur with fur
and feather with feather."12
With Diana Returning from the
Hunt, Rubens addressed specifically the courtly and noble
taste for elevated and allusive treatments of the hunt. The
inventory of the archducal hunting castle, Tervuren, refers to
many paintings of similar subjects,13
and although it is
unclear whether Archduchess Isabella commissioned Diana
at the Hunt and Diana^s Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs
(cat. nos. 10 and 11) from Brueghel and Rubens, the subject
and particularly the collection of hounds must certainly have
carried an allusion to her pursuits. The popularity of such
F I G U R E 92 Peter Paul Rubens and w o r k s h o p and Frans Snyders, Diana
Returning from the Hunt, ca. 1616. O i l o n canvas, 231 x 238 c m
(91 x 933
/4 in.). Darmstadt, Hessisches L a n d e s m u s e u m , inv. G K 180
images in the early seventeenth century is reflected in the
collections of the artists themselves. The inventory drawn up
at Rubens's death lists two paintings of Diana subjects executed
with Jan Brueghel, and Snyders himself possessed a
"hunt" by Rubens and Brueghel.1 4
In contrast to his friend Brueghel, Snyders was adept at
working on the large, expressive scale required by Rubens,
producing substantial and weighty still-life elements. Frans's
sojourn in Italy (1608-09) was crucial for his development
of fruit motifs in particular. With the aid of a letter of introduction
from Brueghel, he met Cardinal Borromeo and
would thus have known Caravaggio's striking and influential
Basket of Fruit (ca. 1595-98; Milan, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana)
commissioned by Borromeo, and possibly also Caravaggio's
Boy with a Basket of Fruit (ca. 1593-94; Rome, Galleria
Borghese).1 5
An intriguing reference to "paintings on paper
of Italian Fruit" (beschilderde papieren met Italiensche Vruchten)
in Snyders's will of 1655 may allude to studies he made
himself during this period. As Balis observed, Snyders's use
of the motif of the split melon, for example, may reflect
his exposure to Italian still life.1 6
Rubens relied heavily on Snyders to help create the visual
richness that defined a genre where abundance and bounteousness
were principal themes. The fruit and game elements
in Diana Returning from the Hunt were Snyders's own
invention as an established still-life specialist. While Rubens
planned the huge still life in one of their earliest joint works,
The Recognition ofPhilopoemen of ca. 1609 (see fig. 27),1 7
by
1611 Snyders had established an independent career. Brueghel
continued to promote Snyders to Cardinal Borromeo, commenting
in a letter of 1611 that Snyders had painted a tazza
of different sorts of fruit.1 8
In 1613 Brueghel related to
Borromeo (with Rubens acting as secretary) that Snyders
had "progressed in his art" and the prices of his work had
increased correspondingly.19
Snyders's style was close enough to Rubens's own descriptive
brushwork that contemporaries had difficulty distinguishing
between them. Rubens was quick to clarify the
differences for clients such as Sir Dudley Carleton. Carleton's
agent, Toby Matthew, described his confusion over the
authorship of a hunt scene to Carleton: "I have been in an
errour, for I thought as y u
doe, that his [Snyders] hand had
been in that peece, but sincerley and certainly it is not soe.
For in this Peece the beasts are all alive, and in act eyther of
escape or resistance, in the expressing whereof Snyder doth
infinitlie come short of Rubens, and Rubens saith that he
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 177
F I G U R E 9 3 Frans Snyders, Studies of Four Heads of Dogs, ca. 1615.
O i l o n panel, 52 x 70 c m (20V2 x 27 V2 in.). F o r m e r l y B e r l i n , Staatliche
M u s e e n , K a i s e r - F r i e d r i c h - M u s e u m , inv. 774A (destroyed 1945)
should infinitlie take it in ill part, if I should compare
Snyders w t h
him on that point. The talent of Snyders, is to
represent beasts but especiallie Birds altogether dead, and
wholly wt h
out anie action; and that w c h
yr
LP, Mr. Gage,
and I sawe of his hand, w c h
we liked so well was a gruppo
of dead Birds, in a picture of Diana, and certain other
naked Nimphes.''2 0
Diana Returning from the Hunt is notable among the
joint treatments of the goddess and her nymphs by Rubens
and his collaborators for the integration of the still-life and
animal elements with the figures. The bundle of fruit, the
armful of birds, and the hounds in Diana Returning from
the Hunt must have been discussed in advance in order
to achieve a harmonious balance between these components
and the figures. Although no overall preparatory sketch for
Diana Returning from the Hunt is known, the composition
was almost certainly planned by Rubens, who first painted
the figures. Robels considered an oil sketch of greyhounds by
Snyders (fig. 93) a source for the two greyhounds on the
right, and in fact the black and white hound in the lower
left of the sketch appears in the Diana as well.2 1
If the sketch
preceded the painting, then Snyders already had a clear idea
of the relationship between the hound and the hanging hare
(whose ears appear in the sketch), as well as the position of
Diana's spear in front of the black and white hound. Snyders
planned some of the contours of the hounds in advance; a
smaller ear can be seen in the head of the dog in the right
foreground. He also adjusted the contours of the rear dog's
muzzle and ear, which were painted over the blue drapery.
Rubens and Snyders enjoyed a productive and genial
partnership that continued until Rubens's death. In 1628 they
collaborated on two hunts of Diana destined for the Alcazar.
Between 1636 and 1639, Rubens received commissions
from the Spanish king Philip IV for many hunts to decorate
the royal hunting lodge, the Torre de la Parada, as well as the
Alcazar and Buen Retiro palaces. Snyders's participation is
documented for eight of these hunting scenes, including a
Diana and Her Nymphs Hunting Fallow Deer (presumed lost)
and Diana and Her Nymphs Attacked by Satyrs (Madrid, Museo
Nacional del Prado). In correspondence associated with
this prestigious commission, their individual expertise and
established division of labor were recognized by their patron,
and Rubens was directed to paint the figures and landscape,
while Snyders was expected to execute the animals.2 2
A T W
N O T E S
1. T h e unidentified D e W i t cited by H i i b n e r (1872, p. 202, g i v i n g the
price as " 2 0 0 pistolen") and U t a N e i d h a r d t i n B e r l i n 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 (p- 126)
was p r o b a b l y the art dealer Jacobus de W i t . A large n u m b e r o f paintings
were acquired about 1710 f r o m D e W i t for the elector according
to Staring (1958, p. 53). D e W i t was the uncle o f the D u t c h artist Jacob
de W i t , w h o collected and retouched drawings b y R u b e n s and also
made d r a w n variations o n Rubens's c o m p o s i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a fulllength
version ( C a m b r i d g e , F i t z w i l l i a m M u s e u m , inv. 2235) o f R u b e n s
and Frans Snyders's Diana Returning from the Hunt (fig. 92); see note
10 below. F o r the elder and y o u n g e r de W i t , see Staring 1958, and
M i c h i e l P l o m p , " C o l l e c t i n g Rubens's D r a w i n g s , " i n N e w Y o r k 2005,
pp. 51-53. A c c o r d i n g to H i i b n e r , the p a i n t i n g was acquired i n A n t w e r p
f r o m "Raschke," whose identity is u n k n o w n , but w h o may have been
an agent associated w i t h the sale o f the p a i n t i n g to the elector. Jan
B r u e g h e l the Elder's Dutch Landscape ( H i i b n e r 1872, p. 182, no. 728,
presumed lost) was described as purchased t h r o u g h Raschke f r o m
"Jac. de W i t . "
2. " L i t . A et B . Inventaria Sr. K o n i g l . Majestat i n P o h l e n u n d Churfiistl.
D u r c h l . z u Sachsen grofie, w i e auch kleine Cabinets u n d andere
S c h i l d e r e y e n . . . " prepared by J o h a n n A d a m Steinhauser between
1722-28, no. A 48.
3. "Sr. k o n i g l . M a j . i n P o l e n u n d kurfiirstl. D u r c h l . z u Sachsen SchildereiInventaria
sub L i t . A et B . , " prepared by J o h a n n A d a m Steinhauser,
no. 48A; " C a t a l o g o delli q u a d r i , che sono nel G a b i n e t t o d i Sua
Maesta," prepared by Pietro G u a r i e n t i , no. 136; " I n v e n t a r i u m v o n der
K o n i g l i c h e n Bilder-Galerie z u Drefiden, gefertiget M e n s : Julij &
A u g u s t : 1754," prepared by M a t t h i a s Oesterreich, no. 359.
178 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
4. T h e m o n u m e n t a l h u n t scenes created about 1616 include, for example,
four paintings acquired by the E l e c t o r M a x i m i l i a n o f Bavaria: Boar
Hunt ( o i l o n canvas, 250 x 320 c m [98V8 x 126 i n . ] ; Marseilles, M u s e e
des Beaux-Arts, inv. 103), Hippopotamus and Crocodile Hunt (oil o n
canvas, 248 x 321 c m [975
/s x 126V8 i n . ] ; M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek,
inv. 4797), Lion Hunt ( o i l o n canvas, 248 x 324 c m [97V8 x 127V2 i n . ] ;
formerly Bordeaux M u s e u m , lost), and Tiger, Lion, and Leopard Hunt
(oil o n canvas, 256 x 324 c m [100 3
A x 127V2 i n . ] ; Rennes, M u s e e
des Beaux-Arts, inv. 811.1.10). F o r Rubens's hunt scenes, see R o s a n d
1969 and Balis 1986.
5. F o r Rubens's familiarity w i t h ancient representations o f A r t e m i s and
D i a n a , see Balis 1986, p. 58.
6. Rubens added the second satyr i n the M u n i c h panel (see note 4 above)
d u r i n g a later campaign o f p a i n t i n g ; see Renger and D e n k 2002,
pp. 366-67.
7. F o r the iconography o f the goddess at Fontainebleau, inspired by
D i a n e de Poitiers, see B a r d o n 1963.
8. "Sic vobis lassae sint p r o e m i a fausta puellae: C o n u e n i u n t epulis p o m a
feraeque bene." F o r the print, see V o o r h e l m Scheevoogt 1873, p. 122,
no. 24. I thank L o u i s M a r c h e s a n o , collections curator o f prints and
drawings, G e t t y Research Institute, for sharing his insights into
Schelte's presentation o f the c o m p o s i t i o n .
9. Observed by Balis 1986, p. 58. Rubens's Diana and Nymphs Hunting
Deer, executed w i t h Frans Snyders, was b r o u g h t to M a d r i d by
R u b e n s i n 1628 but is n o w lost; see Balis 1986, pp. 187-91, no. 13;
and Vergara 1999, pp. 4 6 , 48.
10. R o b e l s (1989, P- 362) was the first to propose that the present paintingis
the earliest version o f the c o m p o s i t i o n . A smaller copy o f the present
painting, perhaps painted i n Rubens's studio, recently appeared
o n the art market ( o i l o n canvas, 72 x 104.1 c m [28V8 x 41 i n . ] ;
Sotheby's, N e w York, January 28, 2005, lot 581). A n o t h e r version o f
the Darmstadt canvas was formerly located in the Dresden collection
(inv. 980; destroyed 194s); see Robels 1989, p. 364. A d r a w i n g
( C a m b r i d g e , F i t z w i l l i a m M u s e u m , inv. 2235) after the Darmstadt c o m p
o s i t i o n (fig. 92) believed to be by Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678) has
recently been reattributed to the eighteenth-century A n t w e r p paintercollector
Jacob de W i t w h o , characteristically, made several changes
to the c o m p o s i t i o n ; see M i c h i e l P l o m p (note 1 above), pp. 52-53.
11. See especially cat. nos. 9, 10, and 11.
12. K o s l o w 1996, p. 701. See also cat. nos. 10 and 11.
13. See the 1617 and 1667 inventories o f paintings at Tervuren published
by D e M a e y e r 1955, pp. 336-37, doc. 134, and pp. 4 4 8 - 5 3 , doc. 272.
A m o n g the paintings listed i n the anticamer (antichamber) o f the
latter (p. 452), three are identified as D i a n a subjects.
14. " A huntinge o f D i a n a ; the figures o f Sr Peter R u b e n s — T h e
Landschaps and the beasts o f B r u g e l " (no. 269) and " A huntinge o f
D i a n a by Peter R u b e n s and B r u g e l " (no. 270) were listed a m o n g
Rubens's possessions; see M u l l e r 1989, pp. 138-39, and no. 10, and
A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , pp. 197-98. T h e 1659 inventory o f paintings i n the
estate o f Frans Snyders i n c l u d e d "een Jacht van Reubens en B r u e g h e l "
( A hunt by Rubens and Brueghel) valued at the substantial price o f
500 g u l d e n ; see D e n u c e 1949, P- 189-
15. F o r Brueghel's letters, see Crivelli 1868, pp. i n and 113. F o r
Caravaggio's role i n the development o f still life, see L a u r a L a u r e o t i ,
" P a i n t i n g N a t u r e : F r u i t , F l o w e r s and Vegetables," i n L o n d o n - R o m e
2001, pp. 6 8 - 8 8 . F o r Snyders' exposure to Caravaggio, see Robels
1989, p. 22; and K o s l o w 1995a, p. 34, 45-
16. See A r n o u t Balis, " W o r k i n g It O u t : D e s i g n Tools and Procedures
in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century F l e m i s h A r t , " i n V l i e g h e et al.
2 0 0 0 , p. 138.
17. See pp. 25-26 i n this v o l u m e .
18. "Francesco Snyders fa u n R a m o , c o n u n tatza de porcellane peino
di frutti, d i u n i " (Frans Snyders has made a [picture on] copper,
w i t h a porcelain tazza full o f various kinds o f fruit): C r i v e l l i 1868,
p. 185 (letter o f June 10, 1611).
19. "II sig. Francesco Snyders si come ha fatto da quell hora che v s i l
conobbe i n M i l a n o grandissimo progresso nell'arte sua cosi anco a
p r o p o r t i o n e e cresciuto i l prezzo del opre sue" (Since the time w h e n
Y o u r H o n o r k n e w h i m i n M i l a n Francesco Snyders has made great
progress in art and his w o r k has p r o p o r t i o n a l l y increased i n price):
Crivelli 1868, p. 198 (letter o f January 25, 1613).
20. Letter o f February 25, 1617; see Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 2,
p. 99. K o s l o w (1995a, p. 18) p r o p o s e d that the p a i n t i n g o f " D i a n a and
certain other naked N i m p h e s " m e n t i o n e d by M a t t h e w s may be
identified w i t h the Diana and Her Nymphs Asleep Surprised by Satyrs in
L o n d o n , K e n s i n g t o n Palace ( R o y a l C o l l e c t i o n ) or the related version
in Geneva ( M u s e e d'Art et d ' H i s t o i r e ) .
21. Robels 1989, p. 4 0 4 , n o S K 6. Robels (pp. 4 0 4 , 5 0 5 ) also associated a
d r a w i n g o f four greyhounds ( R o t t e r d a m , M u s e u m Boijmans V a n
B e u n i n g e n , inv. v88) w i t h the D r e s d e n Diana Returning from the Hunt.
22. F o r the series, see Balis 1986, pp. 218-64. c c
Todas son de su [i.e.,
Rubens] m a n o y de Esneyre, del u n o las figuras y paises y del otro los
animales" ( E v e r y t h i n g by y o u r h a n d and by Snyders, from the former
the figures and landscapes and f r o m the other the animals), quoted
i n Balis 1986, p. 228, n . 9. F o r the evidence c o n f i r m i n g that "Esneyre"
referred to Frans Snyders, see A l p e r s 1971, pp. 117-18.
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 179
2 4
Peter Paul Rubens and Frans Snyders
The Head of Medusa
ca. 1617-18
Oil on canvas, 68.5 x 118 cm (27 x 46V2 in.)
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemaldegalerie, inv. 3834
P R O V E N A N C E
C o l l e c t i o n o f G e o r g e Villiers, duke o f
B u c k i n g h a m , by 1635, f r o m w h i c h sold,
A n t w e r p , 1648;l
s o l d by W i l l i a m A y l e s b u r y
to S a l o m o n C o c k , along w i t h other paintings
f r o m the B u c k i n g h a m sale, M a y 14, 1 6 4 9 ; 2
not i n the inventory o f A r c h d u k e L e o p o l d
W i l h e l m , but p r o b a b l y b r o u g h t by his
brother E m p e r o r F e r d i n a n d III to Prague;
Prague inventory 1718, no. 38; transferred
f r o m Prague to V i e n n a 1876
L I T E R A T U R E
Rooses 1886-92, v o l . 3, p. 116, no. 636; G l i i c k
1928, no. 846; M u l l e r Hofstede 1971, p. 271;
H a i r s 1977, p. 16; Jaffe 1989, p. 232, no. 4 4 8 ;
Robels 1989, pp. 370-71, no. 276; F e r i n o Pagden
1991, P- 1 0 4 ; 3
K o s l o w 1995a, pp. 303,
306, 308-12; K o s l o w 1995b, pp. 1 4 7 - 4 9 ,
3 4 9 - 5 0 ; V l i e g h e 2003, p. 115
E X H I B I T I O N S
A n t w e r p 1977, cat. no. 27; V i e n n a 1977,
cat. no. 23; P a d u a - R o m e - M i l a n 1990,
p. 118-12, cat. no. 4 0 ; B o s t o n - T o l e d o
1993-94, pp. 35, 245-47, cat. no. 12;
V i e n n a - E s s e n 2002, pp. 58-59, cat. no. 12;
B r a u n s c h w e i g 2 0 0 4 , pp. 6 9 - 7 0 , 222-25,
cat. no. 4 4
all directions, even forming in the gory remains of her throat.
The story of Medusa is told by Ovid.4
The most beautiful of
the three daughters of the sea gods Phorcys and Ceto,
Medusa, the only mortal, was celebrated for her beautiful
hair. Her locks were transformed by Minerva into a knot
of loathsome snakes after Medusa was violated by Neptune
in the goddess's temple. Thereafter, anyone who looked
upon this Gorgon was turned to stone. Perseus, using only
the reflection in his shield, followed Medusa and decapitated
her as she slept. Even once severed, Medusa's head, with
its writhing mass of live snakes, continued to exert its power
and was used by Perseus to transform Atlas into a mountain
and to rescue Andromeda. In one episode, after Perseus
placed the head on a mat of seaweed to protect it from the
sand, the Gorgon's blood transformed the seaweed into a
new precious substance: coral.5
As Perseus traveled over Africa,
R
U B E N S U T I L I Z E D T H E A D V A N T A G E S O F P A I N T I N G
in collaboration, notably the descriptive eloquence
of separate hands, to create an arresting image of
Medusa's severed head. Working with the animal and stilllife
specialist Frans Snyders, by this time a frequent partner,
Rubens updated a traditionally iconic subject. The Head
ofMedusa combines aspects of various genres, including still
life, history painting, and allegory, and Rubens and Snyders
reversed their usual roles of portraying people and animals
that are respectively, alive and lifeless, to capture the unique
power of the Gorgon's head.
Medusa's pallid countenance lies on the ground at the
edge of a precipice, her blackened lips parted to reveal her
teeth and bloody sputum, her knit brows and rolling eyes
reflecting her startled horror and rage at her fate. The mass
of snakes that make up her hair seethe around her, surging in
180 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
1 8 1
drops of blood from Medusa's head fell to the sand below
and changed into snakes of many kinds. Perseus gave the head
to Minerva, who mounted it upon her breastplate (aegis)
and thereafter utilized its terrible transfixing power in battle.
By the early seventeenth century, the iconography of the
Medusa head centered on the image's apotropaic character,
that is, its power (or reputed power) to avert evil or bad
luck by intimidating or repelling enemies. The political and
moralizing aspects of this function endowed the subject
with additional levels of complexity that appealed to learned
viewers, and perhaps particularly to the duke of Buckingham,
one of the first owners of The Head ofMedusa.6
According
to Ludovico Dolce, the Gorgon's head was associated with
intellect or reason, which battles the opponents of virtue.
Likewise, Cesare Ripa represented the triumph of reason
over sensuality with an emblem depicting the Gorgon's head.7
At the same time, there existed in the Netherlands a more
pessimistic view of Medusa's transformative powers, one
not likely to have interested Buckingham but certainly
known to Rubens and Snyders. In his 1604 treatise "On the
interpretation and explanation of Ovid's Metamorphoses"
Karel van Mander asserted that Perseus was the "reason or
the intellect of our souls while Medusa was the carnal desires
or natural lusts which transform in mankind all reason,
prudence and wisdom unto unfeeling stones." He characterized
Medusa, once proud of her hair, as "misusing God's
gifts or dishonoring God or his commandments through
pride."8
The opposing interpretations of the subject only
served to heighten the visual effects of fascination and revulsion.
For an erudite artist like Rubens, the range of interpretations
may have offered one of the appealing challenges
of the subject, and the forthright presentation of Medusa's
head for our scrutiny does not exclude either the positive or
negative associations and interpretations.
However, while the Vienna canvas has often been discussed
in the context of Renaissance and Baroque depictions
of Medusa, either as painted ornamental shields or as the
metalwork decoration for parade shields, The Head of Medusa
in fact departs from such precedents in a number of important
ways.9
The earlier treatments of Medusa exploit its
apotropaic aspects, presenting the head from the front
in a confrontational and emblematic fashion. In 1568 Vasari
described a Medusa head in a round format by a youthful
Leonardo da Vinci (once in the Medici collection but now
lost), describing the tangled serpents as "the most queer
and extravagant invention."1 0
This famous work may have
inspired the magnificently decorated shields made by
the Milanese armorers Filippo and Francesco Negroli in the
mid-sixteenth century. Shields made for Emperor Charles V
portray the Gorgon's head in relief, brows furrowed, eyes
rolled back and mouth ajar in a silent scream, the snakes in
her hair intertwined above and below her face.11
The
Gorgon's head motif appeared frequently in political allegory,
notably on the shield carried by Alessandro Farnese in a
print of about 1586, which shows the governor and general
as Hercules at the crossroads pursuing the path of militant
Catholicism and repelling (with the help of the shield and
the personification of his religious convictions) his enemies,
Envy and Ungodliness.1 2
It is thought that Rubens knew
Caravaggio's famous painted wooden shield, The Medusa
Head on Minerva's Shield (fig. 94), which was sent by
Cardinal del Monte to Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany
about 1608.1 3
The gaping mouth and furrowed brow of
this image have their origins in Caravaggio's physiognomic
studies, while the gushing blood, writhing serpents, and
strong illumination infuse the motif with new realism.1 4
Giambattista Marino's poem of 1620 dedicated to Caravaggio's
Medusa, then hanging in the grand duke's gallery,
concludes with the flattering conceit that the duke's own
valor served as the true Medusa ("la vera Medusa e il valor
vostro").1 5
Unlike the frontal and repellent forms of
Medusa found on these painted and sculpted shields, and in
Caravaggio's near-mirror image, Rubens rests the Gorgon's
head on the ground. The landscape format and the placement
of Medusa's visage slightly off-center emphasize the
descriptive and observational presentation of Rubens's
composition, while the soil and the nearby vegetation call
attention to the corporeal qualities of the head.
The extraordinary descriptiveness of The Head of Medusa
suggests that rather than focusing on allegorical connotations,
Rubens emphasized instead the image's terribilitd—
its intense (and delightful) ability to inspire awe or dread.1 6
Certainly Constantijn Huygens, secretary to Stadholder
Frederik Hendrik in The Hague, responded to its powerful
visual impact. Huygens saw a version of the Medusa in the
collection of his friend, the Amsterdam merchant Nicolaas
Sohier, and his comments from 1 6 2 9 - 3 0 are worth repeating
at length for their vividness and for the way in which they
reveal his obvious appreciation of the painting's effect: "of
his [Rubens's] many paintings, there is one that always sticks
in my memory. That one I was able to see once with my
friend Nicolaas Sohier, in his splendidly furnished house
182 R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S
F I G U R E 94 Caravaggio (1571-1610), The Medusa Head on Minerva's Shield,
ca. 1597. O i l o n canvas applied to a p o p l a r - w o o d shield, 60 x 55 c m (235
/s x
2i5
/8 in.). Florence, Uffizi, inv. 135
F I G U R E 95 X-radiograph s h o w i n g detail, Peter Paul Rubens and Frans
Snyders, The Head of Medusa
in Amsterdam. There is the compelling painted head of
Medusa, wreathed by snakes that spring from her hair. The
countenance of the extremely beautiful woman has its grace
still preserved, but at the same time evokes the horror of
the fitting beginning of death and of the wreath of hideous
snakes. The combination is so shrewdly executed that the
spectator would be shocked by the sudden confrontation
(normally the painting is covered), but at the same time is
moved by the lifelikeness and beauty with which the grim
subject is rendered."17
As Huygens notes, the Medusa's head
has a ghastly, deathly appearance, while retaining vestiges
of her former beauty. The skin, with its greenish undertones,
has a slightly metallic look that recalls the sculptural quality
of Rubens's expressive and dynamic early works in Antwerp
and effectively connotes death.1 8
Unlike Rubens's personifications
of snake-haired Envy, which have the generalized,
haggard features of a type (see, for example, Envy/Invidia
peering out of the right background of The Crowning of
Virtue, fig. 38), Medusa is not abstracted.
Prohaska dated the painting to about 1617/18 based in
part on the resemblance between Medusa and the head
of a possessed woman in the great Miracles of Saint Ignatius
altarpiece of 1618 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum).1 9
At about this time, Rubens employed similarly horrified
expressions for the tormented and damned in the Great Last
Judgment (1617; Munich, Alte Pinakothek). An X-radiograph
of the Vienna painting (fig. 95) reveals that Medusa originally
was painted with her black, pointed tongue extended,
an aspect that was perhaps deemed too horrific by Rubens.
In contrast to Medusa's visage, the snakes are extremely
mobile and very much alive. They recall the Roman poet
Lucan's contention in Pharsalia that her snakes actively kept
watch while she slept and protected Medusa's face.20
Those
that emerge from her blood recall the Ovidian description of
snakes being birthed from drops of the Gorgon's blood.
As Sutton has shown, the snakes themselves are common
European water snakes (Natrix natrix), a nonvenomous
species. Koslow identified the grappling pair on the right as
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 183
vipers, which in their exhibition of mating behavior carried
strong associations of evil.2 1
Other noxious and fearsome
animals have been included on the bare earth of the ledge,
including spiders, the magnificent European fire salamander
(Salamandra salamandra), and the mythical two-headed
amphisbaena, which follows a description by Pliny.2 2
Snakes
were not frequently depicted in Flemish painting. One of
the most extraordinary and often overlooked examples
occurs in Frans Floris's Fall of the Rebel Angels (1554; Antwerp,
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), the altarpiece
of the swordsman's guild in Antwerp Cathedral, in which
one of the rebel angels has serpent tresses, while in the
lower right corner vipers attack a rat. Snakes appear in only
a few works by Snyders; his detailed rendering of scales
in The Head ofMedusa may derive from sixteenth-century
bronze snakes cast from live specimens by the Paduan
sculptor Andrea Riccio (1470/75-1532) and the German goldsmith
Wenceslas Jamnitzer (1507/8-1585), among others.2 3
One of the central questions about this image must be
why Rubens chose to execute it in collaboration with another
artist. He must have felt that terribilita would be best
achieved by working with a specialist. Sir Dudley Carleton's
agent recounted that Rubens, who was skilled in the representation
of animals and had already painted a large and
vicious hunt of wolves and foxes, pointedly stated that he
disliked comparison with Snyders, whose skill was depicting
"beasts but especiallie Birds altogether dead."24
In the
Medusa, intriguingly, it was Rubens who painted the still
life. The painting's traditional and earliest attribution to
Rubens and Snyders is maintained here, but the identity of
Rubens's coworker is still debated. Following the 1635
Buckingham inventory attribution to "Rubens and Subter"
(very likely Snyders), it was sold in 1648 as a Rubens,2 5
an
attribution maintained until Rooses proposed Jan Brueghel
the Elder as Rubens's coworker in 1892, while also noting a
suggested attribution to Snyders. However, Brueghel's
lively, graphic brushwork cannot be discerned here. G. Heinz
proposed the involvement of Paul de Vos (1591-1678).2 6
The possibility that Rubens, who certainly contributed some
of the reptile forms, particularly those with their roots in
Medusa's scalp, may have painted The Head ofMedusa without
assistance has recently been reconsidered.2 7
However,
the forms of the serpents are polished and opaque and
articulated with the bright crisp highlights that are characteristic
of Snyders's treatment of still-life objects. Unlike
Rubens's earlier grand-scale collaborative works with Frans
Snyders, such as Prometheus Bound (cat. no. 22) and The
Recognition of Philopoemen (see fig. 26), for which he designed
the entire composition, no preparatory sketch by Rubens
for this composition survives. Snyders may have added the
serpents to the head laid down by Rubens, who perhaps
returned to apply finishing touches to the white drapery on
the right side, as well as the touches of blood.2 8
The sale of the present painting in Antwerp in 1648
enabled artists to copy it, including the Flemish artist Victor
WolfVoet (1612-1652).2 9
The same occasion may also have
provided the opportunity for Jan van Kessel the Younger
(1626-1679) to copy some of the animals. The snakes
are incorporated into his imaginative scene of Angola for the
Asia portion of the series the Four Parts of the Earth ( 1 6 6 4 -
66; Munich, Alte Pinakothek), while the fire salamander
appears among a myriad of studies in Insects and Reptiles
(ca. 1 6 5 0 - 6 0 ; Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum).30
A T W
N O T E S
1. P r o b a b l y the p a i n t i n g described as " R u b e n s and Subter [sic] —
Medusa's head w i t h snakes" ( M a y 11, 1635); see Davies 1 9 0 6 - 0 7 ,
p. 379. D e s c r i b e d i n the 1648 auction catalogue as " B y Rubens.
Medusa's H e a d " : Fairfax 1758, p. 15, no. 8.
2. " N o . 70. Item une peinture de la Teite de M e d u z a de R u b e n s " :
D u v e r g e r 1 9 8 4 - , v o l . 5, p. 482, doc. 1559; see also B o s t o n - T o l e d o
1993-94, p. 245.
3. T h e animals are attributed to Frans Snyders and Paul de V o s .
4. Metamorphoses 4.617-803.
5. T h e subject appears i n a d r a w i n g , Perseus Disarming and the Origin of
Coral, after G i u l i o R o m a n o ' s d r a w i n g o f the same subject ( L o n d o n ,
British M u s e u m , inv. 1895-9-15-645), w h i c h has been attributed to
R u b e n s by M . Jaffe (1977, p. 4 4 ) and D . Jaffe (in C a n b e r r a M
e l b o u r n e 1992, pp. 191-94, cat. no. 76), but disputed b y W o o d
(in E d i n b u r g h - N o t t i n g h a m 2002, pp. 6 1 - 6 2 , cat. no. 38).
6. W . Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 83; and W . Prohaska i n V i e n n a - E s s e n
2002, p. 58. A l t h o u g h The Head of Medusa is recorded i n the 1635
inventory o f the duke o f B u c k i n g h a m ' s collection, it is not clear w h e n
he acquired the painting. T h e duke, w h o met R u b e n s i n Paris i n 1625,
c o m m i s s i o n e d an equestrian portrait o f himself and a ceiling p a i n t i n g
T h e G l o r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e D u k e o f B u c k i n g h a m , w h i c h w e r e
pleted i n 1627. B o t h were destroyed i n 1949 but are represented
today by o i l sketches: Glorification of the Duke of Buckingham (London,
N a t i o n a l Gallery, inv. 187) and Equestrian Portrait of the Duke of
Buckingham (Fort W o r t h , Texas, K i m b e l l A r t M u s e u m , inv. A P 76.8);
see H e l d 1980, pp. 3 9 0 - 9 5 . T h e duke b o u g h t a large g r o u p o f antiquities
and other w o r k s o f art f r o m R u b e n s about 1627.
184 RUBENS A N D SNYDERS
7. D o l c e 1913, p. 140; and R i p a 1603, p. 426; q u o t e d by Prohaska i n
V i e n n a 1977. F o r other uses o f this interpretation, see also Sutton i n
B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 247, n. 6.
8. " . . . dat Perseus is te ghelijcken, oft beduydt de redelijckheyt, oft
het verstandt onser Sielen, en M e d u s a de vleeschelijcke quade ghenegentheyt,
oft natuerlijcke wellusticheyt die den M e n s c h e n allencx
benemende alle redelijckheyt voorsichticheyt en wijsheyt doet veranderen
en w o r d e n gelijck onbevoelijcke steenen;" " O o c k w o r d t by
haer [Medusa] gheleert datmen de G o d l i j c k e gaven niet behoort te
m i s b r u y c k e n n o c h d o o r dertel h o o g h m o e d t G o d t oft zijn gheboden
te verachten ghelijck sy o p haer schoonheyt en schoon hayr
verhooveerdight dede": V a n M a n d e r 1604, b o o k 4, fol. 39b; q u o t e d
by S u t t o n i n B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 247. W h i l e K o s l o w
(1995b) explored possible misogynist themes i n the iconography o f
M e d u s a , it is not clear that these were Rubens's intended meanings
for the painting.
9. Prohaska p r o v i d e d a detailed account o f these precedents i n V i e n n a
1977-
10. "animalaccio m o l t o orribile e spaventosso, rapprestando lo effeto
stesso che la testa gia di M e d u s a " : Vasari 1 9 6 6 - , v o l . 4, pp. 21-22.
Leonardo's w o r k is discussed i n relation to the present w o r k by
Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 82.
11. Medusa Shield of Charles V (1541; M a d r i d , R e a l A r m e r i a , inv. D 6 4 0 ;
see N e w Y o r k 1998-99, pp. 177-79, cat. no. 32) and Medusa Shield
(ca. 1550-55; V i e n n a , H o f j a g d - u n d R i i s t k a m m e r des Kunsthistorischen
M u s e u m s , inv. A693a; see N e w Y o r k 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 , pp. 216-24, cat. no. 42;
and Pfaffenbichler i n V i e n n a 1987, pp. 148-50).
12. B y Gijsbert van V e e n after a design by O t t o van V e e n ; see A n t w e r p
1993, pp. 2 6 9 - 7 0 , cat. no. 123.
13. A c c o r d i n g to the Italian painter and biographer G i o v a n n i B a g l i o n e
(ca. 1566-1643); see Friedlaender 1955, P- 157, no. 13. Friedlaender
(p. 87) discusses the connection between Caravaggio's w o r k and that
o f Rubens and Snyders. See also H e i k a m p 1966, pp. 6 2 - 7 6 ; and
Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 82.
14. Friedlaender 1955, pp. 8 7 - 8 9 .
15. Giambattista M a r i n o , Galeria Distinta (Venice, 1620), p. 28; q u o t e d i n
Friedlaender 1955, pp. 8 8 - 8 9 . See also Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 83.
16. Alternatively identified by H e i n e n as the " ^ ^ - E f f e k t e " i n
B r a u n s c h w e i g 2 0 0 4 , p. 224.
17. " V a n zijn vele schilderijen is er een, dat mij altijd is bijgebleven.
D a t kreeg ik een keer te zien bij m i j n v r i e n d Nicolaas Sohier, i n diens
prachtig ingerichte huis i n A m s t e r d a m . D a a r o p is het afgehouwen
h o o f d van M e d u s a geschilderd, omkranst d o o r slangen die uit haar
haar ontspruiten. H e t gelaat van de wonderschone v r o u w heeft zijn
gratie n o g bewaard, maar tegelijk wekt het afgrijzen d o o r de zojuist
ingetreden d o o d en d o o r de krans van afzichtelijke slangen. D e
combinatie is z o geraffineerd uitgevoerd, dat de toeschouwer d o o r de
plotselinge confrontatie (normaal is het schilderij namelijk afgedekt)
geschokt w o r d t , maar tegelijk de o n t r o e r i n g ondergaat van de
levensechtheid en de schoonheid, waarmee het wrede onderwerp is
weergegeven": H u y g e n s / H c e s a k k e r s 1987, pp. 8 0 - 8 1 . F o r Sohier's
painting, w h i c h remained i n A m s t e r d a m u n t i l the m i d d l e o f the eighteenth
century, see R o b c l s 1989, p. 371.
18. G l i i c k 1928 dated The Head of Medusa ca. 1610 and attributed it to
Rubens.
19. Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 83.
20. K o s l o w 1995b, p. 148.
21. S u t t o n i n B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 247; and K o s l o w 1995b, p. 147.
22. See Balis i n A n t w e r p 1982, p. 45 ( w i t h a reference to C . P l i n i u s
Secundus, Naturalia historiae libri 38.7.85); S u t t o n i n B o s t o n - T o l e d o
1993-94, p- 247; and K o s l o w 1995b, p. 148.
23. T h e o n l y other c o m p o s i t i o n by Snyders in w h i c h snakes figure p r o m i nently
is The Eagles and the Dead Wolf (cz. 1610-30, o i l o n canvas,
164 x 238 c m [645
/8 x 93V4 i n . ] ; Paris, M u s e e de la Chasse et de la
N a t u r e , o n deposit at the Chateau C h a m b o r d , inv. 71-1-1); see R o b c l s
1989, pp. 315-16, no. 209; and K o s l o w 1995b, p. 147.
24. Letter o f February 25, 1617, from T o b y M a t t h e w to Sir D u d l e y
C a r l e t o n ; see Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, v o l . 5, p. 99. See also
cat. no. 23.
25. F o r the 1635 and 1648 references, see notes 1 and 2 above.
26. M e n t i o n e d by Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 83.
27. Prohaska i n V i e n n a - E s s e n 2002, p. 58.
28. T h i s possibility is suggested by a similar adjustment observed by G a y o
Garcia and Vergara i n The Recognition of Philopoemen (see fig. 26); see
G a y o G a r c i a and Vergara 2004.
29. T h e copy is signed V I C T O R W O L F V O E T (oil o n canvas, 44.5 x 59 c m
[17V2 x 23 V4 i n . ] ; Dresden, Staatliche K u n s t s a m m l u n g e n ,
Gemaldegalerie, inv. 1050); see Prohaska i n V i e n n a 1977, p. 81; and
Robels 1989, p. 371. A n o t h e r painting o f the same subject, "'t H o o f t
van M e d u s a , van Feyt [the animal painter Jan Fyt]," appeared in
the estate o f Erasmus Q u e l l i n u s , 1678; see S u t t o n in B o s t o n - T o l e d o
1993-94, p. 247, n. 1.
30. See Renger and D e n k 2002, p. 2 3 7 - 4 0 ; and V i e n n a - E s s e n 2002,
pp. 9 8 - 9 9 .
R U B E N S A N D S N Y D E R S 185
25
Jan Brueghel the Elder
The Sermon on the Mount
1598
Oil on copper, 26.7 x 36.8 cm (10V2 x 14V2 in.)
Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 84.PC.71
Exhibited in Los Angeles only
I N S C R I P T I O N
A t l o w e r left, B R V E G H E L 1598
P R O V E N A N C E
Private collection, V i e n n a , A u s t r i a ; purchased
by D a v i d G o l d m a n , N e w York, 1935; by
inheritance to a private collection, N e w York;
sold Sotheby's, N e w York, A p r i l 19, 1984,
lot 4 4 ; purchased by N o o r t m a n & B r o d ,
L t d . , N e w York, f r o m w h o m acquired by the
J. P a u l Getty M u s e u m , 1984
L I T E R A T U R E
E r t z 1979, pp. 90, 92, 429, 431-32,566,
no. 53; W e l u 1983, p. 35, n . 6; Fredericksen
1985, p. 261; K o l b 2005, p. 41
E X H I B I T I O N
V i e n n a 1935, cat. no. 25
?
N T H E E A R L Y Y E A R S A F T E R J A N B R U E G H E L R E T U R N E D
from Italy in 1596, he artfully combined thematic and
figural references to his Northern predecessors, particularly
his father, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, with the expressive
compositional innovations accumulated during his sojourn
to create lush and sophisticated landscapes. The Sermon on
the Mount, which has a visual impact beyond its small scale,
exemplifies Brueghel's unique command of dramatic landscape
settings and his ability to compose richly descriptive
multifigure scenes. The work is painted on copper, and
Brueghel's luminous palette and refined yet energetic brushwork
together create a precious, jewel-like picture intended
for close scrutiny.
Though long considered to depict the Preaching of Saint
John the Baptist, the present painting can be firmly identified
as the Sermon on the Mount, a subject tentatively proposed
by Ertz, who acknowledged that some of its features were
incompatible with the more common theme of the Baptist
Preaching.1
In the center of a large crowd, Christ stands
on a rustic podium composed of branches, with the apostles
behind him, and fervently addresses his audience. More
and more followers ascend the hillside to join the throng,
which is made up of people of different nationalities and
stations in life. The scene is the first instance in the Gospels
where Christ's teachings are described in some detail.
According to Matthew (5:1-12), "when Christ saw the multitudes,
he went up into a mountain, and when he was set,
his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth,
and taught them," beginning with the Eight Beatitudes, or
conditions of blessedness.2 Unlike the forest preaching of
Saint John the Baptist (Luke 3:1-17; Matthew 3:1-17), which
was widely depicted by Flemish landscape painters of the
186 B R U E G H E L
187
F I G U R E 96 Pieter B r u e g e l the Elder, Sermon of Saint John the Baptist, 1566. O i l o n panel, 94.9 x 160.7 c m (37V8 x 63 V4 in.). Budapest, Szepmiiveszeti
M u s e u m , inv. 51 2829
early and mid-sixteenth century, the Sermon on the Mount
was a highly unusual subject.3
Brueghel might well have
known Cosimo Rosselli and Piero di Cosimo's fresco devoted
to the theme in the Sistine Chapel (ca. 1481), for example,
as a result of his residence in Rome, although it was not
a source for this scene. Instead, Brueghel's atmospheric treatment
offers a creative refashioning of late-sixteenth-century
Flemish landscape modes to vividly describe the festive atmosphere
and excitement of the event.
The Sermon belongs to a group of landscapes with religious
subjects, including themes from the life of Christ,
executed around 1598, which invert the relationship between
the religious subject and its setting. Notably, the Sermon
reflects Jan's concurrent absorption in Pieter Bruegel the
Elder's Sermon of Saint John the Baptist of 1566 (fig. 96),
which Jan painted in two versions in 1598: the large panel in
Munich, signed and dated 1598, and the version in Basel
(Kunstmuseum).4
In the 1566 composition, Pieter Bruegel
packed a colorful multitude of figures between the tree trunks
framing a forest clearing, almost obscuring the earnest figure
of Saint John the Baptist, just left of center. Painted in the
year of the iconoclastic outbreaks in the Low Countries,
Pieter's Sermon has been interpreted as an allusion to the
Protestant hedge preachers who had sprung up in the
countryside in response to harsh anti-Protestant Habsburg
policies.5
However, the significance of Pieter's Sermon for
painters was not its political associations, if indeed those
were his intention, but rather the transformation of the
theme from an earlier landscape tradition into a rationale
for portraying the great variety of humanity. Among the
diverse, colorfully attired figures are scattered more recognizable
Netherlandish types in contemporary dress who are
seen from behind, as if the viewer too is a spectator. The
seated woman with an infant is Egyptian, while the elabo-
188 B R U E G H E L
rate slashed pantaloons of the standing man on the right
signify his Asian origins. The man with the fur-trimmed hat
just in front of him bears a resemblance to a contemporary
depiction of a Tartar.6
The larger scale of the spectators at the
edges of the crowd draws attention to their activities and
their dissociation from the divine event taking place a short
distance away. In his Munich and Basel versions of the
theme, Jan reiterated all of the colorful elements of the
scene, but leveled the terrain and altered its color harmonies
by employing a cooler, bluer palette.
The Sermon on the Mount, however, stands apart from
the versions depicting Saint John the Baptist. While Jan borrowed
the eloquent gesture of Christ's delivery from the
1566 Sermon (though in reverse), the figure in the Los Angeles
painting does not wear the Baptist's shaggy dark brown
skins, but rather a short, belted tunic. Unlike the woodland
sermon depicted by Pieter in which Christ appears to the
right of the saint, no such prominent secondary figure can be
found in the present painting.7
Rather, the radiance around
the figure's head identifies him as Christ, and the group of
bearded men around and behind him as the apostles. The
view over a port to the peaks beyond alludes to the elevated
location of the gathering, as well as to the city of Capernaum
and the Sea of Galilee. The skeleton of a horse in the right
foreground was a favorite motif of Jan's, which appears
along the dirt roads of his forest scenes as a more general
reference to the arduousness of life.
Brueghel employed a similar reverse organization of religious
themes and bustling surroundings in two other scenes
from the life of Christ from 1598. As in the Los Angeles
Sermon, onlookers at the fringe of Calvary (fig. 97) appear
oblivious to the crucifixion of Christ in the distance.8
The
minute figure of Christ in Harbor Scene with Christ Preaching
(fig. 98) is embedded among the busy exchanges of the
port and the fish market in the foreground.9
Brueghel was
influenced by Joachim Beuckelaer (ca. 1534-ca. 1574),
an Antwerp contemporary of his father, whose fish markets
included biblical subjects in the background. Some of the
figures around the central foreground group in the Munich
Harbor Scene are derived from Beuckelaer's 1563 Miraculous
Draft of Fishes (Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum).
Like his father's treatment of Saint John the Baptist,
The Sermon on the Mount is filled with an astonishing assortment
of figures and delightful vignettes that emphasize
the dissociation of many from the message of God. Here can
be seen one of the earliest instances of Jan's extraordinary
ability to describe costume and facial features on a minute
scale, coupled with a sensitive and effective use of color
that moves the eye through the scene. A number of notable
figures are drawn directly from Pieter's 1566 composition,
such as the gypsy and child in the foreground, as well as the
fortune-teller reading the palm of an elegantly dressed
gentleman. The woman in the middle distance wearing a
pink gown and carrying a pack and staff is found in the 1566
composition in the left foreground. The striking red-andblue-appareled
Landsknecht (a mercenary foot soldier)
behind her in the Sermon also derives from the 1566 panel.
Like Pieter, Jan included headgear typical of the Near East,
including the flat sun hat of the foreground woman and the
turbans of Turkish viewers.1 0
To these received motifs Brueghel added characters of
his own who appear in other compositions of about the
same date. The woman resplendently attired in yellow, who
approaches the crowd with her companions from the right,
wears her hair in a mitre. According to Welu, this distinctive
style of headdress was worn by fashionable women in north
Italy and appears in Brueghel's Port Scene in Venice (ca. 1600;
private collection).1 1
She and her companion in pink also
appear in the 1598 Landscape with Toung Tobias (Liechtenstein
Collection) and in the 1598 Munich panel (fig. 98), along
with the decidedly Flemish woman with the bright blue
underskirt and a basket over her arm, and the boy in red and
black.1 2
The two Capuchin friars attending the fish market
in the Munich panel converse at the edge of the crowd
in the Sermon. The seated woman stroking a small white dog
recurs in the Tobias. Brueghel's assembly also reflects the
diversity of humanity—on its fringes, persons from different
levels of society mingle, some pleasantly, as in the central
group around the pretzel vendor, others, such as the gentleman
having his palm read, with some concern, while
the boy behind the hunter on the left simply seems bored.
Allusions to the 1566 Sermon of Saint John the Baptist notwithstanding,
The Sermon on the Mount represents a departure
from the 1566 compositional type and reflects Jan's
introduction of ideas from his southern travels along with
his own emerging treatment of multifigure landscapes.
Brueghel's friendship with the Flemish expatriate Paul Bril
(1553/54-1626) in Rome was an important influence on his
landscape style.1 3
Some of Brueghel's early forest landscapes
employ trees in an architectural fashion, with long trunks
and arching branches mimicking the forms of ancient monuments.1
4
In the Sermon, Jan opened up the circumscribed
B R U E G H E L 189
F I G U R E 97 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Calvary, 1598. O i l o n copper, 36.3 x 55.2 c m ( 1 4 x 21V4 in.). M u n i c h ,
A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 823
F I G U R E 98 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Harbor Scene with Christ Preaching, 1598. O i l o n panel, 79.4 x 118.7 c m
(31V4 x 463
/4 in.). M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek, inv. 187
190 B R U E G H E L
setting o f the elde r BruegeP s 156 6 Sermon of SaintJohnthe
Baptist into a spacious glade . Characteristically , eve n o n thi s
miniature scale , Jan realize s the expansivenes s o f the "worl d
view." The rusti c forum , screene d i n the rea r b y dens e
foliage, i s balanced b y the sweepin g vista ove r a port t o
distant mountains . Brueghel' s cool palett e fo r thi s vie w wa s
part o f well-established Norther n practice i n which land scapes
wer e separate d int o a brown-tinted foreground, a
green middl e ground, an d a blu e beyon d to creat e spatia l
recession. However , in the Sermon Brueghel employed com plex
lightin g technique s t o defin e th e audience . Figure s in
the foregroun d ar e brilliantl y illuminated , whil e thos e i n a
wide zon e aroun d th e attentiv e (perhap s seated? ) listener s
are i n shadow. The crow d closes t t o Chris t i s sharply defined
by brigh t illuminatio n create d throug h th e us e o f a sof t
palette. Brueghel' s sophisticated light effect s anticipat e A d a m
Elsheimer's us e o f light i n works such a s th e Stoning of Saint
Stephen (1602 ; Edinburgh, Nationa l Gallery) , wher e heavenl y
illumination accentuate s th e dram a o f the scene , A T W
N O T E S
1. E r t z (1979 , pp - 4 2 9 - 3 2 ) catalogue d th e L o s Angele s p a i n t i n g (the n i n
a privat e collectio n i n V i e n n a ) a s on e o f thre e autograp h w o r k s b y Ja n
B r u e g h e l th e E l d e r o n th e them e o f Sain t J o h n th e Baptis t Preaching ,
out o f m o r e tha n t w o d o z e n attribute d t o h i m . E r t z correctl y ques t
i o n e d th e date , g i v e n i n th e 193 5 e x h i b i t i o n catalogu e a s 1594 , n o t i n g
the work' s affinitie s w i t h Jan' s o u t p u t f r o m th e lat e 1590s . E r t z als o
expressed reservation s abou t th e subject , w h i c h h e fel t relate d b o t h t o
Pieter B r u e g e l th e Elder' s 156 6 Budapes t Sermon of Saint John the Baptist
and A d a m Elsheimer' s Preaching of Saint John.
2. "(3 ) Blesse d ar e th e p o o r i n spirit : fo r their s i s th e k i n g d o m o f heaven .
(4) Blesse d ar e the y tha t m o u r n : fo r the y shal l b e comforted . (5 )
Blessed ar e th e meek : fo r the y shal l inheri t th e earth . (6 ) Blesse d ar e
they w h i c h d o hunge r an d thirs t afte r righteousness : fo r the y shal l
be rilled . (7 ) Blesse d ar e th e merciful : fo r the y shal l obtai n mercy .
(8) Blesse d ar e th e pur e i n heart : fo r the y shal l se e G o d . (9 ) Blesse d
are th e peacemakers : fo r the y shal l b e calle d th e childre n o f G o d .
(10) Blesse d ar e the y w h i c h ar e persecute d fo r righteousness ' sake : fo r
theirs i s th e k i n g d o m o f heaven. " M a t t h e w 5:3-1 0 ( K i n g Jame s
Version).
3. T h e subjec t wa s depicte d i n severa l version s b y H e r r i me t d e Ble s
(born ca . 1510) , a m o n g others ; se e G i b s o n 1989 , pp . 2 7 - 2 9 .
4. Ja n B r u e g h e l th e Elder , Sermon of Saint John the Baptist (signe d a t
l o w e r right , B R V E G H E L 1598 , o i l on panel , 4 1 x 5 9 c m [1 6 Vs x
23L
A i n . ] ; M u n i c h , A l t e Pinakothek , inv . 834 ) an d Preaching of John the
Baptist (temper a o n panel , 11 5 x 16 4 c m [45 L
A x 64V 2 i n . ] ; Basel ,
K u n s t m u s e u m , inv . 139) ; se e E r t z 1979 , pp . 79 , 4 2 9 - 3 0 , 459 , 566 ,
no. 51 ; an d Renge r an d D e n k 2002 , pp . 82-83 .
5. Se e G r o s s m a n n 1973 , p . 66 ; an d M a r i j n i s s e n e t al . 1988 , pp . 3 0 4 - 5 .
6. Discusse d b y Kavale r 1999 , pp . 180-81 .
7. Se e Kavale r 1999 , p . 181 , fo r th e significanc e o f Christ' s p r o m i n e n t
p o s i t i o n a s th e m a i n focu s o f Pieter' s Budapes t panel .
8. S i g n e d an d date d B R V E G H E L 1598 ; se e E r t z 1979 , pp . 80 , 433-37 , 566 ,
no. 54 ; an d Renge r an d D e n k 2002 , pp . 9 0 - 9 1 .
9. S i g n e d an d date d B R V E G H E L 1598 ; se e E r t z 1979 , pp . 33 , 36 , 38 , 41 ,
84, 90 , 9 2 - 9 4 , 172 , 4 3 2 - 3 6 , 565 , no . 4 6 ; an d Renge r an d D e n k 2002 ,
pp. 85-87 .
10. Se e Kavale r 1999 , p . 180 .
11. W e l u (1983 , p . 32 ) reproduce s " F e m i n a r u m V e n e t a r u m Ornatu s
(The Dres s o f th e W o m e n f r o m Venice), " a detai l f r o m Piete r va n de n
Kerre's ma p o f Ital y (1616 ; M u n i c h , Bayerisch e Staatsbibliothek) .
12. F o r th e Liechtenstei n p a i n t i n g (signe d an d date d B R V E G H E L 1598) , se e
E r t z 1979 , pp . 4 1 - 4 7 , 81 , 93 , 178 , 479 , 565 , no . 47 ; an d U w e W i e c z o r c k
in E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98 , pp . 150-54 .
13. F o r Brueghel' s friendshi p w i t h B r i l , se e E r t z 1979 , pp . 9 2 - 9 4 ; B e d o n i
1983, pp . 3 8 - 4 8 ; an d p . 6 i n thi s v o l u m e .
14. Se e p . 7 i n thi s v o l u m e .
B R U E G H E L 191
26
Jan Brueghe l the Elder
The Entr y of the Animals into Noah' s Ark
1613
O i l o n panel, 54. 6 x 83.8 c m (21V2 x 33 in. )
Los Angeles , J. Paul Gett y Museum , 92 .PB.82
I N S C R I P T I O N
A t l o w e r right , B R V E G H E L - F E C - I 6 I 3 ; o n the
reverse, panelmaker' s mark , R B [ in l i g a t u r e ] 1
a n d A / n o . 2 4 7 2
P R O V E N A N C E
Jan-Egidius Peeter s d'Aertselaa r d e C l e y d a e l
(d. 1786) , A n t w e r p ; b y inheritance t o H e n r i
Joseph, b a r o n Stie r d'Aertselaar , w h o b r o u g h t
the p a i n t i n g t o th e U n i t ed State s i n 1793 t o
escape th e F r e n c h occupier s a n d returne d
to A n t w e r p i n 1816;3
offere d fo r sale b y Stie r
(under th e name Peeters) , 1817 , a n d b o u g h t
i n ; remaine d i n the Stie r collectio n u n t il 1822 ,
w h e n s o l d a t auctio n t o th e deale r L a m b e r t
Jan v a n N i e u w e n h u y s, A n t w e r p (Bincken) ,
July 29 , 1822, l o t 27; apparently s o l d b y h i m
to James-Alexandre , comt e d e Pourtales Gorgier,
f r o m whos e collectio n in L o n d on i t
was s o l d i n 1826 to " S m a r t " ; 4
abou t 1920 ,
private collection , V i e n n a, A u s t r i a; by 1977 ,
private collection , S w i t z e r l a n d ; f r o m 1977
w i t h R o b e r t H . S m i th ( N e w Y o r k a n d
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . ) ; s o l d t h r o u g h J o h n a n d
Paul H e r r i n g & C o m p a n y , Inc. , N ew York , t o
the J . Paul G e t t y M u s e u m , 1992
L I T E R A T U R E
B r o w n 1979 , p p . 174-77; E r t z 1979 , p p . 75 ,
82, 2 3 6 - 4 0 , 2 4 4 - 4 7 , 603 , n o . 273; Brussel s
1980, pp . 174-75; E r t z 1981 , p p . 110-13; B r o o s
1993, p p . 91, 9 4, 95; D i az P a d r o n 1995 , v o l . 1,
p. 306 ; E s s e n - V i e n na 1997-98 , pp . 29, 166 ,
168; G i f f o r d 1999 , p . 181-83 ; N e w Y o r k 2005 ,
p. 169 ; A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , p p . 196, 198, n . 5;
K o l b 200 5
E X H I B I T I O N S
L o n d o n 1979 , p p . 19, 96, cat. n o. 29; L o s
Angeles 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0
I
A N B R U E G H E L ' S F A M E A S A S P E C I A L I S T I N S U B J E C T S
from natur e derive d i n large par t fro m th e popularit y
of hi s paradis e landscapes , a genre he redefined fo r the
seventeenth centur y an d brought t o the highest level s of
specialization an d technical finish. 5
O l d Testament theme s
from th e book o f Genesis, notabl y th e story o f Noah's A r k
and th e Fall o f M a n, served a s occasions t o portray th e
magnificent diversit y of nature a s exemplified by the carefu l
depiction o f a lively assortmen t o f animals an d birds. Jan
Brueghel considere d The Entry of the Animals into Noah'sArk
a significan t inventio n amon g hi s treatments o f earthly
paradise, sinc e h e proudly an d clearly signed i t B R V E G H E L
F E C (Brueghelfecit, i.e., Brueghe l mad e it) . He denoted a
similarly noteworth y late r achievemen t b y signing The
Garden of Edenwith the Fall of Man(cat . no. 4) in the same
fashion, whil e Rubens' s contributio n t o the compositio n
was specifie d b y the designation F I G R (jigura), indicatin g
that h e was responsible fo r the figures an d not for the
overall desig n o f the painting.6
I n addition t o the autograp h
version o f The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark i n Budapest
(Szepmiiveszet i Museum), man y replica s an d versions
exist, attestin g to the work's eage r receptio n b y collectors.7
The Lo s Angeles compositio n represent s Brueghel' s mos t
innovative idea s for the genre, an d while The Entry of
the Animals into Noah's Ark wa s no t a physical collaboratio n
between Brueghe l an d his friend Rubens , i t bears witnes s
to thei r clos e associatio n an d artistic exchange .
O n a well-traveled pat h betwee n a stand o f trees and a
stream runnin g alon g th e edge of the woods, a parade
of animal s mak e thei r wa y towar d th e distant massiv e for m
of th e ark. Driven along b y a figure i n a red tunic, the y pro ceed
i n pairs an d small groups, domesti c animal s mingle d
192 B R U E G H E L
193
F I G U R E 99 S t u d i o o f Jan van T i e g h e m (active by 1550) and Jan de K e m p e n e e r (active by 1540), Adam Gives Names to the Animals, ca. 1550. Tapestry i n
w o o l , silk, g o l d , and silver thread, 465 x 815 c m (15 ft. 3V4 i n . x 26 ft. 9 in.). Florence, Soprintendenza delle Galleria, inv. 18.626
with species from the Near East and Africa. Waterfowl occupy
the marshy area at the lower left as well as the stream, while
cats and monkeys clamber up the small tree in which other
feathered creatures sit. Various birds and even bats wheel
through the sky overhead. The story of the building of the
ark and saving of mankind and clean and unclean birds and
beasts is told in Genesis (chapters 6 - 8 ) : When God in his
wrath against the wickedness of mankind resolved to destroy
the human race as well as animals and birds, he warned
Noah, a "just" man, to build an ark "and of every living
thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the
ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and
female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their
kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind."
The bearded patriarch Noah, in bucolic attire, appears in the
center of the scene, with his laden donkey, wife and daughter-in-law,
and their supplies. In the distance, other figures,
presumably Noah's sons and their wives, lead pairs of
animals, including giraffes, up a steep ramp onto the ark.
The clarity and monumentality of The Entry of the Animals
into Noah's Ark resulted in part from Brueghel's long engagement
with richly descriptive landscape subjects. Brueghel's
earliest treatments of paradise scenes date from the period of
his Roman sojourn. The small roundel of The Garden of Eden
with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 16), attributed here by Ariane
van Suchtelen to Brueghel and Hendrick de Clerck, probably
dates from about 1 5 9 7 - 9 8 . The careful arrangement of
animals throughout the landscape resembles earlier sixteenthcentury
examples, notably the print series of subjects from
Genesis designed by Marten de Vos ( 1 5 3 2 - 1 6 0 3 ) . 8
At about
the same time, Brueghel experimented with the idea of a
group of animals entering the landscape from one side.
The Paradise Landscape with the Creation ofAdam of 1594
(see fig. 75) is one of the earliest examples of his use of this
device, in which some of the animals are partially depicted at
the extreme right, just as the ox and the elephant's heads
appear at the right edge of The Entry of the Animals into
Noah's Ark.9
While many of the animals in the Entry move
together toward the distant ark, some join the procession
194 B R U E G H E L
from over a small hill on the right, and the rest fill the landscape
across the foreground and along the stream. In a midsixteenth
century precedent for a parade of animals, one of a
series of tapestries with subjects from the book of Genesis by
an artist working in the circle of the Brussels weavers Jan
van Tieghem and Jan de Kempeneer (fig. 99), many different
types of animals are neatly grouped in pairs and separate
columns.1 0
However, rather than situating the figures in the
foreground with the procession behind, as in the sixteenthcentury
example, Brueghel instead elucidated the biblical
subject through the description of the setting. Even during
his early career in Rome, as demonstrated by the 1594
Paradise, Brueghel occasionally positioned the biblical subject
in the background of the landscape, behind the charming
and diverse inhabitants of paradise. This characteristic technique,
used effectively by his father Pieter Bruegel the Elder
in the 1560s among others, was an essential aspect of Jan's
paradise landscapes (see cat. no. 25) and is one of the seemingly
outmoded elements that persist in his oeuvre.
After Brueghel settled in Antwerp in 1596, he painted
Paradise Landscape with the Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark
(private collection), an important early treatment of the subject.1
1
He did not revisit the paradise landscape for more
than a decade, concentrating instead on garlands and flower
still lifes for his patron Cardinal Borromeo, the archbishop
of Milan, allegorical paintings executed with Hendrick
van Balen (see, for example, cat. nos. 17 and 18), and forest
landscapes. Among these, the Allegory of Eire (cat. no. 17), the
first in a series of the four elements created for Borromeo,
offers an important precedent for the paradise landscapes and
shows Brueghel's predilection for filling his compositions
with a tremendous variety of objects and creatures that invite
the eye to linger over the scene. On April 22, 1611, in a letter
to Borromeo in which he alludes to the ongoing series of
elements for the Cardinal, Brueghel mentions a painting
of Noah's Ark.1 2
In 1612 Brueghel returned to subjects from
the book of Genesis, and particularly to the development
of a landscape genre that was similarly rich in its description
of the natural world. In The Garden of Eden from that year
(see fig. 43), Brueghel devised a lush wooded landscape
suitable for the subject of paradise.13
The complex topography,
with a stream, small hillocks, a distant glade in
which Adam and Eve accept the apple from the serpent, and
a soaring view over a river landscape is further elaborated
by the profusion of animal and bird life contained within
it. The type of paradise landscape established in this painting
permitted considerable adjustment in subsequent related
compositions but remained the perfect embodiment of the
lush, idyllic Garden of Eden.
By contrast, The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark has
a more sober and monumental character. The landscape
is less enclosed, and the open foreground recedes vigorously
into the distance, emphasizing the processional march to
the ark.1 4
Despite the abundant display, there is a sense that
Brueghel's approach in this landscape was more measured
and controlled. As with the arched interiors, in which earlier
iterations (see cat. nos. 17 and 18) were characterized by
picturesque detail, while the later Return from War: Mars
Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2) employed a tighter and
simpler treatment of the same setting, so The Entry of the
Animals into Noah's Ark offers an alternative paradise type in
contrast to the lush 1612 depiction of Eden (see fig. 43).
The strong diagonal recession of the Entry developed from
Brueghel's many scenes of travelers and cattle drovers,
though here the viewpoint is lower, and monumental figures
anchor the foreground.1 5
Brueghel's only other treatment of
a subject from the story of Noah, The Flood with Noah's Ark
(fig. 100), also employs a strong diagonal to create different
zones within the landscape, but this early work emphasizes
the dramatic confusion and terror of the Flood, a prospect
not yet felt in the paradisiacal Entry.1 6
The impact of Rubens and Brueghel's artistic friendship
shaped The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark, where it is
particularly evident in Brueghel's treatment of animals.
Brueghel was himself a skilled painter of animals, and his
refined technique was particularly suited to executing
smaller-scale figures, such as the lively animals in the Paradise
Landscape of 1594 (see fig. 75). Jan depicted those animals
with which he presumably had firsthand experience, notably
the domesticated creatures such as the goats and donkey,
with greater specificity and assurance than the leopard, for
example.1 7
Even before leaving for Rome, Rubens demonstrated
his skill at capturing the twisting, vigorous forms of
horses (see cat. no. 1), and Brueghel absorbed his friend's
more robust approach from their earliest joint endeavor.
The domestic animals in the 1612 Garden of Eden and the 1613
Entry are much more solid and convincing than his earlier
attempts during his Italian sojourn. Exotic animals and
their sinuous movement remained a challenge, however. In
the Daniel in the Lions' Den, a small-scale work painted for
Cardinal Borromeo in 1 6 1 0 , 1 8
Brueghel's leopards and lions
appear almost fantastic when compared to the sculptural
B R U E G H E L 195
F I G U R E 100 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder,
The Flood with Noah's Ark, 1601. O i l o n copper,
26.7 x 35.9 c m (10V2 x 14.V8 in.). Z u r i c h ,
Kunsthaus, Stiftung Betty u n d D a v i d M .
Koester, inv. KS4. © 2 0 0 6 Kunsthaus Z u r i c h
forms in Rubens's Daniel in the Lions'Den (ca. 1613/15;
Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art). By this period,
Brueghel had also developed the ability to impart a sense
of lively activity in his depictions of animals, and in general
the scene is characterized by looser brushwork that contributes
to the overall sense of momentum between the
different animal elements.
Brueghel's friendship with Rubens is most evident in his
direct borrowing of animals: the lions, the magnificent gray
stallion, and the pair of playful leopards, all of which he
also incorporated into the Garden of Eden (see fig. 43) of the
preceding year. Brueghel would certainly have had access
to Rubens's studio, both as a colleague and as a collaborator.
There can be no greater expression of their intimacy than
Rubens's willingness to allow Jan to utilize his animal studies,
the kind of preparatory material he guarded closely. Of the
pair of growling lions, the lioness looking to the left survives
in a colored chalk drawing made by Rubens (fig. 101) in
preparation for the huge Daniel in the Lions' Den, where she
appears life-size on the right with her male companion. In
Rubens's drawing, the lower part of the animal's back left leg
is elongated, and this area was corrected when it was painted
in the Daniel. Brueghel, however, repeated the drawn
form of the leg in both the Rome and Los Angles landscapes.
While Daniel in the Lions' Den could have been started as
early as 1612, it is more often dated between 1613 and 1615.
It either remained in Rubens's studio or was, as he said,
"repurchased" by him before it was given, along with eleven
other paintings, including Prometheus Bound (cat. no. 22)
to Sir Dudley Carleton, British ambassador to The Hague,
in exchange for his collection of antique marble sculpture.1 9
Although Brueghel almost certainly knew Rubens's drawing,
he could, over some years, also have seen the painting in
Rubens's studio. Brueghel's lion does not replicate the
white highlighting used in the drawing and has a smoother,
less textured appearance, similar to that of the large painted
animal. While Brueghel may have studied and copied
preparatory materials for the leopards, any such copies have
not survived. Rubens lists a "Leopards" among the paintings
he offered Carleton in March 1617.2 0
The original composition
appears to have been lost, but is represented by a
later copy after Rubens (see fig. 131) and a print by CharlesNicolas
Varin (1741-1812) based on a design by Antoine
Borel (1743-ca. 1810).2 1
196 BRUEGHEL
F I G U R E 1 0 1 Peter Paul R u b e n s , Lioness,
Seen from the Rear, Turning Left, ca. 1613.
Black chalk w i t h touches o f yellow, heightened
w i t h w h i t e o i l or b o d y color, some gray
wash, 39.6 x 29.6 c m (i55
/s x n 5
/ s in.). L o n d o n ,
B r i t i s h M u s e u m , inv. 1994.5.14.46 ©Trustees
o f the B r i t i s h M u s e u m
F I G U R E 102 Jan Brueghel the Elder, Ostrich,
ca. 1594. Pen and b r o w n i n k and gouache
and watercolor o n cream paper, 20.5 x 14.2 c m
(8V8 x 5 % in.). Private collection
Although Rubens may have based the lioness on a
Renaissance bronze sculpture from Padua, he stated in his
letter to Carleton that both the lions and the leopards were
"done from life."2 2
As court painters, both Rubens and
Brueghel had access to the menagerie kept by the archdukes
Albert and Isabella at their court in Brussels.2 3
Brueghel's
familiarity with the attitudes and coloring of different apes
(see cat. no. 28) attests to his firsthand observation of these
favorite companions of the archduchess, and he notes in a
letter of 1621 that the birds and animals in a (garland with a)
"beautiful Madonna" he was making with Rubens were
"made from life from some of the Infanta's."24
The rulers of
the Netherlands had long kept exotic animals, including
lions and tigers, in the park of the Brussels palace (an early
account [1446] records payment for a half-mutton to feed
the lion each day).2 5
Rubens, however, may have studied
two lions, named Flandria and Brabantia, in Ghent.2 6
A n
eighteenth-century biographer recounts a scene in Rubens's
studio in which a lion was tickled in order to encourage
it to open its mouth in a suitably fierce fashion.2 7
Rubens
painted several large hunt scenes involving wild animals
between 1613 and 1618, and his interest in lions and leopards
in the period around 1612 may have been part of his preparation
for those subjects.
The gray horse commanding the foreground of the Entry
affirms Brueghel's partnership with Rubens, who was celebrated
for his ideal portraits of this animal. Brueghel had
appropriated and emphasized the element of the horse in his
early paradise scenes (see, for example, fig. 75), where
it was an important though not completely successful figure,
and incorporated a similar regal light-colored horse from
Rubens's oeuvre in The Rxturnfrom War (cat. no. 2) of
1610-12. However, the prancing dappled horse in the Entry
descends from Rubens's 1603 Equestrian Portrait of the Duke
ofLerma (see fig. 22). The frontal pose used by Brueghel
in the Entry can be seen in one of three equestrian studies
by Rubens, known from a copy, The Riding School ( 1 6 0 9 - 1 3 ;
formerly Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Gemaldegalerie) and
in a lost equestrian portrait of Archduke Albert, visible in the
foreground of the Allegory of Sight (see fig. 54).2 8
Brueghel's
animated handling of the mane captures the energy of the
muscular Spanish/Arabian stallion, a breed associated
with royalty (Arabians with dappled coats were rare, which
further underscored their kingly lineage).2 9
Contemporary
B R U E G H E L 197
accounts refer to the heroic "Spanish horse" that saved
the life of Archduke Albert in 1600 at the battle of Nieuport
and Ostend by absorbing a musket ball to the neck. The
skin of the horse was preserved, along with that of a
horse believed to have belonged to Archduchess Isabella.3 0
The inclusion of this type of horse in their paintings
confirmed Brueghel and Rubens's relationship to the archducal
court.
Many of the other animals and birds in the Entry attest
to BrueghePs study from life of a diverse array of creatures.
The subtle variations in texture and particularly in the coloring
of fur and feathers, even on the relatively small scale
of the creatures in the present painting, reflect his meticulous
preparation. The royal menagerie and collections of birds
were a rich source for both mundane and unusual creatures.
Jean Ernst, duke of Saxony, visited the park at the Brussels
court in 1613-14 and recalled seeing wood pigeons, peacocks,
sparrow hawks, pheasants, and parakeets fly free
in a small valley.3 1
The seemingly exotic ostriches, originally
from Africa, were also part of the collection and were a
long-standing element in Brueghel's oeuvre. They appear in
one of the earliest works of this type, the 1594 Paradise (see
fig. 75). Ostriches had been depicted in the sixteenth century,
although their flightless nature was not always understood
(see fig. 99, where they hover in the air, along with turkeys,
eagles, and insects). A drawing by Brueghel of two views of
an ostrich, formerly dated to 1613, but perhaps executed
earlier, includes color notations for reference (fig. 102).
Brueghel's friend Frans Snyders recorded the bird's wideeyed
gaze in his drawing of an ostrich.3 2
Similar details
appear on a sheet of studies, notably on the figure of the
eagle (see fig. 114). A 1507 account of the Brussels court
mentions camels and ostriches being introduced for the pleasure
of the duke of Burgundy.3 3
Camels remained a fixture
of the archducal collection and appeared in the Ommeganck,
a yearly procession held to celebrate the Virgin Mary.3 4
Even creatures which had arrived in Europe from the New
World and Africa were already familiar elements by 1613.
The splendid male turkey, somewhat timidly described in
the 1594 Paradise, figures prominently in Brueghel's Allegory
ofAir (ca. 1611; Rome, Galleria Doria Pamphilj), and in
the 1612 Paradise and 1613 Entry.35 The wonderfully precise
delineation of the monkeys scaling the tree full of birds
on the left leaves no doubt that Brueghel had seen a Cercohimself.3
6 While guinea pigs figured even
in the early Garden of Eden with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 16)
and the 1594 Paradise, their forms were generalized. It
seems, however, that Brueghel closely studied a particular
pair of guinea pigs with distinctive markings (one with a
black head and shoulders and a white spot on the nose
and another that was predominantly pale with a horizontal
dark band across the back) after 1600, when a different
closely observed pair were painted in the Venus and Cupid
on which he collaborated with Hendrick van Balen.3 7
The
pair in the Entry appear in several compositions, including
The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2)
and The Garden ofEden with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4 ) .
Perhaps they were not members of the royal menagerie but
familiar pets.3 8
Around 1600 the interest in examining and describing
the natural world was intense and diverse. Brueghel mastered
the challenge of depicting a tremendous variety of
birds and beasts by separating them according to type, placing
waterfowl, for example, in their appropriate marshy and
aqueous setting. As Kolb has shown, this taxonomic approach
was a novel mode of visual cataloguing that paralleled contemporary
encyclopedic publications on the natural world.3 9
Although the sixteenth-century naturalists Conrad Gesner
and Ulisse Aldrovani had published seminal treatises on
species, their illustrations were highly schematic and were
not the main sources for Brueghel's animals. In 1613 Rubens
began to acquire a number of Aldrovani's treatises, perhaps
as a result of his own desire to understand the characteristics
of animals in advance of allegories and hunt scenes.40
The
printed illustrations for specialized treatises, such as Adriaen
Collaert's series of birds for Avium vivae icones (1580), an
early attempt to show birds in a naturalistic setting, likewise
remain stiff and posed.4 1
At about the same time, Joris
Hoefnagel (1542-1601), working for the court of the Holy
Roman Emperor Rudolf II, created some of the most
delightful and novel images of minutely rendered animals
and insects.42
To these traditions, Brueghel brought a calligraphic,
painterly technique that served his compositional
integration of the separate spheres of different types of
quadrupeds, birds with webbed feet, animals with hooves,
and so on. While these types are distinctly portrayed in the
Entry, they are not separate from one another. Among the
most delightful aspects of the assembly of creatures moving
toward the ark are the encounters between groups: cats
climbing the tree full of resplendent macaws and two
doleful owls; dogs barking at waterfowl; the bull, its hide
beautifully modulated with liquid strokes of gray, olive,
198 B R U E G H E L
and pink confronting the reclining leopard; the ram challenging
the boar.
The complicated composition integrating large and
small animal figures as well as human figures necessitated
careful planning, and Brueghel's preparation for The Entry of
the Animals into Noah's Ark was characteristic of his production.
He selected a large radial-cut panel of Baltic oak,
prepared by an Antwerp panelmaker known only as "RB"
from his initials in ligature burned into the back of the
panel.4 3
As Gifford demonstrated, the Entry was prepared
according to a process used by sixteenth-century Flemish
landscape painters. The main landscape features and figures
were first underdrawn on the prepared panel. This preparation
was not extremely meticulous, and there is no evidence,
for example, that the animals after Rubens were transferred
from another source.4 4
Brueghel later largely followed the
underdrawn preparation but, notably, moved the ears of the
gray stallion to an inward, pricked position.4 5
The composition
was then laid in by zone, using broad areas of color,
leaving reserve areas for the foreground figures. Some animals,
such as the spotted hound, were painted directly over
the green grass. In the final stage, Brueghel worked from
the background to the foreground, a process that naturally
led to the overlapping of figures and helped to create the
effect of spatial recession.46
This process furthermore allowed
Brueghel to emphasize certain animals: the light-colored
small heads of the ostriches were placed against the dark
forms of the buffalo and therefore become much more legible.
The monkey on the tree trunk is more visible for its
placement against the lighter form of the ark, which is itself
dramatically backlit by the luminous glow of the sky. Such
juxtapositions also underscored the unique nature of certain
animals, and it cannot be accidental that the wild stallion
stands directly in front of Noah's humble donkey. Brueghel
also repeated several pairs of animals from the 1612 Garden of
Eden (see fig. 43), where the two lions and the horse appear
together, the bull and leopards are in proximity, and the pair
of swans paddle in the stream. Although there is no clear
physical evidence for the manner in which Brueghel reused
animals such as the lions, leopards, and horse, it is not hard
to imagine that he was technically capable of repeating these
figures without the aid of transfer measures just as he was
able to repeat still-life items in the forge scenes, even enlarging
those same items in The Return from War (cat. no. 2).
Precisely painted, inventive, allusive, and associated with
revered earlier traditions of landscape painting, Brueghel's
paradise landscapes were highly coveted by collectors.
Rubens possessed several works by Jan Brueghel the Elder,
including a "Paradise by Brugel" that was listed in the
Specificatie following his death.4 7
Rubens's interest in the
natural world, as shown by his ad vivum animal studies and
growing library of encyclopedic resources, testifies to his
own engagement in capturing the exact characteristics of
animals, a process he shared with Brueghel. The Old Testament
subject of the Entry, however, was far from an idle
vehicle for description but was integral to the meaning of
the image as a revelation of God's creation. The artistic
exchange between Brueghel and Rubens about 1613 naturally
led to their joint authorship in The Garden of Eden with the
Fall of Man (cat. no. 4 ) , although there, too, Brueghel firmly
established his role as the originator of "paradise." A T W
N O T E S
1. O b s e r v e d and deciphered by Yvonne Szafran, associate conservator,
Paintings C o n s e r v a t i o n , J. Paul Getty M u s e u m ; identified by Jorgen
W a d u m as an u n k n o w n A n t w e r p panelmaker " R B , " w h o stamped his
panels w i t h a brand made u p o f a "large ' R ' w i t h a smaller letter C
B '
between the legs" (correspondence o f O c t o b e r 1999). F o r other panels
f r o m R u b e n s and Brueghel's circle bearing the stamp o f R B , see B r o o s
and W a d u m 1993 and W a d u m 1993.
2. Painted i n black, i n a vertical orientation, this n u m b e r appears to be
associated w i t h the F o r c h o n d t firm o f art dealers, active i n A n t w e r p
d u r i n g the seventeenth century.
3. N o . 23 o n the p a c k i n g list o f paintings shipped by Stier to A m e r i c a ,
1794, and seen i n Stier's Riverdale m a n s i o n , Riversdale H o u s e ,
in 1812; i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the G e t t y Provenance Index and B u r t o n
Fredericksen (correspondence i n G e t t y M u s e u m paintings department
file).
4. P r o b a b l y the dealer W i l l i a m Smart (d. 1828); i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by
B u r t o n Fredericksen (correspondence i n Getty M u s e u m paintings
department file).
5. A t least 106 paradise c o m p o s i t i o n s are attributed to h i m ; see E r t z
1979, p. 236.
6. It is not clear whether B r u e g h e l signed Rubens's name or Rubens
signed his o w n name at the same time u s i n g the same palette, see
cat. no. 4. A l t h o u g h R u b e n s rarely signed his paintings, he printed his
name i n R o m a n capitals o n a small g r o u p o f paintings from 1613-14,
i n c l u d i n g Jupiter and Callisto (Kassel, Gemaldegalerie, inv. G K 8 6 ) ,
w h i c h is signed P - P - R V B E N S - F - I 6 I 3 .
7. A n autograph variant dated 1615 i n is the W e l l i n g t o n M u s e u m , Apsley
H o u s e , L o n d o n (inv. 1637); see E r t z 1979, p. 605, no. 287. Variants by
B r u e g h e l and copies by other artists include: follower o f Jan B r u e g h e l
B R U E G H E L 199
the Elder, B a l t i m o r e , the Walters A r t Gallery, inv. 37.1988 ( E r t z 1979,
p. 603, under no. 273); w o r k s h o p o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Dessau,
Gemaldegalerie, inv. 266 ( E r t z 1979, p. 603, under no. 273); workshop
o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, M a d r i d , M u s e o N a c i o n a l del Prado,
inv. 1407 ( D i a z P a d r o n 1995, v o l . 1, pp. 3 0 6 - 7 , no. 1407, ill. (as Jan
B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r ) ; w o r k s h o p o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, M a d r i d ,
L a z a r o C o l l e c t i o n ( E r t z 1979, p. 603, under no. 273); w o r k s h o p o f Jan
B r u e g h e l the Elder, Pau, M u s e e des Beaux-Arts, inv. 39.1.1 ( E r t z 1979,
p. 603, under no. 273); w o r k s h o p o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, U t r e c h t ,
Centraal M u s e u m , inv. 1366 ( E r t z 1979, p- 603, under no. 273); w o r k shop
o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, collection o f the E a r l o f V e r u l a m ( E r t z
i 9 7 9 5 P- 603 , under no. 273); w o r k s h o p o f Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder,
C o l o r a d o , R o c k y M o u n t a i n C o n s e r v a t i o n Center; and Jan B r u e g h e l
the Younger, Christie's, M o n a c o , D e c e m b e r 7, 1991, lot 25 (see also
K o l b 2005, pp. 77-81, esp. n . 190); imitated by the A n t w e r p artist
Gaspar Boutatts (Sotheby's, N e w York, January 14, 1993, lot. 22);
Isaak van O o s t e n , The Entry into the Ark, Rennes, M u s e e des BeauxA
r t s (see A . Balis i n A n t w e r p 1982, p. 89, cat. no. 20); and Jacob
Savery, l o c a t i o n u n k n o w n (see Jan Briels, "Flamische M a l e r i n
H o l l a n d u m 1600," i n C o l o g n e - A n t w e r p - V i e n n a 1992-93, p. 89).
8. E n g r a v e d by N i c o l a a s B r u y n (Antwerp, Stedelijk Prentenkabinet,
inv. I / B . 562-570,572); see A n t w e r p 1982, cat. nos. 56-65.
9. T h e D o r i a Pamphilj Paradise is signed and dated at l o w e r right
B R V E G H E L 1594; see K . E r t z i n E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 163-65,
cat. no. 36.
10. T h e seven-part tapestry series o f the Story o f the C r e a t i o n was s o l d to
C o s i m o I de ' M e d i c i i n 1551 by Jan van der Walle, an A n t w e r p merchant;
see G u y D e l m a r c e l i n A n t w e r p 1982, pp. 65, 67; and N e w Y o r k
2002, p. 276. M i c h i e l C o x c i e (1499-1592) also designed a nine-piece
series o f tapestries w i t h subjects f r o m Genesis, i n c l u d i n g the story o f
N o a h , for S i g i s m u n d II A u g u s t u s ; see N e w Y o r k 2002, pp. 219, 294,
3 9 7 - 9 9 .
11. See cat. no. 16, note 4, i n this v o l u m e .
12. " Q u a n t o i l quadro del I l l . m C a r d i n a del A r e a d ' N o i , n o n m a schritto:
ne anco la letra n o n va risposta: aspettera l'ordina sua." (As far as the
Illustrious Cardinal's p a i n t i n g o f N o a h ' s A r k , I have n o t h i n g to write.
N o r has there been a response to the letter. I await y o u r directions.):
C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 169. Unfortunately, there is n o further m e n t i o n o f this
w o r k i n his correspondence. F o r the series o f the F o u r Elements, see
Jones 1993, pp. 237-38.
13. See E r t z 1979, pp. 244, 6 0 5 - 6 , no. 291, fig. 314; B e d o n i 1983,
pp. 6 8 - 7 2 , fig. 25; and A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 , pp. 197-98, cat. no. 39; see
also cat. no. 4.
14. E r t z (1979, p. 75) considered The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark
the p rimary example o f the sixth o f seven types he identified i n
Brueghel's oeuvre.
15. T h e m a n u r g i n g the animals along i n the E n t r y resembles the herders
w i t h l o n g prods i n a d r a w i n g , Peasants, oxen, geese, a family in a cart
and various barrel makers (study) (pen and ink and wash, 15.9 x 23.5 c m
(6V4 x 91
/4 in.); Sotheby's, N e w York, January 27, 1999, lot 75).
16. F o r The Flood with Noah's Ark, see E r t z 1979, p. 570, no. 79; and
E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, pp. 154-56, cat. no. 32.
17. K o l b 2005, p. 47.
18. Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Daniel in the Lions'Den (1610, o i l o n copper,
28.5 x 38.5 c m ; M i l a n , Pinacoteca A m b r o s i a n a , inv. 62). Brueghel's
idiosyncratic treatment o f Daniel in the Lions' Den surely does not
deserve the criticism leveled by H e l d 1963; see E r t z 1979, p. 569,
no. 72; and K o l b 2005, pp. 68, 70.
19. F o r the correspondence between Rubens and C a r l e t o n , see Rooses and
Ruelens 1887-1909, pp. 135-83; and M a g u r n 1955, pp. 5 9 - 6 8 . See also
cat. no. 22.
20. " n o r i n i 6 0 0 — L e o p a r d i cavati dal naturale can satiri e nimfe. O r i g i n a l e
de m i a m a n o , ecceto u n belissimo paesse fatto per m a n o d i u n valent
h u o m o i n quel mestiere, 9 x 11" (600 fl. Leopards, taken f r o m life,
w i t h Satyrs and N y m p h s . O r i g i n a l by m y hand, except a most beautiful
landscape, done by the h a n d o f a master skillful i n that department.
9 x 11 ft): Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, p. 137; and M a g u r n 1955,
p. 61, letter 29. See also cat. no. 22.
21. F o r the copy, see Rooses 1886-92, v o l . 3, no. 661. F o r Varin's engraving,
entitled Pan and Syrinx, see V o o r h e l m Scheevoogt 1873, p. 131, no.
115 (attributed to M a r t e n de V o s ) . T h e painting served as the source
for an etching o f ca. 1640 by Wenceslas H o l l a r w i t h o u t the satyr
and n y m p h but inscribed p. p. R U B E N S P I N X I T ; see H e l d 1973, after
p. 350; and C o r b e i l et al. 1992.
22. "fiorini 6 0 0 — D a n i e l fra m o l t i L e o n i cavati dal naturale. O r i g i n a l e
tutto de m i a m a n o 8 x 12 p i e d i " ( D a n i e l a m o n g m a n y lions taken f r o m
life. O r i g i n a l entirely by m y hand): Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909,
p. 136. T h e sculpture is associated w i t h the w o r k s h o p o f Francesco
Susini; see Rosenberg 1931, pp. 105-6, as w e l l as K o l b 2005, p. 70.
23. K o l b 2005, pp. 1, 13-17; see cat. nos. 4 and 12.
24. c c
..,. u n altro quadro, i l p i u bello et rara cosa che habbia fatta i n vita
mia. A c h o sig. Rubens ha fatta ben mostrande sua v i r t u i n el quadro
de m e g i o , essend una M a d o n n a bell.ma. L i oitcelli, et animali son
fatto ad v i v o de alcuni delli seren.ma Enfanto (... a different painting,
w h i c h is the most beautiful and precious I've made f r o m life. A l s o ,
S i g n o r Rubens has made a p a i n t i n g o f the best k i n d i n the center
s h o w i n g his merit, a lovely M a d o n n a . T h e birds, and animals are made
f r o m life f r o m some o f those o f the most Serene Infanta" (letter o f
September 5, 1621): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 272.
25. Saintenoy 1932-35, v o l . 1, p. 72. References i n the royal accounts to
f o o d for the l i o n continue into the sixteenth century. F o r the royal
tradition o f collecting animals, see K o l b 2005, pp. 13-20.
26. N e w Y o r k 2005, p. 168.
27. C a m p o W e y e r m a n 1729-69, pp. 287-89.
28. Pr esu m ed lost i n 1945; see B e r n h a r d 1965, p. 20, fig. 134. F o r The
Riding School, see L i e d t k e 1989, p. 232; and K o l b 2005, p. 68, fig. 66.
For the equestrian portrait o f A r c h d u k e A l b e r t , see cat. no. 9A.
2 0 0 B R U E G H E L
29. K o l b (2005, pp. 63, 65, 6 7 - 6 8 ) identified the breed and discussed the
importance o f this type o f horse i n the Entry and at the archducal
court.
30. See Francis van N o t e n , " T h e H o r s e s o f A l b e r t and Isabella: H i s t o r i c a l
B a c k g r o u n d , " and Francis Verschooten, " T h e H o r s e s o f A l b e r t and
Isabella: R a d i o g r a p h i c E x a m i n a t i o n , " i n Brussels 1998-99, pp. 3 4 3 - 4 6
and 347-57, respectively. F o r the epitaph celebrating Albert's famous
steed, see Saintenoy 1932-35, v o l . 1, p. 123.
31. Saintenoy 1932-35, v o l . 1, p. 76. F o r the best account o f the occupants
o f the archducal aviaries and menagerie, see K o l b 2005, pp. 13-20.
32. Brueghel's d r a w i n g appeared at Sotheby's, N e w York, January 20,
1982, lot 53. F o r Frans Snyders, Ostrich (pen and b r o w n ink and b r o w n
wash, 27.7 x 13.4 c m [10% x 5V4 i n . ] ; R o t t e r d a m , M u s e u m Boijmans
V a n B e u n i n g e n , inv. F S I ) , see M a r c V a n d e n v e n i n A n t w e r p 1982,
pp. 114, 116, cat. no. 51.
33. Saintenoy 1932-35, v o l . 1, p. 73.
34. F o u r camels appear i n D e n i s van A l s l o o t ' s painting o f the Ommeganck
held o n M a y 31, 1615 ( L o n d o n , V i c t o r i a and A l b e r t M u s e u m , inv.
5928-1859); see L o i s e l 1912, v o l . 2, p. 26; and K o l b 2005, p. 15.
35. A n A m e r i c a n species, turkeys were brought to S p a i n as early as 1500,
and later to Italy, France, and E n g l a n d , and were p r i z e d for their
delicious meat; see K i s l i n g 2001, p. 35; and K o l b 2005, pp. 20, 29. F o r
Allegory of Air, painted w i t h H e n d r i c k van Balen, see E r t z 1979, p. 599,
no. 249; and Werche 2 0 0 4 , p. 194, no. A 143•
36. T h e same monkey, f r o m the Portuguese c o l o n y o f B o i k o , Africa, is
one o f the types represented i n the Studies of Asses, Cats, and Monkeys
(cat. no. 28) and was i n c l u d e d i n The Garden of Eden with the Fall of
Man (cat. no. 4 ) ; see K o l b 2005, pp. 8, n - 1 2 .
37. H e n d r i c k van Balen and Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Venus and Cupid
(signed H . v. B A L E N and dated 1600, o i l o n canvas, 190 x 148 c m
[747/8 x 58*4 i n . ] ; St. Petersburg, H e r m i t a g e State M u s e u m , inv. 3256);
see Werche 2 0 0 4 , v o l . 1, p. 181, no. A 114; v o l . 2, p. 399. See cat. no. 2.
38. G u i n e a pigs arrived i n E u r o p e f r o m S o u t h A m e r i c a , perhaps via West
Africa, between about 1550 and 1580; see W e i r 1974 and K i s l i n g 2001,
p. 35-
39. C e r t a i n aspects o f Brueghel's groupings anticipate later published
forms o f classification; see K o l b 2005, pp. 21-31.
4 0 . F o r the volumes acquired by R u b e n s and the impetus behind his activities,
see Jeffrey M u l l e r , "Rubens's C o l l e c t i o n i n History," i n A n t w e r p
2 0 0 4 , p. 33-
41. See K o l b 2005, p. 27.
42. F o r H o e f n a g e l , see particularly H e n d r i x and V i g n a u - W i l b e r g 1997.
43. A c c o r d i n g to studies by Jorgen W a d u m and Jan van D a m m e , the
A n t w e r p G u i l d o f Saint L u k e o n l y required such brand marks
after 1617. A t that time brands also had to be accompanied by the arms
o f the city o f A n t w e r p (a castle w i t h t w o open hands). W a d u m has
determined that other panels w i t h the R B mark came f r o m the same
tree, i n c l u d i n g cat. no. 12; see B r o o s and W a d u m 1993, W a d u m 1993,
and W a d u m 1998, pp. 179-81.
4 4 . A l t h o u g h one cannot rule out the possibility that Brueghel used white
chalk (not visible i n infrared reflectography) w h e n sketching the
c o m p o s i t i o n o n the panel. I o w e this observation to Y v o n n e Szafran.
45. Observed and d o c u m e n t e d by Y v o n n e Szafran; see the infrared
reflectograph reproduced in K o l b 2005, fig. 13.
46. Gifford 1999, p. 182.
47. It is not possible to identify this painting o n the basis o f this general
description. See M u l l e r 1989, p. 139, no. 271; and A n t w e r p 2 0 0 4 ,
pp. 196-98, cat. no. 39.
B R U E G H E L 201
2 7
Jan Brueghel the Elder
Studies of Huntin g Dogs
ca. 1615-1 6
O i l o n panel , 3 4 x 55. 5 cm (i3 3
/s x 2 1 % in. )
Vienna, Kunsthistorische s Museum , Gemaldegalerie , inv . 698 8
28
Jan Brueghel the Elder
Studies of Asses, Cats, and Monkeys
ca. 1615-1 6
O i l o n panel , 34. 2 x 55. 5 cm (1 3 V2 x 2 1 % in. )
Vienna, Kunsthistorische s Museum , Gemaldegalerie , inv . 698 5
P R O V E N A N C E
Gustav v o n B e n d a bequest , 193 2
L I T E R A T U R E
G l i i c k 1912 , pp . 222 , 230 ; K o l b 2005 , pp . 11—1 3
E X H I B I T I O N S
V i e n n a 1930 , cat . nos . 12 4 an d 125 ; Pari s 1936 ,
cat. no . 16 ; E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98 , cat . nos .
93 an d 20 0 ( w i t h additiona l literature) ;
A n t w e r p 1998 , cat . no . 92 ; T o k y o - K o b e 2 0 0 4
202 B R U E G H E L
I
' H E S E T W O P A N E L S W I T H A N I M A L S T U D I E S A R E
among the rare surviving oil sketches by Jan Brueghel
the Elder. They are exceptionally spontaneous, lifelike
portrayals in various stages of completion, displaying asses,
monkeys, cats, and dogs, seen from various angles. Brueghel
not only observed with care the animals' appearance but
also succeeded in capturing their characteristic movements.
H e did not make these oil sketches with the intention of
selling them; instead, they were kept in his studio to serve as
examples on which to base his work. Indeed, he copied
these animals exactly in his paintings. The sketches are most
comparable to drawings by Albrecht Diirer (1471-1528),
Jacques de Gheyn (1565-1629), and Roelandt Savery (1576-
1639), which display animals depicted from life, observed
from various angles and sometimes rendered in color.1
Since Brueghel executed his studies in oil on panel, they
are naturally less fragile than preparatory drawings on
paper, and this must have been a great advantage in studio
practice.2
As far as we know, only four such oil sketches
with animal motifs by Brueghel have survived.3
O f these,
the works displayed here—generally viewed as pendants
owing to their nearly identical measurements—are the most
impressive.
O n a light ground—over which a light gray imprimatura
(a thin, intermediate layer) was applied with clearly
visible, diagonal strokes of the brush4
—Brueghel sketched
or painted the various animals, filling nearly all the available
space. Sometimes he painted them with cast shadows,
in order to give them some ground beneath their feet,
so to speak. Brueghel's extraordinarily true-to-life rendering
of animals has often led to the assumption that he painted
them from life.5
It is more likely, however, that he used
study drawings to compose oil sketches such as these
in his studio. N o t only was it especially difficult at this time
—before the invention of paint in tubes—to work in oils
out o f doors, but these panels actually display compositions
that were carefully designed to incorporate as many animals
as possible.
O n one of the panels an ass—presumably the same
animal in every case—is seen from the side, from behind,
and (obliquely) from the front; sometimes no more than
the animal's head or hindquarters are shown. Occasionally
only the contours have been sketched, using merely a
few lines of the brush or possibly the pen, whereas several
of the sketches show the animal completely colored in. Two
kinds o f monkeys are also depicted: a squirrel monkey and,
somewhat larger, a capuchin monkey. The squirrel monkey,
which is depicted in some sketches eating a piece of fruit, is
rendered from various angles, sometimes with only a few
strokes of the brush, sometimes in color. There is also a little
sketch of its hands alone. To the right of the squirrel monkey,
the capuchin monkey is worked up completely in color,
and next to it is a sketch in which only the animal's head
and shoulders are colored in. To make use of the space
remaining on the right-hand side of the panel, Brueghel gave
the plank a quarter turn clockwise and recorded his impressions
of a litter of kittens. The wide-eyed cat above them to
the right is perhaps their mother. As already mentioned,
Brueghel not only captured the animals' forms and colors but
also carefully observed their behavior. The mother cat, for
example, is somewhat crouched, its ears turned slightly back,
as it keeps a careful watch on the muddle of sleeping kittens.
Brueghel depicted the monkeys' nimble nature and was
apparently fascinated by their dexterous hands. The asses'
large ears are especially striking, seeming in some poses to
move forward and in others backward.
O n the other panel are seven dogs, most of them depicted
from various angles. Some of the dogs are sketchily rendered,
their contours consisting of only a few lines of the
brush. O f others, only the head is depicted, whereas some
are portrayed in great detail. The fact that these are hunting
dogs is stressed by the presence at the lower right of the
dead boar with its entrails spilling out. Several dogs sniff at
the boar, a beagle jumps up, and the swollen nipples of the
bitch on the left look very lifelike indeed.
Brueghel used these animal motifs whenever his compositions
required them. For example, the squirrel monkey in
the act of eating—seen frontally from the right—was copied
exactly in The Garden ofEden (cat. no. 4), and the hunting
dogs occur repeatedly in his paintings. The two black-andwhite
dogs at the upper left are recognizable in Diana's
Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs (cat. no. 11), while one of
these two animals occurs in Diana at the Hunt (cat. no. 10).
The light brown dog at the far right in the sketch is also
recognizable in the latter painting. Such borrowings allow
us to date these oil studies to about 1615-16. In a series of
etchings from 1646, Wenceslas Hollar (1607-1677) copied a
number of Brueghel's dog studies that have not survived
(see figs. 65-67).6
The prints depict in reverse a number of
dogs seen in Brueghel's paintings. The recurring appearance
of these animals—and, for that matter, the same flowers
and fruits—shows that Brueghel must have made frequent
B R U E G H E L 203
27
2 0 4
28
205
F I G U R E 103 Jan B r u e g h e l the Elder, Study of
Monkeys, a Deer, and Other Animals, 1620. O i l o n
panel, 20.1 x 30.9 c m (7% x 12Vs in.). G h e n t ,
M u s e u m v o o r Schone K u n s t e n , inv. 1902-c
use of oil sketches and preparatory drawings. After his death
in 1625, this material passed into the hands of his son and
successor, Jan Brueghel the Younger, whose work displays
the same pictorial motifs. Most of the studies in this onceextensive
studio stock have been lost.
Of the other two surviving panels with animal motifs,
one contains various ducks and birds (see fig. 4 4 ) , 7
two
of which—the surf scoter and the black-tailed godwit—
were used by Brueghel in the Mauritshuis Garden of Eden.
The other panel, a Study ofMonkeys, a Deer, and Other
Animals, now in the Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Ghent
(fig. 103),8
displays three motifs—a bird, a squirrel monkey
sitting on a melon, and a marmoset with cherries—that are
rendered identically in The Holy Family in a Garland of Fruit
and Flowers by Brueghel and Pieter van Avont in Munich
(see fig. 86). The dead deer and the dead pheasant have
identical counterparts in Brueghel's Wooded Landscape with
Nymphs, Dogs, and Hunting Spoils in Neuburg an der Donau
(see fig. 68).
In addition to these oil sketches on panel, animal studies
on paper have also survived, including a drawing of an
ostrich (see fig. 102), on which Brueghel not only gave several
color indications but also noted the size of the animal:
"9 feet high" (9 voeten hooghe).9
Brueghel must have made
many more such drawings from life—assuming he made
a sketch of every new species he laid eyes on—but nearly all
of them have been lost.1 0
Exotic animals abound in his
depictions of paradise, whereas the ass and the house cat are
perfectly ordinary creatures. Owning hunting dogs was a
princely prerogative in those days,1 1
so it is assumed that
Brueghel studied these animals at the court of the archdukes
Albert and Isabella (see cat. nos. 10 and 11).1 2
South
American monkeys, too, were probably found only in the
possession of well-to-do collectors. A v S
N O T E S
1. See K o l b 2 0 0 0 , pp. 16-35.
2. F o r a comparable o i l sketch by R u b e n s , see H e l d 1980, no. 411; see
also G r e e n w i c h - C i n c i n n a t i - B e r k e l e y 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 , cat. no. 7.
3. See notes 7 and 8 b e l o w a n d fig. 103. A Study of the Head of a Roebuck
( N a r b o n n e , M u s e e d'Art et d ' H i s t o i r e ) is sometimes attributed to
Jan B r u e g h e l the E l d e r ; see Paris 1977-78, cat. no. 18; and A . Balis i n
A n t w e r p 1982, p. 74. H o w e v e r , the somewhat coarse execution o f
this o i l sketch seems to p o i n t to Jan B r u e g h e l the Y o u n g e r ; compare
E r t z 1984, no. 330. A variant is a Study of a Roebuck, sale, Sotheby's,
L o n d o n , A p r i l 21, 2005, l o t 12, also by the h a n d o f Jan the Y o u n g e r ;
see E r t z 1984, no. 331. A Study of Parrots, Toucans, and Songbirds was
206 B R U E G H E L
probably also painted by Jan the Younger; see E r t z 1984, no. 337
(Leggatt Brothers [art dealer], L o n d o n , 1963). A parrot and a toucan
in this study have identical counterparts i n The Garden of Eden by
Brueghel and Rubens (cat. no. 4), m a k i n g it likely that this study is
a copy after a lost o i l sketch by Brueghel the Elder. A Study of Fruit,
an Artichoke, Asparagus, and Oak Twigs was also attributed by E r t z to
Jan the Younger ( E r t z 1984, no. 334; formerly L . B u r c h a r d collection,
L o n d o n ) , although it is more likely to be the w o r k o f Brueghel the
E l d e r ; see also Balis i n A n t w e r p 1982, p. 74.
4. R e g a r d i n g Brueghel's use o f an i m p r i m a t u r a , see the essay by Doherty,
L e o n a r d , and W a d u m i n this v o l u m e .
5. See, a m o n g others, E r t z 1979, p. 392; A . Balis i n A n t w e r p 1982, p. 74;
and A . W i e d i n A n t w e r p 1998, p. 282.
6. Z o e g e v o n Manteuffel 1923.
7. Sale, Paris, Galliera, N o v e m b e r 23, 1972, lot 28.
8. See A n t w e r p 1982, cat. no. 7.
9. Sale, Sotheby's, N e w York, January 20, 1982, lot 53; see K o l b 2005,
p. 10, fig. 16.
10. O t h e r animal studies by Jan Brueghel the E l d e r include: Studies of a
Rooster (pen and brush, wash, 29.8 x 19.9 c m [11V4 x 7V4 i n . ] ; Paris,
M u s e e d u L o u v r e , inv. L 2207); Bare Branch with Birds (pen, 9-2 x
13 c m [3V8 x $Vs i n . ] ; Paris, F o n d a t i o n C u s t o d i a , Frits L u g t collection,
inv. 6407); Trees and Branches with Fruit and Parrots (pen and b r o w n
ink, wash, and black chalk, 49 x 38.4 c m [19 V4 x 1 5 i n . ] ;
M o n t p e l l i e r , M u s e e Atger, inv. M A 487); Bare Branches with Parrots
(pen and b r o w n ink, wash, 14.2 x 19.6 c m [5V8 x 7V4 i n . ] ; Brussels,
K o n i n k l i j k e M u s e a v o o r Schone K u n s t e n , D e G r e z collection,
[inv.] cat. 1913, no. 474); Studies of Deer in Various Positions ( H a b o l d t
[art dealer], Paris and N e w York, sales cat. 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 , no. 8); see fig. 45.
11. Welzel 1997, p. 183.
12. T h i s suggestion can be traced to R o g e r de Piles (1677, p. 156); see also
M u l l e r Hofstede 1968, p. 205; and E r t z 1979, p. 392.
B R U E G H E L 207
29
Peter Paul Rubens
Madonna della Vallicella, Adored by Angels
1608
O i l on canvas, 87 x 58 cm (34V4 x 22% in.)
Vienna, Akademie der Bildenden Kiinste, Gemaldegalerie, inv. G G 629
Exhibited in The Hague only
P R O V E N A N C E
C o u n t A n t o n Lamberg-Sprinzenstein
(1740-1822) collection; bequeathed to the
A k a d e m i e der bildenden Kiinste, Gemaldegalerie,
V i e n n a , 18221
L I T E R A T U R E
Incisa della Rocchetta 1963; M u l l e r Hofstede
1966; W a r n k e 1968; Jaffe 1977, pp. 9 6 - 9 8 ;
H e l d 1980, no. 397; V o n zur M i i h l e n 1990;
Costamagna 1995, pp. 150-73; V o n zur
M i i h l e n 1996; V o n zur M i i h l e n 1998
E X H I B I T I O N S
V i e n n a 1977, cat. no. 4; C o l o g n e 1977,
cat. no. 19; L o n d o n - R o m e 2001, cat. no. 138;
Brussels 2002, cat. no. 1; L i l l e 2 0 0 4 ,
cat. no. 25
I
? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????
sioned to paint an altarpiece for the Roman church of
Santa Maria in Vallicella, also known as the Chiesa
Nuova (New Church) of the Oratorians. It was by far the
most prestigious of the commissions he received during
his stay in Italy (ca. 1600-08). The order of the Oratorians
—founded in 1564 by Filippo Neri, who was later canonized—
consists of lay brothers (secular priests) devoted to a common
life of prayer and pastoral work. In the spirit of the CounterReformation,
the Oratorians focused their devotions on the
veneration of the Virgin Mary. In 1575 Pope Gregory XIII
gave them the church of Santa Maria in Vallicella in Rome,
but this church soon proved too small for their burgeoning
order. The medieval church building was demolished to
make way for a new church, literally the Chiesa Nuova. A
fourteenth- or fifteenth-century fresco of Mary being blessed
by the Christ Child, surrounded by angels, was taken from
an adjacent house and carefully preserved for the purpose
of placing it on a side altar in the new church; this Madonna
della Vallicella had in fact been revered as a miraculous
icon since the sixteenth century, when it had bled after being
damaged by a stone thrown by an infidel.2
O n August 2,
1606, the Oratorians decided to move this image of divine
mercy—the church's greatest attraction—to the high altar
and to commission an altarpiece.3
Rubens signed the
contract for this commission on September 25 o f the same
year. It was stipulated that the altarpiece was to contain
portrayals of Saints Gregory, Maurus, Papianus, Domitilla,
Nereus, and Achilleus (whose relics were worshipped in
the church) and, above them, the miraculous image of Mary.4
O n December 2, 1606, Rubens wrote a letter to Annibale
Chieppio—the agent of his employer, the duke of Mantua—
208 R U B E N S
209
requesting permission to stay in Rome a few months longer
in order to paint this altarpiece: "When the finest and
most splendid opportunity in all Rome presented itself, my
ambition urged me to avail myself of the chance. It is the
high altar of the new church of the Priests of the Oratory,
called Santa Maria in Vallicella, without doubt the most celebrated
and frequented church in Rome today, situated right
in the center of the city."5
Rubens could not have foreseen
that this would prove a long and laborious task; in fact.,
he eventually felt compelled to take back his altarpiece and
produce another one, based on a different conception.
In 1 6 0 6 - 0 7 , after his patrons had approved his designs,
Rubens painted an altarpiece with six saints, transfixed
by the miraculous image of the Madonna and Child above
them (now in the Musee de Peinture et de Sculpture in
Grenoble).6
This painting was finished sometime during 1607
and placed on the high altar, but light reflecting from it
made it difficult to see.7
Moreover, it seems that the patrons
were displeased with the icon's position in the altarpiece, for
on January 30, 1608, they accepted Rubens's offer to execute
the work again, making adjustments to the upper part.8
On
April 24, 1608, however, it appeared that Rubens—for whom
it was apparently very important to bring this commission
to a satisfactory conclusion—had completely altered the
design, for he was now granted permission to divide the
altarpiece into three separate paintings, one of which would
be placed above the high altar and the other two lower
down, on the side walls of the choir.9
To avoid annoying
light reflections, the works were to be painted on slate
instead of canvas, which meant that Rubens would have to
execute them in situ. As was customary, the artist was asked
to submit designs, which appear to have been approved
quickly, since on May 13, 1608, the patrons authorized payment
for the slate.10
In the new ensemble produced for the high altar, which
can still be admired in the Chiesa Nuova, all attention is
focused—much more so than in the original design—on the
miraculous image in the central piece, which is adored by
angels and borne heavenward by putti.1 1
The six saints are
distributed over the two side pieces and placed lower down,
outside the heavenly spheres, from which vantage point
they may worship the holy image, side by side with the
churchgoers. Flying putti hold wreaths above the heads of
the early Christian saints with palm branches in their hands,
while a putto on the ground holds the tiara of the church
father Gregory the Great (ca. 5 4 0 - 6 0 4 ) . In the central
F I G U R E 104 Peter Paul Rubens, Madonna della Vallicella, Adored by Angels,
1608. O i l o n slate, 425 x 250 c m (168 x 98V8 in.). R o m e , C h i e s a N u o v a
R U B E N S 211
F I G U R E 105 Peter P a u l R u b e n s , Madonna della Vallicella, Adored by Angels,
1608. Pen and brush i n b r o w n ink, heightened i n white, over traces o f
graphite, 26.8 x 15.2 c m (10V2 x 6 in). V i e n n a , Graphische S a m m l u n g
A l b e r t i n a , inv. 8231
F I G U R E 106 Peter Paul Rubens, Madonna della Vallicella, Borne Aloft by
Putti, 1608. R e d chalk, 44.9 x 34.6 c m (i75
/8 x 135/8 in.). M o s c o w , P u s h k i n
M u s e u m , inv. 7098
212 R U B E N S
depiction, an opening has been cut in the stone for the
fresco of the Madonna della Vallicella, which is displayed, on
high feast days. The fresco is normally covered by a copper
plate, on which Rubens painted a paraphrase of the miraculous
image.
In late October 1608, Rubens departed in haste for
Antwerp-—before the unveiling of the tripartite altar ensemble
in the Chiesa Nuova—upon receiving news of his mother's
deteriorating health.1 2
Attempts to sell the rejected Oratorian
altarpiece in Italy had failed, so he took it home with him.
Learning at his arrival of his mother's death, Rubens had the
altarpiece installed by her grave in the Abbey of Saint
Michael (Sint-Michielsabdij) at Antwerp. It hung there for
nearly two centuries, until it was carried off to France during
the Napoleonic era.
The painting from the Gemaldegalerie of the Akademie
in Vienna is the modello, the design painted in oil, for the
central part of the revised altarpiece that Rubens completed
in 1608, shortly before his return to Antwerp (fig. 104).
Also preserved are a pen and wash drawing of the same
depiction (fig. 105) and a drawing in red chalk of the uppermost
part, with the putti carrying the image of the Madonna
and Child (fig. 106).1 3
These sheets must have preceded
the modello. The drawings, for example, show various suggestions
for the frame of the holy image, decorated with
such things as scrolls and rectangular protrusions;1 4
in the
final version of the altarpiece, the Madonna is set in an
oval frame. It is also apparent from the poses of the various
angels and putti that the Vienna modello comes closest to
the finished altarpiece. It was probably the last in a series of
designs made for the patrons' approval, although Rubens
modified several details of the final altarpiece. For instance,
the angels below no longer kneel on clouds, and the arched
cloud with angels' heads seen in the modello has disappeared
completely from the finished altarpiece.
The final version of the altarpiece made for the Chiesa
Nuova is an impressive ensemble, all parts of which focus
on the veneration of the miraculous image at the heart
of the composition. As the garlanding of a holy image, it
anticipates the garlands with Madonnas that Rubens later
painted in Antwerp with Jan Brueghel the Elder (see cat.
no. 12 and fig. 69). Thus the ambitious Madonna in a Flower
Garland in Munich (see fig. 1) can be seen as an elaboration
of the upper half of the central part of the Rome altarpiece.
In these collaborative works, however, the portrayals of the
Madonna and Child are merely depictions of images said to
possess miraculous powers and not true icons like the fresco
that is the focal point of the Vallicella altarpiece. A v S
N O T E S
1. After Rubens's return f r o m Italy, sketches for the three paintings i n
the C h i e s a N u o v a were to be f o u n d i n the A b b e y o f Saint M i c h a e l
(Sint-Michielsabdij) at A n t w e r p ; see D e Piles 1677, p. 189. It is possible
that these o i l sketches were stolen d u r i n g the N a p o l e o n i c era, as
was the Madonna della Vallicella, Adored by Saints ( G r e n o b l e , M u s d c de
Peinture et de Sculpture); see H e l d 1980, p. 542.
2. See V o n zur M i i h l e n 1998, fig. 4 0 .
3. Incisa della Rocchetta 1963, p. 162, doc. no. 1.
4. Incisa della Rocchetta 1963, pp. 163-67, doc. no. i v .
5. "Offerendosi d u n q u e la p i u bella e superba occasione d i tutta R o m a m i
spinse ancora zelo d'honore a prevalermi della m i a sorte. Quest'e l'altar
maggiore de la C h i e s a n u o v a delli Preti d e l l ' O r a t o r i o detta S. M a r i a
i n vallicella, senza d u b b i o h o g g i d i la p i u celebrata et frequentata chiesa
di R o m a per esser situata giusto nel centre d'essa": Jaffe 1977, p. 119,
n. 27; and M a g u r n 1955, letter no. 14. I n reaction to Rubens's letter,
D u k e V i n c e n z o G o n z a g a gave h i m permission to stay i n R o m e longer;
six months later, o n June 9, 1607, Rubens again asked C h i e p p i o for
permission to extend his R o m a n sojourn; see V o n zur M i i h l e n 1998,
p. 151.
6. O i l o n canvas, 477 x 288 c m (i873
/4 x ii33
/s in.). T h e modello for this
p a i n t i n g is to be f o u n d i n the Staatliche M u s e e n B e r l i n ; see H e l d 1980,
no. 396.
7. M a g u r n 1955, letter no. 17.
8. Incisa della Rocchetta 1963, p. 169, doc. no. v .
9. Incisa della Rocchetta 1963, p. 173, doc. no. V I I I .
10. Incisa della Rocchetta 1963, p. 173, doc. no. i x . In mid-June the
Oratorians p a i d for the delivery o f the copper plate o n w h i c h R u b e n s
painted the V i r g i n and C h i l d ; see V o n zur M i i h l e n 1998, p. 153, n . 545.
11. Rubens's c o m p o s i t i o n was inspired by D u r a n t e A l b e r t i , Madonna della
Vallicella, Adored by Angels ( R o m e , SS. N e r e o ed A c h i l l e o ) ; see M u l l e r
H o f s t e d e 1966, fig. 16 (as attributed to C r i s t o f o r o R o n c a l l i , called II
Pomarancio) and fig. 14; and also by Federico Z u c c a r o , The Worship of
God's Name ( R o m e , II G e s u ) ; see M u l l e r H o f s t e d e 1966, fig. 20.
12. See V o n zur M i i h l e n 1998, p. 154 and n . 548.
13. Jaffe 1977, figs. 329 and 328. F o r the d r a w i n g i n the A l b e r t i n a , V i e n n a ,
see H e l d 1986, no. 4 2 ; and N e w York 2005, cat. no. 18. See also a
d r a w i n g i n the M u s e e d u L o u v r e , Paris, L u g t no. 1008. Preparatory
drawings and an o i l sketch for b o t h side pieces have also been
preserved; see M u l l e r H o f s t e d e 1966, figs. 9, 10, and 8, respectively;
H e l d 1980, no. 398; and V o n zur M i i h l e n 1998, pp. 171-72, n . 622.
14. See N e w Y o r k 2005, p. 106.
R U B E N S 213
Brueghel and
?????? ?? ????
Technique and the Practice
of Collaboration
T I A R N A D O H E R T Y , M A R K L E O N A R D , A N D J 0 R G E N W A D U M
215
F I G U R E 107 Signature/inscriptions, The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (cat. no. 4)
216 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
?
1
H E C O L L A B O R A T I V E W O R K S O F J A N B R U E G H E L A N D
Peter Paul Rubens number approximately two dozen
paintings. The artists began working together i n about
1598, just prior to Rubens's sojourn i n Italy; their close relationship
continued until 1625, the year o f BrueghePs death.1
Within the group o f their known collaborative works there is
a range o f subject matter, size, and quality. The latter distinction
raises the question o f studio involvement, mainly o n the
part o f Rubens, since he is known to have operated a large
workshop, and it was not unusual for his studio assistants to
play a role i n the execution o f his works.
Few documents exist regarding the artists5
collaborative
process. There are only a few letters that indicate who was
the leading artist i n a specific work,2
no extant drawings that
show how the artists may have gone about planning their
compositions, and no records regarding the movement o f the
paintings between the artists' studios. Although frustrating,
this underscores the fact that the practice o f collaboration
was very common i n seventeenth-century Antwerp and so
accepted that it was not considered particularly noteworthy.
Artists' studios were complicated, vibrant environments.
Although overseen by a master, studios did not necessarily
produce works that were exclusively by the master's own
hand. M a n y seventeenth-century collectors defined a work's
desirability not by the degree of the master's hands-on participation
but rather by its being recognizable as belonging
to the master's style. That all o f the productions o f an artist's
studio were considered to be "original" is indicated by the
fact that they often bore the master's signature, regardless o f
how many studio assistants may have been involved in the
creative process.3
Within a studio, work was usually assigned
to assistants based upon their particular skills or talents.
The size o f a workshop was often directly related to the scale
and quantity o f the works produced. Brueghel and Rubens
were court painters who were exempt from guild regulations
that would have required them to record who their studio
members were. We do know that the prestigious flower
painter Daniel Seghers (1590-1661) worked with Brueghel
for a short period o f time.4
Rubens, to meet the demands
of his patrons and their commissions at the height of his
career, oversaw an unusually large studio, positions i n which
were much coveted.5
Since we cannot rely upon documentary evidence alone
to understand how collaborations between artists may have
worked, we must turn to the pictures themselves.
For this exhibition, a number o f the collaborative works
of Rubens and Brueghel have been studied from a technical
vantage point, leading to some general conclusions about
how the works originated and how they evolved during their
creation. It seems likely that these works most often originated
with Brueghel; i n the majority o f cases, the first stages
of drawing and painting began i n Brueghel's studio. In the
instances where Brueghel initiated the composition it seems
most likely that he was the leading collaborator and chose
the subject matter. Brueghel turned to Rubens to paint
the figures, not because o f any inability on his part to paint
the human form, but because the weaving o f another
master's hand into a painting added a rich dimension to the
tapestry of visual effects and surfaces that was the hallmark of
Brueghel's work. Such collaborative efforts highlighted the
exceptional skills o f each artist involved, producing a finished
work o f art that was more than the sum o f its individual
parts and o f greater value to collectors and patrons.
Some o f the strongest pieces o f evidence supporting the
assumption that Brueghel played the leading role in the
development o f the collaborative works are the occasional
inscriptions found o n the paintings. Notable among these
rare occurrences is the inscription o n The Garden ofEden
with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4 ) . At the right of the panel, the
notation IBRVEGHEL FEC. [Brueghel made it] lays claim to
Brueghel's role as originator of the painting. Rubens, o n the
other hand, is acknowledged as the author o f the figures:
P E T R I P A V L I . R V B E N S F I G R . (fig. 107). Brueghel's "signing"
for Rubens is not surprising, since Rubens rarely signed his
own paintings (see cat. no. 4 ) .
In three of the pictures from the series o f collaborative
works for which Rubens and Brueghel are best known—the
Five Senses at the Museo Nacional del Prado i n M a d r i d —
Brueghel features his own name prominently, but Rubens's
name does not even appear. In the Allegory of Sight (fig. 5 4 ) ,
Brueghel signed and dated one of the scattered sheets
of paper i n the lower left foreground: B R V E G H E L . F. 1617
(fig. 108) and in the Allegory of Taste, his name and the date
appear again, i n the lower far right corner: B R V E G H E L . F E .
1618 (fig. 109). As with The Garden ofEden, the use of a form
of fecit in both these signatures implies that Brueghel was
confirming his role as the primary "maker" o f the paintings.
Although it may be assumed that many o f the collaborative
works originated within Brueghel's studio, the ways i n
which the two artists worked together—particularly regarding
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 217
F I G U R E 108 Signature/inscription, Allegory of Sight (fig. 54)
F I G U R E 109 Signature/inscription, Allegory of Taste (cat. no. 8)
the sequence of events that led to a finished painting—are
not always quite so clear. Their partnership seems to have
evolved over time, and they did not always adhere to a consistent
working method. Careful study of some of the
paintings, particularly the earlier works such as The Battle of
the Amazons (cat. no. 1), from about 1598, or The Return from
War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2), from about 1610-
12, reveals a logical progression back-and-forth throughout
the creation of the painting; each artist's participation can
be traced in a fairly straightforward series of steps from start
to finish. In other pictures, though, the two artists were
extraordinarily adept at integrating their individual contributions
into a seamless whole. In considering some of their
most elaborate compositions, such as The Feast ofAchelous
(cat. no 3), it has proven nearly impossible to sort through
their complex interaction and definitively establish a timeline
for the process that led to the completed work of art.
It is only possible to speculate as to what specific
logistical arrangements may have been followed during the
creation of a painting. Did the paintings move back and
forth between the studios? Or did the artistic collaborators
who worked with Brueghel come to his studio and add
their figures there? It is perhaps more likely that the paintings
moved, as artists would certainly have preferred to
have their own materials and tools at hand within the familiar
comfort of their own studios.6
The studios in Antwerp
were, in fact, in close proximity to one another (see fig. 11).
Transportation would have been simplified by the use of
handling frames, and evidence of such constructions has
been found on some of the collaborative works.7
Materials and Techniques
In order to understand how Rubens and Brueghel worked
together, it will be helpful first to review the painting materials
and techniques that both artists used in their individual
studios as well as in their collaborative productions.
S U P P O R T
The majority of the collaborative works attributed to Brueghel
and Rubens were executed on oak panels.8
One of the underlying
motivations for using this type of support was an aesthetic
choice: the smooth, hard surface of the wood allowed
for the creation of an enamel-like paint surface—a characteristic
that was particularly well suited to Brueghel's meticulous
style. For his smaller pictures Brueghel, in fact, favored
the use of copper, which produced an even more jewel-like
surface (but which was not available in sizes suitable for use
as a support in larger compositions).
In the seventeenth century, the preparation of artists'
panels was a highly developed and regulated professional
undertaking. Panelmakers, or tafereelmakers, were registered
members of Antwerp's Guild of Saint Luke. The wood used
for panel supports was predominantly oak; either imported
by timber merchants from the eastern Baltic regions of
northern Europe or taken from western European forests
and allowed to season for some years.9
Panels were often constructed of two or more planks
of wood that were joined to one another to achieve a finished
218 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
dimension o f a particular size. Panels were constructed to
the purchaser's specifications or in one of a series of standard
sizes which could then be sold "off the shelf."1 0
The planks
were relatively thin: most commonly around l
A inch ( 0 . 8
to 1.5 cm) in thickness. The planks would be aligned parallel
to one another, and the smooth edges of the planks would
be joined along their longest dimension with animal glue
(a type of construction commonly referred to as a butt join).1 1
For most panels, prior to gluing, dowels were inserted into
pre-drilled holes in the edges of both planks in the center
of the join in order to facilitate the alignment of the planks
during hardening of the glue. Such dowels are seen in the
X-radiographs taken of the large panel support for The Return
from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (fig. n o ) ; in this case,
three dowels were spaced along the length of each panel
join. Similar internal dowels are found in the Glasgow
Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces (fig. 8 3 ) . 1 2
The panelmaker would then plane the panel so that
it was smooth on the side to which the ground layer and
subsequently the paint were to be applied. M a n y panelmakers
were also witters (literally, whiteners), who also applied
the whitish ground, made up of chalk and glue, that provided
a smooth surface for painting.1 3
In 1617 the Antwerp guild introduced strict new guidelines
for the production of panels.1 4
Once panels were approved
for sale by the dean of the guild, or one of the keurmeesters
(inspectors), they were branded on the back with the city's
coat o f arms: two severed hands and the Antwerp citadel.
A branding iron in the shape of a hand—clearly an allusion
to this coat of arms—is portrayed by Brueghel in the forge
of the Allegory of Touch (fig. i n ) . After approval and branding
of the panels, the panelmaker would stamp his own personal
mark into the w o o d . 1 5
O f the paintings exhibited here, The Garden ofEden with
the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4) and Flora and Zephyr (cat. no. 6)
are the only two panels from Rubens and Brueghel's collaborative
works where, thus far, evidence o f a panelmaker's
mark has been found.1 6
This is, in part, because the Antwerp
brand and the associated makers' marks were not routinely
used before 1617. But it is also perhaps due to the fact that
the backs of many panels have been thinned or planed during
subsequent conservation treatments, removing or obliterating
any marks in the process.1 7
The outside edges of a panel were sometimes planed
down to create a groove that would fit into a temporary auxiliary
frame that made the panel portable, allowing for easier
F I G U R E 110 D e t a i l from The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus
(cat. no. 2) s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (top) and i n an X-radiograph s h o w i n g
one o f the dowels used to j o i n the panels (bottom)
F I G U R E 111 Detail horn Allegory of Touch (fig. 56), s h o w i n g hand-shaped
randing i r o n at rightb
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 219
F I G U R E 112 R e m b r a n d t v a n R i j n (1606-1669),
The Painter in His Studio, ca. 1628. O i l o n
panel, 24.8 x 31.7 c m (9V4 x 12V2 in.).
B o s t o n , M u s e u m o f F i n e A r t s , inv. 38.1838
handling i n the studio and possibly facilitating transport
between studios. Such a temporary framework can be seen i n
Rembrandt's famous painting o f The Painter in His Studio
(fig. 112), where a panel painting is seen, from the reverse,
sitting o n an easel. In this case, the panel has been fitted with
wooden braces at the top and bottom edges.
Two o f Rubens and Brueghel's collaborative works, The
Return from War (cat. no. 2) and The Garden ofEden with the
Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4) are o n panels that appear to have
been fitted with similar auxiliary frameworks. In both cases,
grooves were channelled along the reverse side o f the right
and left vertical edges. O n the surface o f The Return from
War, there is evidence that the frame was i n place during the
course o f painting, as the original painted surface does not
continue to the far edges, and a ridge o f paint (or barb) was
created several centimeters i n from both edges as a result
of the paint having been brushed up against the edge o f the
temporary frame.1 8
The Garden ofEden has comparable grooves along the
vertical edges (see fig. 126). In this case, the frame must have
been i n place even prior to application o f the ground layer,
as the portions o f the panel that were protected by the frame
moldings have not been primed. However, at some point
during the painting process the strips of w o o d o f the temporary
frame were removed and some final details—most
likely added by Brueghel—were continued out to the edges
of the panel.
G R O U N D
After construction o f the panel was complete, it was
prepared for painting by the application o f sizing layers and
one or more layers o f ground. A sizing layer o f animal glue
was applied to seal the w o o d panel, so that it would not
absorb the binding media o f the ground or the paint layers.
According to period recipes for making glue, such materials
as calf skin and leather glove clippings were among the
most common ingredients.1 9
The simplest ground layers were typically made from chalk
(calcium carbonate) bound i n animal glue.2 0
G r o u n d layers
in a number o f individual works by Brueghel and Boibens
share a basic similarity i n that they are all white to off-white
in color and provided a smooth, hard surface for painting.
The preparation layer o n a panel would have been applied
by the panelmaker, a witter, or i n the artist's studio. G r o u n d
220 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
layers could be applied with a brush (as was commonly done
for wood panels) or priming knife (for canvas supports)
and, if necessary, could be smoothed down mechanically with
a tool such as a reed or drawknife.2 1
I M P R I M A T U R A
Both Brueghel and Rubens favored the use of an additional
preparatory layer—commonly referred to today as an imprimatura
(stemming from the Italian, imprima, meaning "first"
or "before all").2 2
The imprimatura was a semitranslucent
pigmented preparation applied in a thin layer on top of the
ground. It served a variety of roles: as an isolating layer, it
could protect the highly absorbent chalk-based ground from
soaking up too much oil medium from the paint layers;
as a preliminary layer, it toned down the bright white of the
ground; and as a paint layer of sorts, it had an aesthetic
impact due to the fact that it often remained visible in local
areas on the finished surface of the painting.
The imprimatura was applied thinly with a broad, flat
brush, and in a medium which left a streaky texture that
added an additional dimension to the ground layers. The
origins of this type of imprimatura can be traced back
to Flemish paintings of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries, notably those of Pieter Bruegel the Elder (Jan
Brueghel the Elder's father) and Hieronymus Bosch
(ca. 1 4 5 0 - 1 5 1 6 ) . 2 3
In order for an imprimatura layer to retain the streaky
texture imparted by the flat-brush application, it is speculated
to have been executed in a medium that would have dried
quickly rather than in a slower-drying medium that might
have flowed and relaxed into a more uniform, flat surface.
The usual assumption is that a water-based medium—such
as egg tempera or glue tempera—was used. Unfortunately,
this point remains speculative, as no recipes have been found
and specific identification of the binding media of imprimatura
layers by modern analytical techniques has proven to
be quite challenging. When taking a sample of such a thin
layer it is nearly impossible to avoid contamination, either
from the underlying ground layer or the overlying paint
layers. The imprimatura layers used by Rubens, for example,
have been variously identified by different sources as oilbased,
water-based, or an emulsion.2 4
The colors favored by Brueghel and Rubens for the
imprimatura layer in their collaborative works range from
cool grays to warm browns. The imprimatura in The Garden
of Eden with the Fall ofMan, for example, contains primarily
lead white and carbon black,2 5
resulting in a thin, semitransparent
gray layer. Conversely, in The Return from War,
lead white, carbon black, and a red-brown umber2 6
combined
to form a warm brown layer. This warmer-colored preparation
is the type of imprimatura that has been found in the
majority of the collaborative works.
Brueghel took full advantage of the warm-colored imprimaturas
in the details of many of his landscape paintings.
He would paint the contours of large tree trunks, for example,
directly over the imprimatura, followed by an economic
application of highlights and shadows, but leaving the preparatory
layer visible as a middle tone, thus creating a
heightened sense of depth and volume. In a similar fashion,
the imprimatura layer also imparted a sense of depth to the
foliage of treetops, where the warm color was incorporated
into the deepest clusters of leaves.
Perhaps the clearest example of Brueghel's use of the
imprimatura layer can be seen in two panels of animal studies
in Vienna (cat. nos. 27 and 28). Executed from life and kept
by the artist as references for later paintings, these two panels
functioned much like sketchbook pages and most of the
streaky, warm brown imprimatura layer remains visible. The
imprimatura plays a role as a middle tone in the modeling
of the animals; highlights and shadows were added in more
opaque paint to heighten the illusion of form and texture.
Rubens, perhaps more than any other artist, made the
most elaborate use of the streaky, semitransparent imprimatura
in his paintings: it moderated the austerity of the
white ground layer in his oil sketches and played an equally
important role as a middle tone both in the sketches and
in his highly finished paintings. In Rubens's Meeting of King
Ferdinand of Hungary and the Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of
Spain at Nordlingen (fig. 113), the warm brown imprimatura
serves as the middle ground, and the artist has simply
added occasional highlights or shadows to create the illusion
of three-dimensional forms on the hard panel surface.
U N D E R D R A W I N G
During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a traditional
final step in preparation for painting often involved applying
a full-scale drawing of the subject to the prepared panel
or canvas in order to lay out the basic framework for the
composition. This underdrawing was done in varying degrees
of detail and finish and is a much-studied phenomenon.2 7
Northern European painters of the early Renaissance typically
used exceptionally detailed drawings, and while both
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 221
F I G U R E 1 1 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?? ????? ????????????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ? ???? ?? ?????? ? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ????
Getty M u s e u m , 87.PB.15
F I G U R E 114 Jan Brueghel, Sheet with Animals and Garlands, 1604. Pen and b r o w n ink, 19.3 x 30.7 c m
(75
/8 x 12V8 in.). L o n d o n , British M u s e u m , inv. S L 52 ©Trustees o f the B r i t i s h M u s e u m
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Brueghel and Rubens emerged from this historic tradition,
neither artist followed this approach. Their underdrawings
were much looser, and often the boundaries between the
drawing and painting stages were blurred, as preparatory
linear indications were executed directly in paint rather than
with traditional drawing materials such as chalk, ink, or
metal point.
Underdrawing in chalk and ink is occasionally visible to
the naked eye: in some cases, a paint layer may not entirely
cover the underdrawing; in other cases, oil paint layers
may have become somewhat transparent over time. Generally,
however, an infrared-sensitive camera is the standard tool
used to reveal and study underdrawings.2 8
Both Brueghel and Rubens were master draftsmen in
their own right, and both left behind drawings—a large
body of drawings in Rubens's case—which have been studied
in great detail. Brueghel also made drawings that he used as
references for his paintings. One example, Sheet with Animals
and Garlands (fig. 114), shows that he included color notations
that would serve him in the painting process. Brueghel
appears to have made many such drawings and painted
sketches. Often these were quickly executed studies made
from live animals.
In the collaborative works, preparatory drawings on the
painting support—when they exist—tend to be sketchy and
generalized indications of outlines and rough placements
of objects and figures, most of which were radically refined
and altered during the actual painting of the work of art.
Only occasionally is there an underdrawing that serves as a
general indication of the composition. This scant indication
of compositional design—particularly in their mature
collaborations—as no doubt due at least in part to the fact
that both artists were exceptionally adept at handling paint
and did not need to rely upon a detailed underdrawing.
It could also be argued that they used their first stages of
painting as a kind of fluid underdrawing. It should be noted
that the lack of an identifiable underdrawing is no guarantee
that none was employed, only that current analytical technology
is not able to make it readable.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the only Rubens/Brueghel collaborative
work where a fairly extensive use of underdrawing
has been found is their earliest coproduction, The Battle of
the Amazons (cat. no. 1). Infrared renectography has revealed
that all of the figures and horses in the foreground were
extensively underdrawn. The underdrawing appears to be
executed in a fluid medium either alone or over chalk. The
young—and comparatively inexperienced—Rubens would
have used this underdrawing to establish the complicated
interaction and foreshortened perspective of the tight figural
group. In some instances it is possible to see the dark underdrawing
with the naked eye, such as in the fallen soldier in
the foreground (fig. 115).
Underdrawings in the subsequent collaborative works
were found to be little more than occasional lines indicating
placement of a few forms or landscape elements.29
Most of
these indications appear to be from Brueghel's hand; Rubens
seems to have moved directly to the use of brown paint to
outline his figures.
An interesting phenomenon that results from the relationship
between the underdrawing and the imprimatura layer
can be found in The Garden of Eden, where Brueghel sketched
in rough outlines of the landscape composition in black chalk
over the imprimatura.3 0
Infrared reflectography studies reveal
that the underdrawn lines appear to skip over the ridges
of the streaky imprimatura, producing a series of small dots
(fig. 116).3 1
This observation has been confirmed in a cross
section taken from an area of the underdrawing where the
black chalk is seen to lay on top of the imprimatura layer.
P I G M E N T S A N D B I N D E R S
Paint, in its simplest form, is composed of two basic materials:
dry pigment and a binder (or medium). In Antwerp
in the early 1600s, these materials were supplied by apothecaries
and regulated, along with drugs and other medicinal
materials, by the Mercers (meerseniers) Guild.3 2
The actual
mixing of the pigments with the binder was most likely carried
out by an assistant in the studio.
The pigments that were available to seventeenth-century
artists included natural minerals as well as manufactured
pigments. Within both categories of pigments there would
often be large differences in pigment color. Prices of pigments
varied widely and depended on purity, the scarcity of a particular
mineral and/or the cost of production. Both Rubens
and Brueghel characteristically used pigments of very high
purity, which ensured good tinting strength, thus imparting
saturated color to a paint film. Such a paint film had excellent
hiding power and therefore an opaque layer could be
created with very little paint.
The earth pigments, including umbers, ochers, and siennas,
were the most common and least expensive pigments
and came in a wide range of yellows, reds, and browns.
Cassel or Cologne earth and hematite were rich brown pigB
R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 223
F I G U R E 115 D e t a i l (top left) f r o m The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1).
T h e underdrawing is visible i n n o r m a l light (bottom) as well as i n the
infrared reflectogram (top right).
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
F I G U R E 116 Infrared reflectogram (left) f r o m The Garden of Eden with the Tall of Man (cat. no. 4). T h e detail (right) shows the lines o f the u n d e r d r a w i n g
" s k i p p i n g over" the streaky i m p r i m a t u r a .
merits that were particularly favored by Rubens for outlining
and for glazing in shadows, creating a sense of depth
and heightening the strength o f his figural forms.3 3
C o m m o n synthetic pigments made by simple chemical
reactions included lead white, lead-tin yellow, and the bluegreen
verditers, synthesized from copper carbonate. Lead
white was the predominant white pigment because of its
significant tinting strength. Lead-tin yellow was available
in a number o f different shades. When mixed with oil, both
of these lead-based pigments formed a textured impasto,
often used to create highlights.
The more expensive pigments included vermilion, a
bright red pigment found in both natural and synthetic
forms, and the naturally occurring blue pigments ultramarine
and azurite. Ultramarine, the rarer of the two blues, was
significantly more expensive, but its superior optical properties
meant that it was preferred for use in expanses of blue
sky. Artists would often mix these high-quality pigments
with less expensive colors or else would use them as thin,
final layers over underpaints made with less costly materials,
such as smalt, a blue pigment made from cobalt-colored glass.
Another category of pigments—perhaps more appropriately
called colorants—were those made from natural dyestuffs
drawn from plant or animal sources, such as the deep
blue pigment indigo. Natural dyestuff colorants, which have
great intensity but are very translucent in nature, are often
found in glazes. To make a pigment suitable for painting
from an organic dyestuff, the colored dye has to be deposited
onto a solid substrate and then mixed with a binder such
as linseed oil. The resulting pigments are commonly called
"lakes" and range in color from deep purple, to brilliant
red, to intense yellow. A m o n g the red lakes used by Rubens
are cochineal, derived from insect droppings, and madder,
derived from the roots of the madder plant.
By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the most
commonly used binders were drying oils, such as linseed oil
and walnut oil, which have the unique ability to form a solid
film upon prolonged exposure to air. These oils imparted
a rich, luminous character to the pigment that made them
very attractive as paint media.
Scientific analysis of various paint media used by Rubens
has identified both linseed and walnut oils, either found
alone or in combination with resinous materials.3 4
The
resinous materials may be residues from the Venice turpentine
that Rubens used to dilute the thick oil paint. Rubens
was known to have been very concerned with the potential
discoloration of oil paints, and Venice turpentine—a pure,
clear form of turpentine distilled from sap o f the European
larch tree—was said to guard against future yellowing of
the paint.3 5
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 225
Rubens often chose to use walnut oil as a medium when
painting light-colored flesh tones, particularly those that
contained large amounts of lead white, because he was sensitive
to the fact that this particular medium would yellow
less over time than linseed oil.
P A I N T I N G T E C H N I Q U E S
The types of pigments and media used by Rubens and
Brueghel were entirely in keeping with established standards
and practices of the day, and the painting materials used
by each artist in their individual works were very similar.
What distinguished the two masters were the stylistic aspects
of how the paint was applied. In general, Brueghel's handling
of paint could be characterized as more opaque, which
suited the graphic, straightforward, and detailed qualities
of his style, whereas Rubens tended to favor a more
translucent handling, relying upon multiple layers of glazes
and scumbles to create the illusion of form through more
smoothly blended effects of modeling.
Brueghel's painting method has been characterized as
deliberately slow in order to achieve the high degree of finis
and detail in his painting. He was known to take many
months to finish some commissions, a time frame that is not
surprising given the meticulous quality and character of
his finished surfaces.36
It is also possible that he worked on
several paintings at once, allowing the works to dry at
various stages and then returning to them in order to maintain
a crisp appearance by avoiding the risk of applying
paint on top of a layer that was still wet and malleable. In hi
letters, Brueghel describes the time limitations in painting
flower pieces from life since he often had to wait for flowers
to be in season or have access to them.3 7
When painting a landscape Brueghel would first lay
down solid areas of color to differentiate space, such as light
green in the foreground and blue hues for the far distance
(as well as for the expanses of sky). He would also take
advantage of the colored imprimatura whenever possible.
In The Vision of Saint Hubert (cat. no. 7), for example, the
illusion of a large tree trunk just to the left of center
was created by allowing the brown-colored imprimatura to
stand as middle ground in between the outlined highlights
and the shadows of the form. The foliage of the tree
was clearly painted over the imprimatura (at the central
portion) and overlaps the paint of the sky only at the edges.
Brueghel often painted animals in a similar way. In
The Return from War (cat no. 2), the guinea pigs in the fore­
h
s
ground were painted directly over the imprimatura in a
manner that made full use of the warm, brown preparatory
layer as the middle tone for the fur (fig. 117). Brueghel
often repeated animals in his paintings and therefore was
probably so adept at painting them that he didn't need to
create a preliminary drawing. Some of the dogs that appear
in the Studies of Hunting Dogs (cat. no. 27) also appear in
the Saint Hubert and the Diana at the Hunt paintings (cat.
nos. 10 and n).
Alternatively, Brueghel would sometimes paint his animals
directly over the first green layer of the foreground and
then carefully work additional details of foliage and grass
up to and around the completed animals. This laborious
way of painting, also seen in his crowded Garden of Eden
(cat. no. 4), resulted in a seamless insertion of even the
smallest details of leaves, grass, and flowers in between the
animals and other larger elements of the composition.
Brueghel occasionally used the end of his brush or
a similar tool to refine his details while painting.3 8
In order
to render the detailed wooden inlay on the crossbow in
the foreground of The Return from War, for example, he
scratched delicate patterns into the paint film, presumably
with a small stick or the end of a paint brush (fig. 118).
Rubens's working method was somewhat different. His
complicated figural compositions were commonly developed
through a series of preparatory drawings and were then
further refined and elaborated by the execution of painted
sketches, or bozetti. These oil sketches were used by Rubens
throughout his career. They reflect his technical facility for
working out his compositions directly on a prepared painting
surface, as they were painted without elaborate preparations—such
as detailed underdrawings—and often contain
numerous changes and reworkings. For some commissions,
and for particularly large-scale works, he painted a second,
more finished painted sketch, or modello, that was suitable
for presentation to a patron and could also function as
a guide for the studio assistants during painting of the fullscale
finished work.
In both the painted sketches and in his highly finished
works, Rubens used his brush to outline forms and to make
subsequent adjustments to contours. Most often this was done
with a warm, brown-colored paint. After the initial laying in
of the contours, the work would continue with the addition
of middle tones, highlights, and shadows; in many cases the
imprimatura was allowed to remain visible, most commonly
as a means of creating cool shadows in the flesh tones.
226 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 117 Detail from The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus
(cat. no. 2)
F I G U R E n 8 D e t a i l from The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus
Rubens would sometimes leave a small gap between different
areas of paint—rather than having a slight overlap—
thus emphasizing a shape and creating an enhanced sense of
depth in his paintings.
Rubens's masterful use of glazes (transparent layers of
darker paint applied over lighter, opaque underpaints) and
scumbles (semitransparent layers of lighter paint applied
over darker underlying layers) is most clearly seen in his
handling of flesh tones. The opalescent qualities of the flesh
of the figure of Venus in The Return from War, for example,
were created by subtle mixing of colors, ranging from
pinks to yellows to blues, in overlapping layers of smoothly
blended paint.
Rubens varied the degree of warmth in flesh tones within
a painting, most often preferring cool, pale tones for female
figures and more saturated, warmer hues for male figures.
In The Feast ofAcheious (cat. no. 3 ) , for example, the variety
of flesh tones in the multifigure scene encourages the viewer's
eye to move throughout the complicated composition. He
also favored the use of a red lake paint to accentuate the
contours of shadowed flesh tones, thus heightening the sense
of form and imparting a warmth and vitality to the figures.
Oftentimes, he would use the contrast between the flesh tones
of the male and female figures as a subtle psychological
tool; such is the case in Fan and Syrinx (cat. no. 5) and The
Return from War, where the obvious differences in tonality
between the male and female figures underscore their complex
relationships.
Rubens also used glazes to create the illusion of depth
and heighten the seductively vibrant appearance of shadowed
areas in his depiction of draperies and other materials. A
beautiful example of this is seen in the red drapery around
Mars in The Return from War. On the left side of the fabric,
lead white was mixed into the red paint (a mixture of vermilion
and red earth) to create a strong, opaque appearance.
On the right side of the painting, where the fabric is seen
in shadow between the two figures, red lake glazes were
applied on top of this red, opaque base color, creating the
illusion of deep, rich shadows in the folds of the fabric.
V A R N I S H
Varnish is a clear, resinous material that serves to provide
depth and luminosity to the paint layers, as well as providing
a protective surface. A varnish coating fills in the tiny gaps
and spaces in the upper layer of a paint film, providing a uniform
surface for the reflection of light, with the result that the
pigments become deeper, or more saturated, in appearance.
Traditional varnish materials used in the seventeenth century
included a variety of soft natural resins, often combined
with any number of harder drying oils and other materials.39
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 227
It is often difficult to determine whether or not particular
artists varnished their finished paintings. Oil paintings
require an extended period of time to dry properly, and in
many cases the work would have already left the studio
before this process was complete, precluding the application
of varnish by the artist himself or a member of his workshop.
Although there have been numerous studies of earlyseventeenth-century
varnishes, and some discussion in particular
about Rubens's use of varnish,4 0
nothing is known
about the use of varnish in the collaborative works. In light
of the fact that all of these paintings have been subsequently
varnished, cleaned, restored, and revarnished—often many
times—throughout the centuries, there is very little evidence
remaining of what may or may not have been used. In the
absence of any documentary evidence, any theories as to
what might have been applied—and, perhaps more interestingly,
which of the two artists might have applied the
varnish—would be pure speculation.
The Working Process
One clue leading to the assumption that Brueghel and
Rubens must have worked together very closely during the
planning process for their collaborative works is the existence
in these paintings of surprisingly few major pentimenti
(with several notable exceptions, such as those found in
The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus [cat. no. 2]
and the large Madonna in a Flower Garland in Munich
[fig. 1]). The fact that very few changes were made during
the painting process suggests that the artists had a clear preliminary
understanding of the compositions of their collaborative
paintings. This is quite remarkable considering that
neither preparatory drawings nor painted sketches are known
for these works. Furthermore, surprisingly little underdrawing
has been detected in these paintings.
In order to understand the process of collaboration
between these two artists it has been helpful to try to establish
a chronology of the painting process in each of the
works. For some of the paintings, doing this proved to be
quite straightforward, but in others, despite the stylistic
differences between Rubens and Brueghel, their methods of
applying paint were so well integrated on a single plane
that it was a challenge to decipher who began painting first.
In some cases, signs of process, such as overlapping layers of
paint, are clearly visible. In other instances, it was necessary
to use infrared reflectography or near-infrared imaging to
reveal underdrawing or differentiate where paint layers overlap.
X-radiographs and stereomicroscopic studies of the
paint surfaces also helped to determine the order of painting
by revealing overlapping areas of paint.
THE BATTLE OF THE AMAZONS
The first known collaborative painting by Brueghel and
Rubens is The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1). It dates to
about 1598 and stands apart from the other collaborative
works because it is the only one executed before Rubens
left Antwerp for an eight-year sojourn in Italy.
In 1598 Rubens emerged from his apprenticeships and
became a "free master" of painting.4 1
But it is important to
note that at this point Brueghel was the senior—and
more famous—artist. He was renowned as a specialist in
painting flowers, still life, and, most importantly, landscape.
Brueghel's invitation to Rubens to collaborate with him
in executing such a painting as The Battle of the Amazons
would have given the younger artist an opportunity to
demonstrate his virtuosity in the creation of a large, complicated
figural composition.
The division of labor is clear in this early collaborative
work.4 2
The picture appears to have been simply divided into
two horizontal sections, with Brueghel painting the upper
background landscape and Rubens painting the muitifigure
group in the lower portion of the composition.4 3
Although
the result is a powerfully atmospheric and emotionally
charged scene, the contributions from the two individual
artists are arguably not yet quite as successfully integrated
as they would be in their future collaborations.
Unlike his practice in later figural contributions, Rubens
made use of an extensive underdrawing (in what appears
to be black chalk or a similar material) for this composition,
which was no doubt of prime importance in the planning
and execution of the highly complex arrangement.44
The
underdrawing is readily visible with the aid of infrared
reflectography (fig. 119). The numerous, tightly packed
and often dramatically foreshortened figures and horses in
The Battle of the Amazons were carefully positioned with
a detailed series of contours and outlines during execution
of the underdrawing.
An interesting detail in The Battle of the Amazons is found
in the use of gilding on some areas of the surface. Gold
details were applied to heighten the illusion of some of
the metallic surfaces—notably the armor, shields, and horse
228 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
bridles. This use of gilt details stems from an earlier Flemish
tradition and can be linked to the practices of Rubens's
teacher, Otto van Veen (ca. 1556-1629).4 5
0 0 0 0
Following Rubens's return to Antwerp from Italy in 1608,
Brueghel and Rubens produced a number of complex and
highly finished works of exceptional quality. These include:
The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (ca. 1610-12),
The Garden of Eden with the Fall ofMan (ca. 1617), and
The Feast ofAcheious (ca. 1614-15) (cat. nos. 2 - 4 ) . Two of
these pictures, The Return from War and The Garden of Eden,
have been the subject of much study during their recent
conservation treatments, which provided an opportunity for
some closer examinations.
THE RETURN FROM WAR: MARS DISARMED BY VENUS
One of Brueghel's and Rubens's larger collaborative works,
The Return From War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2) is
also among the most interesting because of the extensive
changes it underwent during its creation. The complicated
genesis of the picture underscores the fact that the two
artists must have had a close working relationship and is a
masterful demonstration of the success of their collaborative
efforts.
The painting's support, despite its generous size, is a
fairly thin oak panel, composed of five planks of wood,
joined horizontally. Grooves in the reverse of the panel at the
left and right edges, which correspond to two vertical areas
on the surface of the painting that are primed but unpainted,
suggest that the picture was held in a temporary framework
while the two artists were at work on the composition.
The picture must have originated in Brueghel's studio.
One unusual piece of evidence for this is the existence of
a number of small "doodles" applied to the surface after the
white ground was applied. These are visible with the aid of
infrared reflectography—and can only be read properly when
the painting is turned upside down (fig. 120). Just to the
left of Mars's tunic is a rocky landscape, a shepherd (holding
a staff), a few sheep, and a small cart. These sketchy notations
are clearly in Brueghel's hand and may represent some
preliminary thoughts for a different composition or a bit
of illustration corresponding to a discussion in the studio.
Further infrared study suggested that the original plan
for the entire composition—including the architectural
F I G U R E 119 Detail f r o m The Battle of the Amazons (cat. no. 1) s h o w n in
n o r m a l light (top) and i n an infrared reflectogram (bottom)
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 229
F I G U R E 120 Details (upside d o w n ) f r o m The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2) as s h o w n i n infrared reflectograms
setting, extensive still life, and initial placement of the
figure group—was designed by Brueghel. Brueghel's underdrawing—sparse,
roughly sketched outlines in black chalk—
indicated a different preliminary plan for the position of
the two main figures: a male figure, facing to the left, with
his proper left arm positioned in a vertical, curved embracing
gesture, was planned for the area where Venus's torso is now
found (fig. 121). It is not possible to see a preparatory sketch
for the female figure (assuming that the subject was the same
at this early stage) because the dark pigments in the painted
figure of Mars prevent transmission of the infrared image.
It should be noted that the scale of this first figure was
considerably smaller than those which Rubens eventually
painted. Interestingly, Brueghel executed a number of
collaborative works, with Rubens and others, centered on
the theme of the forge. In some of these collaborative works
(for example, in the Allegory of Touch from the Five Senses
series [fig. 5 6 ] painted with Rubens and in the Allegory
of Tire, painted with Hendrick van Balen [cat. no. 17]), the
figures of Mars and Venus were included in a similar position
yet comparatively smaller scale. The posture of the
underdrawn figure is also reminiscent of a similar male figure
presenting a shield to Venus found in one of Brueghel's
later collaborations with Van Balen, Venus in the Forge of
Vulcan (fig. 122).
After applying the sketchy underdrawing, Brueghel
painted in the architectural setting and all of the still-life elements,
leaving the original area of the figure plan "in reserve,"
meaning that the selected area was left unpainted, although
everything surrounding it was brought to a nearly finished
state by Brueghel. This use of a reserve for the figures recurs
in some of the other collaborative works as well.
Brueghel completed a detailed and complex array of
objects in the lower right corner (underneath the area where
Venus's legs and the putti holding Mars's shield now appear),
including a three-legged stool, a variety of items laid on top
of a table or shelf, and a long bench at the far right. All of
these items are revealed by infrared reflectography as well as
230 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 12 1 D e t a i l f r om The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus, a s
s h o w n i n a n infrare d reflectogra m
with X-radiograph y (fig. 123). The X-ra y image s revea l
additionally tha t thes e still-lif e element s ha d bee n brough t
to a high degre e o f finish, a s the y no t onl y appea r full y
realized bu t als o includ e the small , lea d white highlight s tha t
Brueghel woul d have applie d onl y during th e fina l stage s
of painting .
After completio n o f the firs t roun d o f painting, th e pane l
was mos t likel y sen t t o Rubens' s studio , wher e th e compo sition
wa s radicall y revised. I n a somewha t shockin g mov e
that migh t hav e deepl y divide d two artist s wit h a less inti mate—and
trusting—workin g relationship , Ruben s painte d
out mos t o f the lowe r right-han d corne r an d portion s o f
the lowe r cente r wit h a gray overpaint , t o allo w for th e
enlargement an d repositionin g o f the figure s int o thei r cur rent
configuration .
Rubens the n wen t abou t paintin g th e figura l group, mak ing
cleve r us e o f the gra y "overpaint " a s a n "underpaint "
for hi s o w n work : i t serve d a s a foundation fo r th e creatio n
of th e coo l shadow s i n the flesh tone s o f Venus.
F I G U R E 12 2 Ja n B r u e g h e l th e E l d e r an d H e n d r i c k va n B a l e n , Venus in
Forge of Vulcan, 1623 . O i l on copper , 39. 4 x 34- 3 c m (1 5 V2 x 131/ 2 in.) .
Private collectio n
Rubens als o departe d fro m Brueghel' s practic e b y paint ing
th e figur e o f Venus i n walnut oil , rather tha n th e mor e
common linsee d oil , which Brueghel had use d fo r hi s contri butions
t o th e picture . Thi s wa s n o doub t a conscious choic e
on Rubens' s part , a s walnu t oi l was les s pron e t o discol oration,
thu s ensurin g th e futur e o f the figure' s pale , pearl y
flesh tone s an d guardin g agains t th e threa t o f yellowin g
that woul d have compromise d th e subtl e variation s o f color
he use d t o creat e suc h a stron g sens e of f o r m . 4 6
Less surprisin g wer e th e type s o f pigments use d b y bot h
artists. Pigmen t identification s wer e carrie d ou t o n a numbe r
of section s o f the picture—an d al l of the identification s wer e
consistent wit h pigment s commonl y found i n works fro m th e
period, includin g lead white , vermilion , iro n earths , azurite ,
copper greens , an d lead-ti n yellow. 4 7
After Ruben s complete d hi s wor k o n th e figures , th e pane l
was probabl y returne d t o Brueghel' s studio , wher e man y o f
the still-lif e element s tha t ha d bee n painte d ove r wer e place d
in thei r curren t positions . Fo r example , th e leg s o f Venus no w
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 231
F I G U R E 123 D e t a i l f r o m The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (top), an infrared reflectogram ( b o t t o m left), and an
X - r a d i o g r a p h ( b o t t o m right)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
F I G U R E 124 Detail f r o m The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (left) F I G U R E 125 Detail from The Return from War:
and i n an infrared reflectogram (right) Mars Disarmed by Venus
cover a bowl of grapes originally painted just above the
three-legged stool. The new fruit bowl was reinserted at the
far right side of the composition. A number o f other still-life
elements were rescattered on the ground around the figural
group or reworked slightly in order to visually integrate
the two portions o f the painting—and to mask the border
of gray overpaint.
The stone wall at the right side of the painting was also
reworked. Brueghel had initially painted in a large, round
shape (possibly a shield, or perhaps a platter) on the wall at
the right-hand side o f the painting, along with a number
of bowls and other round objects just below it. In response,
perhaps, to the rounded figure o f Venus, the wall just to
her right was reworked, covering over the round objects and
replacing them with such strong vertical accents as horses'
bridles and a pair o f stirrups (fig. 124).
Although all o f these reworkings were executed with the
same quality and attention to detail as Brueghel's original
work, a number o f elements at the left side o f the figural
group, such as the large covered pot just to the right o f
Mars's proper right hand, were painted in a somewhat
different, looser style, with a more limited palette o f gray
and green (fig. 125). It is possible that one of Brueghel's
studio assistants could have contributed these final details.
??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???
The Garden ofEden with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4) demonstrates
that Rubens and Brueghel had a clear appreciation o f
each other's skills and specialties. Painted in the most laborintensive
manner possible, with work proceeding methodically
from the foreground to the background, this work
was most likely a commission for a client seeking exactly this
kind of exquisite tour de force.
The Garden ofEden with the Fall ofMan is signed in two
places: at the lower left is the inscription PETRI PAVLI
RVBENS FIGR. and at the lower right, in somewhat smaller
letters, I B R V E G H E L F E C . (see fig. 107). Despite the signatures'
difference in scale, they are both thought to have been
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 233
F I G U R E 126 F r o n t edge (left) and reverse edge (right) o f panel, The Garden of Eden with the Fall ofMan (cat. no. 4)
made by Brueghel. This is remarkable, because in all of
the other paintings that Brueghel executed jointly with other
artists nothing is found other than his own name.
The painting was executed on a single horizontal oak
panel of western European origin.4 8
The narrow remains of
a beveling may be observed at top and bottom. As was the
case with the much larger The Return from War: Mars
Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2), a groove was planed into the
reverse at both vertical ends to facilitate the mounting of
a temporary working frame (fig. 126). The auxiliary battens
distinguish this panel from those produced in standard
sizes and suggest that it was ordered in a format specifically
tailored to the composition.
On the reverse of the panel is the house mark of the panelmaker
Guilliam Gabron (active 1 6 0 9 - 1 6 6 2 + )—the letters
GG interlinked with a floral motive (fig. 127). This mark
was made using Gabron's early punch, in use between 1614
and 1626. There is no branding mark, probably due to the
panel's early dating, about 1616, just prior to the regulation
of standardized branding in 1617.4 9
Another explanation
for the lack of a branding mark might be that because it was
ordered to size the panel fell outside the so-called dozensizes
that had to be assessed by the dean.
The present panel is also an exception to the rule that
standard-size panels were usually prepared with a ground
layer before a painter acquired them. The supplementary side
frames were mounted before the panel was grounded with
chalk and glue. Their later removal left 3 - 4 mm (about
Vs inch) of the panel along the vertical edges ungrounded.
A thin grayish, streaky, and translucent imprimatura
was applied primarily in horizontal strokes but also in crisscross
and vertical directions. The cool tonality of the imprimatura
is the result of the use of lead white and ivory black
pigments, and its presence plays a visual role in the thinly
painted figures of Adam and Eve.
Over the imprimatura, an underdrawing in a dry medium,
possibly either charcoal or graphite, can be detected with
infrared imaging.5 0
Sketchy lines, similar to those found
in other paintings by Brueghel,5 1
and thus confirming that
he laid out this underdrawing, suggest the various planes
in the landscape, the trees, and the little stream in the foreground.
Slightly more detailed underdrawing is found
for the two dogs (fig. 128). Although there is an even thinner,
more detailed drawing indicating the legs and contours of
the peacock and the purple gallinules, these lines were not
always followed in the painting process. A reason for the
sketchiness of the underdrawing may be found in the fact
that the landscape is similar to his earlier Garden of Eden
????? ??????
A close study of the X-radiograph of The Garden of Eden
confirms that Rubens was the first to start the actual painting
process (fig. 129). He may have started out directly on the prepared
panel or used drawn lines in a medium that cannot be
detected. As in other of Rubens's paintings thin, light brown
234 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 127 M a r k o f panelmaker G u i l l i a m G a b r o n o n reverse o f panel,
The Garden of Eden with the Tall of Man
F I G U R E 128 D e t a i l f r o m The Garden of Eden with the Tall of Man s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (left) and i n an infrared reflectogram (right)
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 235
F I G U R E 129 D e t a i l f r o m The Garden of Eden with the Fall ofMan s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (left) and i n an X - r a d i o g r a p h (right)
lines indicate various contours, some of which were probably
applied later in order to strengthen or correct contours.
An examination of the figures and the horse behind them
shows that the buildup and brush handling is comparable:
a quick, thin, quite sketchy paint application. The modulation
of the musculature in the figures and the horse was, in large
part, carried out using hatching, something characteristic of
Rubens's technique. Analogous hatching can be found on
the thigh of Adam and on his cheek, although it was applied
with a finer brush (fig. 130). When Rubens painted the figure
of Adam, he took into account the shadow that would be
cast by the horse. The subdued tonality of the figure's upper
torso was created by the so-called turbid medium effect
(meaning that a thin layer of flesh color was applied over the
local dark grayish undermodeling).
The Tree of Wisdom, in the immediate background
behind Adam and Eve, reveals a technique comparable to
that of the figures, yet one entirely different from the rest of
the landscape. Thinly applied, the tree stands out in sketchy
brown hues reminiscent of an undermodeling. Rubens
painted the patchy brown branches of the tree as wxll as
the Serpent, seen on a small twig, passing down an apple to
Eve, although it could also be argued on stylistic grounds
that the head of the Serpent was painted by Brueghel.
Brueghel, in a second stage and in his characteristic
meticulous and often more opaque technique, applied additional
branches to the tree and added easily recognizable
small dabs of color to the trunk and stems to indicate light
reflections in the bark, thus integrating Rubens's tree into
his own landscape. The painted reflections must have been
applied after the return of the panel to Brueghel's studio,
since they relate to the completed figural group, including
the mound on which Adam is seated, the large tree trunk
with the Serpent, and the brown horse at the left.
236 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 130 D e t a i l , The Garden of Eden with the
Fall of Man
When Brueghel took over the painting, the first step
was to apply semitransparent layers of paint describing the
different planes of the landscape. In the area of the sky,
he applied a light ultramarine blue mixed with lead white,
incorporating reserves for the trees and other landscape
elements still to come. A light green wash formed the midtone
and basis for the landscape. The loose underdrawing
of the composition was not followed closely in the paint
layers, and the solid drawing below the two dogs in the
middle ground was not used in the final version. Not only
did Brueghel displace the dogs toward the left, he also used
a different pose for one of them.
It is not clear, however, why it is not possible to detect
any underdrawing in those animals that Brueghel borrowed
from Rubens. Most prominent of the quotes from his friend
is the lion in the middle foreground.5 3
The two leopards
to the right also derive from Rubens's oeuvre and are known
from a copy after Rubens's The Leopards (fig. 131). Does
this indicate that Brueghel worked directly from an intermediate
drawing made after Rubens's sketches? Or did
Brueghel use a transfer technique that cannot be detected?
The large animals were applied over the green wash
of the mid-tone of the landscape and finished in all details;
execution of the picture continued from the foreground
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 237
F I G U R E 131 A t t r i b u t e d to the w o r k s h o p o f Pete
Paul R u b e n s , The Leopards, late seventeenthearly
eighteenth century. O i l o n canvas,
205 x 317 c m (803
/4 x 1231/4 in.). M o n t r e a l ,
M u s e u m o f F i n e A r t s , Special Replacement
F u n d , inv. 1975.15
F I G U R E 132 D e t a i l f r o m The Garden of Eden wit
the Fall of Man
F I G U R E 133 D e t a i l f r o m The Garden of Eden wit
the Fall of Man s h o w i n g Eve's hair
r
h
h
toward the background. Working in this way, Brueghel
avoided the situation where variations in the hues below
them would influence the color of the animals. One example
where Brueghel contradicted this procedure can be seen
in the ostrich. The only large animal painted over the landscape,
perhaps as an afterthought, the color of the bird's neck
changes where the horizon of the landscape passes beneath
it (fig. 132).
After the large animals in the foreground were complete,
Brueghel finished the landscape around them. Individual
leaves and reeds were painted between the legs of the large
animals in a laborious and time-consuming process that took
care to maintain their form and three-dimensionality. The
sky was added in a subsequent layer. The tree trunks were
created by spreading green-brown paint with a broad bristle
brush, wet into wet, into the thin, dark green layer that was
later to become the background for the leaves. After this,
the delicate foliage, which is seen to overlap tree trunks and
sky alike, was added.5 4
Finally, the small animals and birds
were painted over the already dry landscape, which indicates
that some time elapsed between these stages.
??? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ????
Overlapping paint layers can be seen along the contours
of the forms, clearly indicating where Rubens's paint application
finishes and that of Brueghel begins. Bright greenish
paint follows the contour of the small white rabbit in the
foreground, separating it from the more subdued green
paint first applied by Rubens for the mound on which Adam
is seated. The convincing integration of Rubens's small composition
of figures, horse, tree trunk, and serpent into the
larger composition was accomplished courtesy of Brueghel.
An exquisite example of this integration is visible where
Eve's hair blows over the wings of the passing duck (fig. 133).
That this effect was added by Brueghel is confirmed by
the fact that the paint did not adhere well and formed
small droplets that are indicative of their secondary nature.
THE FEAST OF ACHELOUS
One of the most complex examples of the collaborative
works is The Feast ofAchelous (cat. no. 3), dating to about
1 6 1 4 - 1 5 . 5 5
By this point in time, Rubens and Brueghel had
become exceptionally adept at integrating their individual
contributions. Although it seems likely, given the extreme
complexity of the narrative (which is taken from Ovid's
Metamorphoses) and the prominence of the large figural
group, that Rubens played the leading role in the development
of the work's overall composition, even a close study
of the picture does not reveal with incontestable certainty
which artist painted first. It is equally unclear whether or
not the concept—or commission, if there was one—for the
picture originated in Brueghel's or in Rubens's studio.5 6
It is probable that the complicated figural group would
have been laid in by Rubens at a very early stage in the
development of the composition. Whether or not the figures
were then left in reserve, to be filled in later after Brueghel
had taken his contributions to the background grotto and
table to a certain level of finish, remains unclear. There are
some areas where reserves may exist. For example, a close
look at the plate at the far right side of the table reveals
that it was painted, by Brueghel, in two sections, around the
figure's arm. This could be for one of two reasons: an outlined
reserve existed for the arm or the majority of the arm
was painted first. It is clear that the final application of paint
on the surface of the panel was a dark flesh color, which
emphasizes the contours of the arm, and that these strokes
overlap the painted plate (fig. 134).
However, at the left side of the picture, in the group of
women holding the cornucopia, the hands grasping the
cornucopia were in place before the cornucopia itself was
F I G U R E 134 Detail from The Feast ofAchelous (cat. no. 3)
painted, suggesting that Rubens painted these figures before
Brueghel's contribution of this particular still-life detail
(fig. 135). To complicate matters further, the index finger of
the proper left hand of the figure at the far left was a final
correction, as it rests on top of the completed cornucopia.
This part of the composition is iconographically significant,
so it is not surprising that it was treated with so much care
and attention.5 7
All of this suggests that this picture did not follow a
simple two-step path to completion but underwent a lot of
back-and-forth between the artists—and perhaps between
their studios. Some of the draperies appear to be by Rubens
(such as the smooth, gray drapery of the male figure at
the right forefront of the figure group), as do some of the
other elements, such as the rocks supporting the main figures
of the central group. Other areas of drapery have a more
"crinkly" appearance (such as the draperies on the two
women with the cornucopia) and may have been painted
either by Brueghel or a member of one of the artists' studios.
Brueghel also seems to have added some final details to the
figures, such as the long tendrils of hair on the kneeling
female figure in the lower left corner.
A further complication to sorting out the various hands
at work on this picture is found in the figures at the far
right, which, although Rubensian in appearance, do not have
the strength of the rest of the group, suggesting that they
may have been added by one of Rubens's studio assistants.
The skillful interweaving of each artist's contributions
makes this one of the most successful and intricate of the
collaborative works.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 239
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2 4 0 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 137 M a r k o f panelmaker G u i l l i a m Aertssen o n reverse o f panel,
Flora and Zephyr (cat. n o . 6), seen i n natural light (left) and i n an enhanced
v i e w w i t h the mark reinforced (right)
F I G U R E 138 D e t a i l f r o m Flora and Zephyr
THE VISION OF SAINT HUBERT
The Vision of Saint Hubert (cat. no. 7) is one of the more
highly finished collaborative works. Brueghel appears to
have been first to draw on the panel, indicating the general
placement of trees in the landscape. He then began painting
the landscape, leaving an area of reserve for the figure
of Saint Hubert. In this case, the reserve seems not to have
been initially outlined by Rubens; the reserved area was
somewhat larger than the finished figure, as shown by the
exposed areas of streaky imprimatura that remain around
the completed figure.
In the foreground, Brueghel laid in a thin, light green
underpaint for the grass, painting up to the edges of the deer.
The sky was apparently painted in after completion of the
deer, as the light blue brushstrokes were applied around
the animal's head. The horse was painted by Brueghel and
seems to have been completed before the addition of the
figure of the saint.
After Rubens finished the figure of Saint Hubert,
the picture was returned to Brueghel, who painted the dogs
around the figure and added the saint's hat, which hangs
around his neck and bridges the negative space between
Saint Hubert and the horse (fig. 136). Saint Hubert's sword
and horn are probably also final additions by Brueghel.
FLORA AND ZEPHYR
The panel support for Flora and Zephyr (cat. no. 6) is
composed of five thin planks of wood joined vertically. On
the back of the panel, in the middle of the second plank
from the right (as seen from the reverse), the written
monogram of the panelmaker Guilliam Aertssen can still be
seen (fig. 137). This is quite exceptional, as the mark, a
stylized monogram showing the letter G over the letter yl,
was written in red chalk, and it is rare for this type of
monogram to survive.
Guilliam Aertssen became a master of the Guild of
Saint Luke in 1612. By 1616/17 he had his atelier in Breestraat,
where colleagues and painters also lived. From 1627 onward,
he worked steadily for the Antwerp art dealer Gaspar
Antheunis and may have continued to be active up to 1638.
The variety of Aertssen's monogram written in red
chalk is found mostly on panels dating prior to 1617 (which
confirms the stylistic dating of Flora and Zephyr to about
1617)5 the year the Antwerp guild decided on a regulation
that required all panelmakers to identify standard-size
panels with their respective monogram or house mark.5 8
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 241
F I G U R E 139 D e t a i l f r o m Flora and Zephyr F I G U R E 140 D e t a i l of Allegory of Sight (fig. 54) s h o w n i n an infrared
reflectogram
The back-and-forth nature of Rubens and Brueghel's collaborative
efforts continued during the execution of Flora
and Zephyr. It is quite clear that once the panel had been
prepared with a white ground and the typical streaky imprimatura
layer (which can be clearly seen in infrared images),
Rubens used a brown paint to outline the placement of the
figures of Zephyr, Flora, and the putti. This outline indicated
areas for Brueghel to leave in reserve while he laid in
the surrounding landscape. Such reserves seem to have
played an increasingly important role in the collaborative
process throughout the remainder of the time that the two
artists worked together.
When Rubens returned to the painting, he departed from
the reserve in several places, extending parts of the figures
over Brueghel's landscape. This can be seen as the paint
layers are very thin and have become more transparent over
time (fig. 138). After completion of the figures, Brueghel
returned to the painting to add such final details as the
flowers that overlap the red cloth held by Flora and those
in the hand of the putto kneeling by her feet (fig. 139).
T H E F I V E S E N S E S
Perhaps the most well known of the collaborative works is
the popular series known as the Five Senses (cat. no. 8
and figs. 5 4 - 5 7 ) , painted about 1617-18. These paintings,
rendered to a high degree of finish, are the result of a tight
collaboration between Rubens and Brueghel. Their scale is
smaller than most of the works discussed thus far, but
the working methods used by the two artists appear to have
remained consistent.
It is interesting that all five of the panel supports for
paintings in the series were poorly chosen. Several of the
paintings were executed on panels made from planks
with curving grains; this has led to uneven expansion and
shrinkage over time, which caused dramatic warping and
structural damage. This uncharacteristic choice of poorquality
wood supports suggests that the pictures were
produced without the benefit of a commission (and thus
the artists were reluctant to invest in a more expensive and
better-made set of panels).
The process of collaboration in the Five Senses followed
the artists' earlier models. After the panels were prepared
for painting, a few lines of underdrawing were applied, most
likely by Brueghel, as indications of compositional placements,
such as for architectural settings. Rubens then laid in
preliminary outlines for the main figures. Brueghel next
began painting, leaving a reserve for the figures based on
Rubens's contours. Finally, Rubens painted the figures,
occasionally overlapping Brueghel's work. In some pictures
from this series, Brueghel returned to the painting to add
final details.
242 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 141 Detail f r o m Allegory of Sight s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (left) and i n an infrared reflectogram (right)
In some of the works, Brueghel executed the smaller,
secondary figures. For example, in the Allegory of Taste the
background figure in the kitchen was executed by Brueghel;
in the Allegory of Touch the figures in the forge are either by
Brueghel or his studio.
There is some evidence of underdrawing in the Allegory
of Sight, where Brueghel indicated contours for the group
of paintings that is seen in the right foreground (fig. 140).
The underdrawing, executed in a carbon-containing medium,
was detected with the use of infrared reflectography.59
In this same work, Brueghel made subtle shifts during
the process of laying in the complicated setting and myriad
objects—notably in the background vista at the left center,
where what had originally been a multitiered tall fountain
was reduced to a simpler, lower form, perhaps to avoid
interfering with the cityscape beyond and to open the landscape
space as much as possible.
In the Allegory of Sight, a reserved area was left for the
female figure and the putto. Brueghel then painted around
and up to the contours of the reserve. Brueghel appears to
have painted the telescope in the foreground before Rubens
painted the figure: the texture of the flesh-colored paint of
the leg shows that Rubens's brushwork had to move around
the black telescope handle (fig. 141 [left]).
When Rubens painted the allegorical figure of Sight, he
made a number of small changes. He reduced the size of the
figure (infrared images reveal that the reserve for the head
was initially placed higher), painted beyond the reserve for
the figure's left leg, and overlapped Brueghel's elaborate
table covering (fig. 141 [right]). This is particularly evident
in the hand of the figure. The original reserve did not allow
for the long fingers which overlap the frame of the picture
that is the focus of Sight's gesture.
In the Allegory of Smell, the female figure and putto are
clearly painted over the imprimatura on reserved areas.
Again, Rubens painted outside the reserve in some areas,
covering Brueghel's already existing landscape. Rubens
apparently anticipated that Brueghel would return to the
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 243
F I G U R E 142 D e t a i l f r o m Allegory of Smell (fig. 5 7 )
F I G U R E 143 D e t a i l f r o m Allegory of Taste (cat. no. 8)
picture to paint the flowers held by the putto. Painted
directly over the imprimatura, the flowers overlap the arm
of the putto. Similar flowers are held by the figure of Smell
and adorn her hair (fig. 142).
Rubens again followed Brueghel in the painting process
for the Allegory of Taste. Studying the picture with infrared
reflectography has revealed that Brueghel used loosely sketched
contours to indicate the placement of architectural elements
such as the column. That Rubens made a point of being
sensitive to Brueghel's details and use of color is evident in
the shadow of the satyr's torso. To give a sense of depth to
the satyr's flesh tones, Rubens chose shades of green and
blue—colors which also echo and reflect the still-life elements
Brueghel had executed on the table near the figure (fig. 143).
The existence of a pentimento where the white tablecloth
follows the contour of the female figure's leg suggests the
artists' order of painting—Brueghel painting the tablecloth
first, around a planned reserve for the figure. Late in the
process, the tablecloth was adjusted to compensate for the
final placement of the figure's leg, which was painted on
a smaller scale than the rest of the reserve. The handling of
paint in this change is not consistent with the lower layers of
the original tablecloth, suggesting that someone other than
Brueghel made the adjustment (fig. 144).
In the Allegory of Hearing, the transparency of the paint
films as well as the slightly worn surface of the picture makes
it possible to confirm Rubens's use of a brown, painted
contour for the figure. Executed in thin paint, this contour is
visible in the left hand of the female figure and in the lute
she is playing (fig. 145).
Whether the Allegory of Touch departed from the collaborative
method described for the other Five Senses pictures
cannot be determined since the figure is painted so opaquely
that it is difficult to see what lies beneath it. However, it
appears that the figure's feet, where they rest on the carpet,
were painted directly over the imprimatura.
What is particularly noteworthy about the Allegory of
Touch is the reuse of numerous details and devices from other
works. For example, the crossbow and shoulder armor found
at the lower center and the bowl of fruit found just below
the two figures are nearly identical in appearance—although
completely different in scale—to the same details in The
Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus (cat. no. 2). This
reuse of details—almost as if they were theatrical props—is
common throughout Brueghel's own work as well as his
collaborative work with Rubens and others. Some of the
same details continued to be used in works by Jan Brueghel
the Younger, suggesting that the studio models were handed
down to the next generation.
There is no technical evidence that shows how the repetitions
were done, but it is most likely that the artist's studio
housed painted models, drawings, or prints that were used
as points of reference so that such details would not have
to be constantly reinvented. Brueghel's captivating Studies
of Hunting Dogs (cat. no. 27) may represent just such a group
of models; the large dog in the upper left-hand corner of the
study, for example, appears in an identical pose in Brueghel
244 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 144 D e t a i l f r o m Allegory of Taste
s h o w n i n n o r m a l light (top left) and in an
infrared reflectogram (top right)
F I G U R E 145 D e t a i l from Allegory of Hearing
(%• 55)
and Rubens's Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs
(cat. no. 1 1 ) .
G A R L A N D P I C T U R E S
A m o n g Rubens and Brueghel's most successful collaborations—and
apparently among the most appealing, as they
inspired many later copies by Jan Brueghel the Younger
and his studio—are those picturing either a Madonna and
Child or a mythological figure group framed within an
elaborate garland. This motif should probably be credited to
Jan Brueghel the Elder: it first appears in his oeuvre in
a collaborative work with Hendrick van Balen in 1608.6 0
The Madonna in a Flower Garland (fig. 1 ) is Rubens and
Brueghel's largest collaborative work (measuring nearly six
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 245
feet by seven feet [185 by 210 cm]).6 1
The painting was executed
on a large panel support made up of seven vertically
joined planks, which was enlarged during the painting
process by the addition of another plank on each vertical
edge, making a total of nine planks. (The original seven planks
were prepared in the typical fashion with a ground layer, followed
by a streaky imprimatura layer.)
The seven planks that make up the panel on which
Rubens started painting are reinforced with four internal
pegs along each panel join.6 2
Where the two additional pieces
of wood were joined to the original support there are no
such pegs. The back of this seven-plank central portion of
the support has one-centimeter-wide (3
/s-inch) grooves along
the top and bottom horizontal edges; these probably indicate
the use of a working frame.
Such a dramatic change in the size of a work was not
unusual for Rubens, who routinely enlarged his panel
paintings during the painting process, which suggests that
Rubens may have taken the lead role in the execution of
this particular painting. The fact that the composition is primarily
a tour de force of large figures interacting on a grand
scale also tends to indicate that the conception originated
with Rubens.
Rubens's process appears to have been as follows: first,
he applied a gray paint layer over the prepared panel as
a background color, outlining the form of the garland, the
image of the Madonna and Child, and the putti. In so doing,
he created reserves where the warm color of the imprimatura
would be left clear for the painting of the figure's flesh tones.
Both the X-radiograph and infrared image of the painting
suggest that initially Rubens planned for four putti
around the garland.6 3
It appears that Rubens created reserves
for these four figures and then, before painting the putti,
decided to change the composition to include a total of
eleven putti, thus necessitating the enlargement of the panel.
The paint layer buildup on the added panels imitates
that of the original panel: the panels are grounded and there
is an imprimatura layer. A gray paint was also used in the
background around the edges of the putti. In the corners of
the painting the warm brown imprimatura remains visible.
Rubens may have completed his work on the panel before
passing it to Brueghel. Brueghel was certainly the artist
who finished the painting, as evidenced by the fact that the
branches of flowers extending into the bottom left and
right corners are painted directly over the putti (fig. 146).
In executing the garland, Brueghel applied a green underpaint
layer to selected areas. This green layer covered the
light-colored imprimatura, creating a sense of depth in the
leaves. Areas where Brueghel anticipated painting lightcolored
flowers were left bare, allowing the imprimatura to
stand alone.6 4
The garland itself is a pastiche of flowers and floral
groupings used in other garland paintings, such as the
Madonna and Child in a Garland of Flowers in the Musee du
Louvre (fig. 69).
The Munich Madonna in a Flower Garland is distinguished
by the fact that the technical examination points to
Rubens playing the lead role in determining the composition
of the work.
Another collaborative garland picture, Madonna and
Child in a Garland of Fruit and Flowers (cat. no. 12), dates to
about 1620 and is a clear example of how collaborative works
were passed back and forth between the artists during the
painting process. Infrared examination of the painting makes
clear that Brueghel initially sketched an oval form for the
medallion in the painting but later changed the outlines to
indicate an octagonal shape.
What seems probable is that Brueghel painted the majority
of his portion of the work—the landscape background
and floral garlands—after indicating the octagonal shape of
the panel (which he left in reserve for Rubens). Rubens
then painted the Madonna and Child and left another small
reserve just above the Virgin's head for a floral wreath to be
added by Brueghel. Brueghel then returned to the painting
to add his flowers directly over the imprimatura. At this final
stage, Brueghel painted the gold border of the medallion
and also made small adjustments to the leaves that overlap
the upper edge of the Madonna and Child.
It is also possible that Rubens painted his figural group
first, and Brueghel then finished the painting, completing
the landscape, adding the floral garland in the reserve left by
Rubens, and accomplishing the transition between the landscape
and Rubens's figural group by adding a gold border to
the medallion.
Another collaborative painting, the Fruit Garland with
Nature Adorned by the Graces in Glasgow (fig. 83), follows the
classic form of garland paintings, with Brueghel's elaborate
assembly of fruits and vegetables framing a trompe l'oeil
image painted by Rubens. The composition of this painting
relates very closely to that of Garland of Fruit around a
Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from the Four Seasons, a col-
246 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
F I G U R E 146 D e t a i l f r o m Madonna in a Flower Garland (fig. 1) F I G U R E 147 Detail from Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces
( % 8 3 )
laboration between Brueghel and Hendrick van Balen that
exists in two versions, one in the collection of the
Mauritshuis, the other held by Dexia Bank in Antwerp
(cat. nos. 20 and 21).
What makes the Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by
the Graces interesting is the evidence that initially the artist
planned for an oval shape within the garland. When the
painting is viewed at an angle, three incised lines in the
shape of an oval can be seen in the center of the painting.
This pattern of three parallel lines corresponds to the oval
shape commonly seen in BrueghePs collaborative garland
paintings. Typically, this oval shape is accented by a painted
border, or an imitation frame, as in the Munich Madonna
in a Flower Garland. The size of the oval created by the
incised lines found on the Fruit Garland relates it most
closely to the oval in the Brueghel/Van Balen painting.6 5
Rubens appears to have been the first artist to paint on
the panel for the Fruit Garland. He used a rather painterly,
opaque technique as opposed to allowing the imprimatura
layer to show through in the shadow areas. There are no
brown painted contour lines for the figures nor any reserves.
Infrared reflectography reveals that the dark passages that
surround the figures come up just to their edges, indicating
that the garland was painted after they were finished.
Another indication of the order of painting can be found
in the lower register, where the cabbage is painted around
the satyr's fingers (fig. 147). The tiger and the wolf in the
foreground appear to have been painted by Rubens.
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 247
It is interesting that when Brueghel painted his garlands,
he painted the vegetables or flowers directly over the imprimatura.
Sometimes the imprimatura is allowed to show
through, such as in bunches of wheat. This approach is made
very clear in the infrared reflectograms of the paintings,
where the passages of dark, opaque paint that surround the
garlands mask the underlying details, whereas the area of
the garland appears transparent, indicating a reserved area of
imprimatura over which the garland was painted.
Conclusion
The collaboration between Brueghel and Rubens was distinguished
not only by the prestige of these two court painters
but also by their distinctly individual styles. The two masters
were good friends, and it is clear from the technical examination
of their works that they had an intimate working relationship.
The collaborative works were painted when both
artists were living in the city of Antwerp, making it entirely
plausible that they could walk to one another's studios.
However, given the evidence of traveling frames, and the
likelihood that artists would prefer to work within their own
studios, it may be more likely that the paintings were transported
back and forth.
The fact that there is very little overlap of the artists'
paint films in these works, and very few pentimenti, indicates
that the artists must have begun with a joint understanding
of the compositional plan. Technical examinations make clear
that the placement of the figures in the compositions was
established before any painting began.
No known preparatory drawings or painted sketches
have been identified for the collaborative works. We do
know, however, that both artists were keenly adept at starting
the painting process directly on their chosen support
without a detailed underdrawing, beyond the occasional use
of a few, loose lines. Often they began painting after having
made sketches of the subject matter elsewhere, and they
most certainly relied on studio models for many of the
repeated motifs.
What little sketchy underdrawing has been found on the
works themselves appears to have been done by Brueghel.
This, as well as the fact that the few inscriptions on the surfaces
of the pictures are also in Brueghel's hand, suggests
that many of the collaborative works originated in his studio.
The collaboration between Brueghel and Rubens started
just before Rubens went to Rome and resumed upon
Rubens's return to Antwerp. The collaboration continued
until Brueghel's death, after which, his son, Jan Brueghel
the Younger, assumed control of the studio and continued
to collaborate with Rubens and his assistants. These later
works imitate the style and repeat many of the still-life
elements and compositional designs initially developed by
Jan Brueghel the Elder and Rubens. That numerous versions
of these collaborative works still appear frequently on the
art market testifies to their enduring appeal.
N O T E S
1. Klaus E r t z , " S o m e T h o u g h t s o n the Paintings o f Jan B r u e g h e l the
Elder," i n L o n d o n 1979, p. n .
2. Resources that d o exist include the p u b l i s h e d record books o f Jan
B r u e g h e l the Younger, w h o operated a large studio, and Jan B r u e g h e l
the Elder's correspondence w i t h C a r d i n a l B o r r o m e o , specifically
his letters o f February 11, 1622, A p r i l 1, 1622, and July 8, 1622: C r i v e l l i
1868, pp. 223, 287-88, 2 9 6 - 9 7 . F o r one p a i n t i n g , C a r d i n a l B o r r o m e o
c o m m i s s i o n e d B r u e g h e l to have another artist contribute a landscape
(see also cat. no. 19).
3. I n a letter o f A p r i l 28, 1618, to the discerning collector S i r D u d l e y
C a r l e t o n , R u b e n s was o b l i g e d to indicate the level o f his involvement.
I n a list o f paintings that are for sale, he specifies those that are
"done entirely by m y h a n d " ; " . . . done by the h a n d o f a master skillful
i n that department"; " . . . b u t this one n o t b e i n g finished, w o u l d be
entirely retouched by m y o w n hand, and by this means w o u l d pass as
original"; "done by one o f m y pupils, but the w h o l e retouched by
m y h a n d " (translated f r o m the Italian): M a g u r n 1955, pp. 6 0 - 6 1 .
I n a letter to W i l l i a m T r u m b e l l , dated September 13, 1621, R u b e n s
states, " S i r : I a m quite w i l l i n g that the pictures done for m y L o r d
A m b a s s a d o r C a r l e t o n be returned to me and that I paint another
H u n t less terrible than that o f the lions, w i t h a rebate o n the price, as
is reasonable, for the a m o u n t already paid; and all to be done by
m y o w n h a n d , w i t h o u t a single admixture o f anyone else's w o r k . T h i s
I w i l l maintain o n m y w o r d as a gentleman." (translated f r o m the
French): M a g u r n 1955, p. 77.
4. D a n i e l Seghers is d o c u m e n t e d as the p u p i l o f Jan B r u e g h e l i n 1611. See
R o m b o u t s and van Lerius 1 8 6 4 - 7 6 , p. 477-
5. I n a letter to the artist Jacob de B i e , dated M a y 11, 1611, R u b e n s makes
it very clear that he receives m a n y requests f r o m artists to w o r k i n
his studio. "I can tell y o u truly, w i t h o u t exaggeration, that I have have
[had] to refuse over one h u n d r e d , even some o f m y o w n relatives
or m y wife's, a n d n o t w i t h o u t causing great displeasure a m o n g m a n y
o f m y best friends." (translated f r o m the D u t c h ) : M a g u r n 1955, p. 55.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
6. W e k n o w that paintings d i d travel great distances between artists w h o
were w o r k i n g in collaboration. O n e o f Brueghel's earliest collaborators
was H a n s Rottenhammer, w i t h w h o m he w o r k e d w h e n l i v i n g i n Italy.
"Jan painted the landscape in A n t w e r p , H a n s R o t t e n h a m m e r added
the putti i n M i l a n ; the small panel was then sent back to A n t w e r p so
that Jan c o u l d add the flowers.": E r t z (note i above), p. 24. See also
cat. nos. 14 and 15.
7. T h e panels f o u n d to have notches designed to accommodate traveling
frames include the paintings f r o m the Getty M u s e u m (cat. no. 2), the
M a u r i t s h u i s (cat. no. 4 ) , M u n i c h (fig. 1), and most likely G l a s g o w
(fig. 83) (the last was v i e w e d i n the gallery under n o r m a l v i e w i n g conditions
and not under a microscope).
8. O n l y t w o o f the collaborative works, the Portrait of Archduke Albert of
Austria and the Portrait of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (cat. nos.
9a and 9b) are painted o n canvas. Brueghel's collaborations w i t h other
artists were most often painted o n panel or copper supports.
9. K i r b y 1999 and W a d u m 1998a. See also K l e i n 1998 and Marette 1961.
10. W a d u m 1998a.
11. P u b l i s h e d details o f panel construction i n Rubens's oeuvre include:
P o l l - F r o m m e l , Renger, and S c h m i d t 1993; Goetghebeur 1990; B r o w n
1996; and M a d r i d 1998.
12. T h e internal dowels o f this p a i n t i n g are n o w visible since a past
restoration thinned the panel to half the o r i g i n a l thickness and then
added w o o d e n battens for support.
13. W a d u m 1993.
14. V a n D a m m e 1990.
15. V a n D a m m e 1990 and W a d u m 1993.
16. T h e verso o f the f o l l o w i n g panels have been examined: The Return
from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus; The Garden of Eden with the Fall of
Man; Flora and Zephyr; Diana at the Hunt; Diana's Sleeping Nymphs
Observed by Satyrs; Madonna and Child in a Garland of Fruit and
Flowers; Madonna in a Flower Garland; Madonna and Child in a
Garland of Flowers; and Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces
(cat. nos. 2, 4, 6, 10, n , and 12; fig. nos. 1, 69, and 83).
17. F o r example, the L o u v r e Madonna and Child in a Garland of Flowers
(fig. 69) was transferred f r o m panel to canvas. T h i s process involves
r e m o v i n g all traces o f the panel support and adhering a canvas backing
to the g r o u n d layer o f the painting.
18. A later restoration added repaints to these unpainted strips o n The
Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus, i n order to continue the
image to the edge o f the panel.
19. M . W i t l o x , u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . research (University o f A m s t e r d a m ,
2005).
20. A contemporary source for i n f o r m a t i o n o n g r o u n d layers is
T h . T. D e M a y e r n e , Pictoria, Sculptoria & quae sub alternarum atrium,
1620 ( M S . Sloane 2052, British M u s e u m ) . D e Mayerne's treatise has
been published i n at least t w o versions: Berger 1901 and V a n de G r a a f
1958. W a d u m (1993, n. 134) expands o n this treatise: "de M a y e r n e i n
fact says, that the g r o u n d i n g o f w o o d does not have to be done w i t h
chalk and glue-water but o n l y w i t h a weak glue and then a strong o i l
g r o u n d o n top. H o w e v e r , earlier i n his manuscript the contrary is
stated. H e r e he first advises to apply a g r o u n d o f chalk w i t h glue,
using 1/4 glue i n t w o pots o f water. ' W h e n it all is diluted add e n o u g h
chalk to give a g o o d consistency before applying it s m o o t h l y and
evenly w i t h a knife. After this apply ceruse and umber g r o u n d e d i n o i l .
L e t it dry.' ( M S . Sloane 2052, p. 99; Berger 1901, p. 277, no 214; V a n
de G r a a f 1958, p. 138, no 4: The manner to prepare wood on which one
wants to paint and the preparation of priming [Imprimer] before painting).
Further o n i n his manual, he tells us first to prime the panel w i t h
calf or goat skin glue m i x e d w i t h chalk. W h e n it is dry one should
scrape and plane it w i t h the knife, and then finally give it a t h i n
layer consisting o f lead white and umber. H e adds that terre d'ombre
spoils the colours so one s h o u l d use the B r a u n r o t [?] y e l l o w or red
ochre, lead white and carbon black ( M S . Sloane 2052, p. 90V;
Berger 1897-1909, p. 261, no. 194c; V a n de G r a a f 1958, p. 135, no. 2:
Imprimeure sur Bois)T
21. A p r i m i n g knife, measuring about thirty centimeters (12 inches), is
reproduced i n D e Mayerne's treatise (Van de G r a a f 1958, p. 138, no. 6)
and i n V a n H o u t 2 0 0 0 , pp. 279-88.
22. T h i s term was not used i n seventeenth-century A n t w e r p but is i n
c o m m o n usage today.
23. V a n M a n d e r describes the practice o f Jan den H o l l a n d e r (ca. 1500ca.
1542) thus, " H e also had the habit o f p a i n t i n g i n a zig-zagging
m o v e m e n t and a l l o w i n g the preparation o n the panels or canvases play
a p a r t — w h i c h Brueghel very idiosyncratically imitated." (Veel had hy
o o c k de manier van alswadderende o p de penneelen oft doecken de
g r o n d e n mede te laten spelen, het w e l c h Brueghel seer exghcntlyck nac
volghde): V a n M a n d e r / M i e d e m a 1 9 9 4 - 9 9 , v o l . 1, p. 118; v o l . 3, p. 34.
4. I n The Descent from the Cross, ca. 1611-15, the gray-colored i m p r i m a t u r a
has been identified as being i n an "aqueous m e d i u m " ; see C o r e m a n s
and Thissen 1962. N o details o f the analysis are given i n this technical
examination and conservation and restoration report.
In An Autumn Landscape with a View of Het Steen ( L o n d o n , N a t i o n a l
Gallery, inv. 66), the b r o w n - c o l o r e d i m p r i m a t u r a has been identified
as being b o u n d i n linseed o i l and pine resin, and a sample o f paint
f r o m a b r o w n tree branch and a sample o f pale green grass as being
b o u n d i n linseed o i l and pine resin; see B r o w n , Reeve, and W y l d
1982, p. 28.
A n i m p r i m a t u r a o n a sketch, Thetis Dipping Achilles in the Styx, has
been identified as being an emulsion o f egg white and o i l ; see
Lammertse and Vergara 2003.
25. See W a d u m 2002.
26. Getty C o n s e r v a t i o n Institute reports o n The Return from War: X-ray
fluorescence analysis carried out by Satoko T a n i m o t o and D a v i d Scott
( M u s e u m Research L a b o r a t o r y R e p o r t #2O67-P-OI, N o v e m b e r 2001);
cross section and polarized light m i c r o s c o p y carried out by A n n a
Schoenemann; Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy carried out by
2
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 249
A . S c h o e n e m a n n w i t h the assistance o f H e r a n t K h a n j i a n ; E S E M - E D S
analysis carried out by D a v i d C a r s o n (Conservation File R e p o r t ,
M a r c h 2004).
27. A few references, a m o n g many, i n this regard include: B o m f o r d 2002;
L a m m e r t s e and Vergara 2003, p. 69; and G i f f o r d 1999, p. 181.
28. F o r a m o r e detailed discussion o f infrared reflectography used to
image underdrawings see B o m f o r d 2002, pp. 26-37.
29. T h e u n d e r d r a w i n g for the f o l l o w i n g paintings was examined: The
Battle of the Amazons, The Return from War: Mars Disarmed by Venus;
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man; The Vision of Saint Hubert; the
???? ?????????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???????
Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs; Madonna and Child in a Garland of
????? ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????
with Nature Adorned by the Graces (cat. nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, n , and 12;
fig. nos. 1, 54-57, and 83).
30. W a d u m 2002.
31. These dots c o u l d be misinterpreted as h a v i n g been the result o f pounci
n g — a technique o f transferring a d r a w i n g f r o m a piece o f paper to
the p a i n t i n g by means o f dusting pounce (a fine p o w d e r o f charcoal
o r similar dark substance) t h r o u g h holes pricked along the underd
r a w i n g lines. A similar p h e n o m e n o n can be s e e n — i n the extreme—
i n Brueghel's A Road with a Ford in a Wood, o f 1608 ( N e w York,
M e t r o p o l i t a n M u s e u m o f A r t , inv. 2001.216.1); see B r o o s and W a d u m
1993, pp. 13-16.
32. See Levy-van H a l m 1998 and K i r b y 1999, p. 35.
33. K i r b y 1999, p. 38. A r e d - b r o w n earth p i g m e n t used by Rubens to paint
outlines for forms o n his Achilles series sketches has been identified as
hematite; see L a m m e r t s e and Vergara 2003, p. 100.
34. T h e b r o w n i m p r i m a t u r a i n An Autumn Landscape with a View ofHet
Steen ( L o n d o n , N a t i o n a l Gallery, inv. 66) was identified by R a y m o n d
W h i t e as c o n t a i n i n g linseed o i l and pine resin ( N a t i o n a l Gallery files,
2002) by gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y - m a s s spectrometry and F o u r i e r transf
o r m infrared reflectography. T h e b r o w n tree branch and pale green
grass also s h o w linseed o i l and pine resin.
H e a t - b o d i e d linseed o i l and pine resin have been identified i n Family of
Jan Brueghel the Elder (frontispiece) by R a y m o n d W h i t e ( C o u r t a u l d
Institute o f A r t conservation file).
O i l and resin also occur i n the paint layers o f Samson and Delilah
(fig. 23); see Plesters 1983.
35. " R u b e n s , for example, t o l d de M a y e r n e that pigments s h o u l d be
g r o u n d q u i c k l y w o r k i n g w i t h turpentine, w h i c h was better and less
fierce than o i l o f spike lavender (this w o u l d be the preliminary g r i n d i
n g , before g r i n d i n g w i t h the o i l m e d i u m ) . H e also r e c o m m e n d e d
d i p p i n g the brush i n turpentine occasionally before b l e n d i n g the
colours o n the palette so that the paint was more easily w o r k e d and
the colours d i d not 'die' or sink.": K i r b y 1999, p. 15.
36. E r t z (note 1 above), p. 8.
37. " . . . m a n o n avendo ancora p o t u t o adempire la m i a b u o n a v o l u n t a per
finiro l'opera gia cominciata, fra tanto nasceno itelli fiori che serano i n
qualita i n detto quadro." (letter dated January 27, 1606): C r i v e l l i 1868,
p. 62.
" . . . u n a M a s s a de vario fiori g l i quali reucerani m o l t o bello: tanta
per la naturalleza come anco delle bellezza e rarita de vario fiori
in questa parto alcuni inconita et n o n p e i u uisto: per quella i o son
stata a Brussella per ritrare alcuni fiori del natural, che n o n si trova
in Anuersa." (letter dated A p r i l 14, 1606): C r i v e l l i 1868, p. 63.
" G l i fiori besoigni fare alle p r i m a , sensa desseigni o boitssaturo:tutti
fiori vengeno i n quatra mesi, et sense i n u e n c i o n i besoigni giungere
seime c o n gran discretcion. Receuto sua letra fece taigliare u n rama,
paretciato u n ano fa, et i l medesma g i o r n o c o m m i c o : per i l caldo
gli fiori nasceno foire i l stagiono, per tale n o n se p o perder i l tempo d
A p r i l l i . " (letter dated A p r i l 22, 1611): Crivelli 1868, p. 168.
38. I n Still Life with Flowers ( C a m b r i d g e , F i t z w i l l i a m M u s e u m ) , w h i c h is
executed i n o i l o n panel, there is a t h i n , white g r o u n d layer and a yell
o w , ocher-colored i m p r i m a t u r a . Brueghel is described as " w o r k i n g
alia p r i m a w i t h use o f end o f brush to inscribe patterns i n flowers.";
see M u r r a y and G r o e n 1994, pp. 7 - 2 0 . A n examination using infrared
reflectography s h o w e d varying states o f c o m p l e t i o n i n the underdrawi
n g o f the flowers.
39. W i t l o x 2001. See also V a n de G r a a f 1958, nos. 124, 130, 136, 137, 147,
151, 154, and 162, where there are references to amber, sandarac, mastic,
and driers (metallic); spirit varnishes; "vernis delicats," w h i c h exclude
d r y i n g oils and are therefore lighter and m o r e brittle; resins dissolved
i n volatile essential oils, e.g., sandarac i n turpentine, mastic i n o i l o f
spike, vernis dHtalia i n turpentine, and resin and sandarac.
4 0 . See Plesters 1983, p. 41. "Rubens avoided p a i n t i n g i n such a w a y that
the color sank i n . T h e l u m i n o u s clarity o f his w o r k was p r o o f o f the
excellence o f his technique. H e painted w i t h resin varnish and thickened
o i l and w i t h Venice turpentine, so that his colors had so m u c h
brilliance and b i n d i n g m e d i u m w i t h i n themselves that, like V a n Eyck's
pictures, they had a gloss w i t h o u t needing to be varnished.": D o e r n e r
1962, p. 186.
41. Previous to 1598 Rubens apprenticed i n A n t w e r p to Tobias Verhaecht
(1561-1631) and the history painters A d a m van N o o r t (1562-1641)
and O t t o van V e e n (1556-1629); see B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, p. 20.
42. A similar clear division o f labor can be observed i n the portraits o f
A l b e r t and Isabella o f ca. 1618-20 (cat. nos. 9a and 9b), where
Rubens's portraits are separated f r o m the s u r r o u n d i n g landscape by
Brueghel (or Brueghel's studio). T h i s may perhaps be attributed to the
fact that the execution o f a portrait c o m m i s s i o n a l l o w e d for a very
clear division o f labor.
43. A l t h o u g h there is some consensus a m o n g scholars about the presence
o f overpainted fabrics o n some o f the figures i n the painting, n o
technical analysis has been carried out. See Jaffe i n L o n d o n 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 ,
P- 44-
4 4 . T h e somewhat stiff execution o f the u n d e r d r a w i n g has p r o m p t e d some
scholars to attribute it to O t t o van V e e n . See cat. no. 1.
45. A similar use o f gilt details is f o u n d i n O t t o van Veen's Portrait of
Alessandro Farnese (1586; L o s Angeles C o u n t y M u s e u m o f A r t ,
inv. M . 2003.69).
250 B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K
4-6. T h e analysis o f The Return from War was carried out using gas
c h r o m a t o g r a p h y - m a s s spectrometry by Joy M a z u r e k and M i c h a e l
S c h i l l i n g (Getty C o n s e r v a t i o n Institute R e p o r t , Paintings
C o n s e r v a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t files, February 2002).
47. X-ray fluorescence analysis was carried out by Satoko T a n i m o t o and
D a v i d Scott at the Getty C o n s e r v a t i o n Institute ( M u s e u m Research
L a b o r a t o r y R e p o r t #2O67-P-OI, N o v e m b e r 2001).
48. T h e single plank is between 10 and 11 m m (3
/8 and V2 in.) thick and
???????? ???? ? ????? ?? ?????? ? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????????
logical analysis o f the panel by D r . Peter K l e i n o f the Universitat
H a m b u r g indicates a possible execution date ranging f r o m as early as
1612 to 1622 or later. (Mauritshuis files, report dated A p r i l 29, 2005).
4 9 . W a d u m 1993, pp. 9 6 - 1 0 0 .
50. T h e o r i g i n a l infrared examination o f the painting was carried out i n
O c t o b e r 2 0 0 0 by M a r g r e e t Wolters (Rijksbureau v o o r Kunsthistorische
Documentatie) and Jorgen W a d u m , using infrared equipment
b e l o n g i n g to the Rijksbureau ( H a m a m a t s u c 2 4 0 0 w i t h a N 2 6 0 6 - 0 6
Select V i s i c o n , a N i k o n M a c r o - N i k k o r i:2.8/55-mm lens, K o d a k
Wratten 87c filter, w i t h a L u c i u s and Baer V M 1710 m o n i t o r
[625 lines]).
T h e images published i n this essay were d o c u m e n t e d by Sabrina
M e l o n i o f the M a u r i t h u i s i n M a r c h 2005, using an A r t i s t camera (Art
I n n o v a t i o n , H e n g e l o ) m o u n t e d w i t h a C C D progressive scan image
sensor (1360 x 1036 pixels) and a Schneider K r e u z n a c h X e n o p l a n
1.4/23 m m CCTV-Iens i n N12 w i t h a 1000 n m long-wave pass filter. T h e
images were captured w i t h A r t i s t Software (release 1.2) and stitched
together w i t h a c o m b i n a t i o n o f A d o b e P h o t o s h o p CS2 and PanaVue
ImageAssembler.
51. I n Nymphs Filling the Cornucopia, ca. 1615 (cat. no. 13), a comparable
i m p r i m a t u r a and u n d e r d r a w i n g have been detected. H e r e the landscape
is by B r u e g h e l and the figures are by one o f Rubens's studio
assistants; see W a d u m 1993, pp. 9 7 - 1 0 0 ; and B r o o s and W a d u m 1993,
pp. 13-16. T h e figures i n this p a i n t i n g appear to have been retouched
by Rubens's o w n hand. T h e retouches were done after the underdrawi
n g for the figure was carried out, correcting the lines o f the sketch.
T h e retouches a r o u n d the figure are n o w covered by the paint o f the
b a c k g r o u n d scenery.
C o m p a r e alsov4 Road with a Ford in a Wood (1608, o i l o n copper,
34.4 x 4 9 . 4 c m [13V2 x 191/2 i n . ] ; L o n d o n , C o l l e c t i o n o f E . and
S. Speelman [on loan to the N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t , W a s h i n g t o n ,
D . C . ] ; panelmaker's stamp, Peeter Stas): W a d u m 1998b. T h e painting
was examined and d o c u m e n t e d by M . Wolters; see note 50 above
for equipment details.
A few o f Brueghel's drawings o n paper and i n particular the freely
d r a w n River Landscape with a Village (1610-15, pen i n b r o w n ,
18.5 x 17.8 c m [7V4 x 7 in.]. Paris, M u s e e d u L o u v r e , Cabinet des
Dessins, inv. R . F . 00.653) have numerous elements comparable to
the u n d e r d r a w i n g i n the M a u r i t s h u i s picture. See also the entry
by T. G e r s z i i n E s s e n - V i e n n a 1997-98, p. 462, cat. no. 165.
52. See W a d u m 2002.
53. T h e lions appear i n a larger scale i n Rubens's Daniel in the Lions'
Den (ca. 1613/15, o i l o n canvas, 224.3 x
330.4 c m [88 V4 x 130 i n . ] ;
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , N a t i o n a l Gallery o f A r t , inv. 1965.13.1).
54. T h i s technique is extensively described in W a d u m 1987 and GifTord
I999-
55. T h e w o o d e n support is c o m p o s e d o f six planks o f w o o d , w h i c h have
been j o i n e d horizontally. A typical light gray i m p r i m a t u r a was applied
and can be easily seen i n m a n y areas t h r o u g h o u t the c o m p o s i t i o n .
56. H e l d (1982, pp. 25-31) argues that Rubens is the inventor o f the c o m p
o s i t i o n for this painting. L i e d t k e (1984, pp- 194-98) agrees w i t h h i m .
57. See H e l d 1982.
58. See W a d u m 1988; W a d u m 1993; W a d u m 1998a; W a d u m 1998b; and
V a n D a m m e 1990, pp. 193-236.
59. There may be further u n d e r d r a w i n g for this p a i n t i n g executed in
a material that cannot be detected w i t h the eye nor w i t h infrared
reflectography.
60. B o s t o n - T o l e d o 1993-94, pp. 36-37.
61. T h e authors o f this essay are indebted to Jan S c h m i d t for the technical
findings o n the M u n i c h picture: Jan S c h m i d t , Conference M a n u s c r i p t ,
C o l l o q u i u m Braunschweig, February 10, 2004.
62. T h e dowels are made visible in the X-radiograph o f the panels (inform
a t i o n f r o m J. S c h m i d t , A l t e Pinakothek, M u n i c h ) .
63. I n f o r m atio n f r o m J. S c h m i d t .
64- I n f o r m a t i o n f r o m J. S c h m i d t .
65. T h e incised lines o f the G l a s g o w painting measure: inner oval:
4 0 x 30.2 c m (i53
/4 x 12 in.); m i d d l e oval: 41.2 x 31.4 c m (16V4 x 12V8
in.); and outer oval: 41.5 x 31.9 c m (i63
/8 x 12V2 in.); there arc t w o
pinholes w i t h i n the oval area, lying one above the other along a central
vertical axis, w h i c h suggests a compass was used to draw the
shapes, w h i c h were made i n the g r o u n d layer (correspondence from
R o b e r t Wenley, curator o f E u r o p e a n art, and Polly S m i t h , conservator,
G l a s g o w M u s e u m s , 2005). T h e ovals o f the M a u r i t s h u i s painting
measure: inner oval: 42.7 x 31 c m (i63
/4 x 12V4 in.); and outer oval:
43.6 x 32 c m (17Vs x i25
/8 in.); there is just one pinhole i n the m i d d l e
o f the m e d a l l i o n .
B R U E G H E L A N D R U B E N S A T W O R K 251
Literature
A L E X A N D E R 199 2
Alexander, Jonathan J. G. Medieval Illuminators
and Their Methods of Work (Ne w Haven an d
London, 1992).
ALPERS 197 1
Alpers, Svetlana. The Decoration of the Torre
de la Parada. Corpus Rubenianu m Ludwi g
Burchard, pt. 9 (London an d New York, 1971).
A M S T E R D A M 195 2
De duivel in de beeldende kunst. Exh. cat.
(Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum, 1952) .
A M S T E R D A M 198 6
Filedt Kok, J. P., W. Halsema-Kubes, and
W. T. Kloek, eds. Art Before Iconodasm —Northern
Netherlandish Art 1525-1580 / Kunst voor de
beeldenstorm—Noordnederlandse kunst 1525-1580.
Exh. cat. (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 1986).
A M S T E R D A M 1993~9 4
Luijten, G., and A. van Suchtelen, eds. Dawn
of the Golden Age—Northern Netherlandish Art
1580-1620. Exh. cat. (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum,
1993-94).
A M S T E R D A M - B R A U N S C H W E I G 198 3
Segal, Sam. A Fruitful Past: ASurvey o f Fruit Still
Lifes of the Northern and Southern Netherlands from
Brueghel till Van Gogh. Exh. cat. (Amsterdam,
Kunsthandel P. de Boer, and Braunschweig,
Herzog Anton Ulrich-Muséum , 1983) .
A M S T E R D A M - C L E V E L A N D 1 9 9 9 ~ 2 O O O
Chong, A., and W. T. Kloek. Still-Life Paintings
from the Netherlands 1550-1720 / Het Nederlandse
Stilleven 1550-1720. Exh. cat. (Amsterdam,
Rijksmuseum, and Cleveland Museum of Art,
1999-2000).
A M S T E R D A M - D E N B O S C H 1982
A Flowery Past: A Survey of Dutch and Flemish
Flower Painting from 1600 until the Present.
Exh. cat . (Amsterdam, Kunsthandel P. de Boer,
and Den Bosch, Noordbrabants Museum, 1982) .
A M S T E R D A M - N E W Y O R K - T O L E D O 2 O O 3 ~ O 4
Leeflang, H., an d G. Luijten et al. Hendrick
Goltzius (1558-1617). Exh . cat. (Amsterdam,
Rijksmuseum; New York, Metropolitan Museu m
of Art; an d Toledo [Ohio] Museum o f Art,
2003-04).
A N S P A C H l88 l
Anspach, J. "Grafschriften t e Breda met genealogische
gegevens." De navorscher 14 (1881),
pp. 161-174.
A N T W E R P 1930
Exposition internationale coloniale, maritime et d^art
flamand ancien (Antwerp, 1930).
A N T W E R P 1977
P. P. Rubens: Paintings,Oil Sketches, Drawings.
Exh. cat . (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor
Schone Kunsten, 1977).
ANTWERP 198 2
Balis, Arnout. Het Aards Paradijs.
Diervoorstellingen in de Nederlanden van de i6de
en 17r
de eeuw. Exh. cat. (Antwerp Zoo, 1982).
ANTWERP 199 3
Antwerp, Story of a Metropolis: i6th-i7th Century.
Exh. cat . (Antwerp, Hessenhuis, 1993) .
ANTWERP 1993 3
Rubens Cantoor. Een verzameling tekeningen
ontstaan in Rubens' atelier. Exh. cat. (Antwerp,
Rubenshuis, 1993).
A N T W E R P 1998
Pieter Breughel dejonge (1564-1637/8) —Jan
Brueghel de Oude (1568-1625): Een Vlaamse schildersfamilie
rond 1600. Exh. cat. (Antwerp, Koninklijk
Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 1998).
A N T W E R P 200 4
Belkin, Kristen Lohse, an d Fiona Healy. AHouse
of Art: Rubens as Collector (Dutch edition: Ee n
huis vol kunst: Rubensals verzamelaar). Exh . cat.
(Antwerp, Rubenshuis , 2004) .
ANTWERP 2004 3
Devisscher, Hans, et al., eds. De uitvinding van
h etlandschap. Van Patinir tot Rubens 1520-1650.
Exh cat. (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voo r
Schone Kunsten, 2004) .
A T H E N S - D O R D R E C H T 2 O O O - O 1
Greek Gods and Heroes in the Ageof Rubens and
Rembrandt. Exh. cat. (Athens, National
Gallery/Alexandras Soutzos Museum an d the
Netherlands Institute , an d Dordrechts Museum ,
2000).
A U G S B U R G 186 9
Katalog der kôniglichen Gemalde-Galerie in
Augsburg (1869) .
A U G S B U R G 190 5
Katalog der kôniglichen Gemalde-Galerie in
Augsburg (1905) .
V A N D E R A U W E R A 198 5
Auwera, Joost van der. "Rubens' 'Kroning van de
Overwinnaar' te Kassel in licht van zijn bestemming."
In Rubens and His World: Bijdragen opgedragen
aan R.-A. d'Hulst naar aanleiding vanh et
vijfentwintigjarig bestaan van het Nationaal
Centrum voor de Plastische Kunsten van de i6de en
de i7de Eeuw, edited b y R.-A. d'Hulst, pp. i47~5 5
(Antwerp, 1985).
252
B A L I S 1986
Balis, Arnout. Rubens Hunting Scenes. Vol. 2.
Corpus Rubenianu m Ludwig Burchard , pt. 18 .
Translated b y P. S. Falla (London, Oxford , an d
New York , 1986).
B A L I S E T AL . 198 9
Balis, Arnout, Matía s Díaz Padrón, Car l Van de
Velde, and Hans Vlieghe. De Vlaamse schilderkunst
in h et Prado (Antwerp, 1989) .
B A L I S E T AL . 1989 8
Balis, Arnout, e t al. La Peinture Flamande au
Prado (Antwerp , 1989) .
B A L I S E T AL . 199 3
Balis, Arnout, et al . Les chasses de Maximilien
(Paris, 1993).
B A L T I M O R E 199 9
Minty, Nancy, et al. An Ey e for Detail: 17thcentury
Dutch and Flemish Paintings from the
Collection of H. W . Weldon. Exh. cat. (Baltimore ,
Walters Art Gallery , 1999).
B A R D O N 1963
Bardon, Françoise. Diane de Poitiers et le mythe
de Diane (Paris , 1963).
B A R T O S C H E K 197 8
Bartoschek, Gerd. Flamische Barockmalerei in
der Bildergalerie vo n Sanssouci (Potsdam Sanssouci,
1978) .
B A R T O S C H E K A N D V O G T H E R R 2OO 4
Bartoschek, Gerd , an d Chri s toph Martin
Vogtherr. Zerstort, entfuhrt, verschollen: die
Verluste der preussischen Schlosser im Zweiten
Weltkreig. Vol. i, Gemalde (Potsdam, 2004).
B A U D I U S 1616
Baudius, Dominic. Poematum nova editio (1616) .
B A U D O U I N 200 5
Baudouin, F . "Rubens' kinderjaren i n Keulen
en in Antwerpen " In Rubens in Context. Selected
Studies Liber Memoralis, pp. 44-65 (Antwerp ,
2005).
B A U M A N A N D L I E D T K E 1992
Bauman, Guy C., and Walter Liedtke. Flemish
Paintings in America: A Survey of Early
Netherlandish and Flemish Paintingsin the Public
Collections of North America (Antwerp , 1992).
B A U M S T A R K 197 4
Baumstark, Rheinhold. "Ikonographische
Studien zu Rubens Krieg s und
Friedensallegorien." AachenerKunstblatter 45
(i974), pp. 125-234.
B E A U J E A N 199 6
Beaujean, D . "Jan Brueghel d. A., Peter Paul
Rubens und Bernard Salomon: Zu r
Entstehungsgeschichte de s Taradiesbildes' i m
Haager Mauritshuis." Zeitschrift fur
Kunstgeschichte 49 , no. i (1996), pp. 123-27 .
B E D O N I 198 3
Bedoni, S. JanBrueghel in Italia e il Collezionismo
del Seicento (Florence an d Milan, 1983) .
B E N E S C H 1954-5 7
Benesch, O. Th e Drawings of Rembrandt. 6 vols.
(London, 1954-57).
B E R G E R 190 1
Berger, E. Beitrcige zur Entwicklungs-Geschichte
der Maltechnik (Munich , 1901. Reprint, Nendeln ,
1975).
B E R G S T R Ô M 195 5
Bergstrôm, I. "Disguised Symbolis m in
'Madonna' Pictures and Stil l Lifes." The
Burlington Magazine 9 7 (1955), pp. 303-49 .
B E R G S T R Ô M 195 7
Bergstrôm, I . "Osaias Beert as a Collaborato r
of Rubens." Th e Burlington Magazine 9 9 (1957) ,
pp. 120-24.
B E R L I N 191 1
Kônigliche Museen zu Berlin. Die Gemaldegalerie
des Kaiser-Friedrich-Museums. Vollstandiger
beschreibender Katalog mit Abbildungen sdmtlicher
Gemalde. Edited b y H. Poss e (Berlin , 1911).
B E R L I N 2 O O 2 - O 3
Marx, Harald, ed. Meisterwerke de r Dresdener
Gemaldegalerie in Berlin: nach der Flut. Exh. cat.
(Berlin, Altes Museen, 2002) .
B E R L I N - A M S T I E R D A M - L O N D O N 1991-9 2
Rembrandt: the Master and His Workshop /
Rembrandt: De Meester en zijn Werkplaats.
Exh cat. 2 vols. (Berlin , Staatliche Museen
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Genial degalerie;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum ; an d London,
National Gallery, 1991-92) .
B E R N H A R D 196 5
Bernhard, M. Verlorene Werke der Malerei;i n
Deutschland in der Zeit von 1939 bis 1945 zerstorte
und verschollene Gemalde ausMuseen und Galérien
(Munich, 1965) .
B I K K E R 200 4
Bikker, Jonathan. "Lucian's Prometheus as a
source for Jordaens and van Baburen." Simiolus
26 (2004), pp. 46-53 .
B O B E R A N D R U B I N S T E I N 198 6
Bober, Phyllis Pray, and Rut h Rubinstein .
Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture: A
Handbook o f Sources (London an d Oxford , 1986).
BOK 1977
Bok-van Kammen, W. "Stradanus and the Hunt. "
(Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University , 1977).
BOL 198 9
Bol, Lauren s J. Adriaen Pietersz. van de Venne:
Painter and Draughtsman (Doornspijk , 1989).
B O M F O R D 2OO 2
Bomford, D., ed. Art i n the Making:Underdrawings
in Renaissance Paintings (London,
2002).
B O R R O M E O / R A V A S I 199 7
Borromeo, Federico. Musaeum Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae. Edited b y Ravasi, G., an d P . Cigada
(Milan, 1625. Reprint, Milan, 1997) .
B O S T O N - T O L E D O 1993~9 4
Sutton, Peter C. , e t al. The Age o f Rubens. Exh.
cat. (Boston , Museum of Fine Arts, and Toledo
[Ohio] Museum of Art, 1993-94).
B O T T I N E A U 195 8
Bottineau, Y. "L'Alcázar de Madrid et l'Inventaire
de 1686 . Aspects de la Cour d'Espagn e a u XVIIc
Siècle "BulletinHispanique 60 (1958) , pp. 30-61,
145-79, 289-326, 450-83.
VAN D E N B R A N D E N 188 3
Branden, F. Jos van den. Geschiedenis der
Antwerpsche Schilderschool (Antwerp , 1883).
B R A U N S C H W E I G 2OO 4
Buttner, Nils, and Ulrich Heinen. Peter Paul
Rubens. Barocke Leidenschaften. Exh . cat.
(Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Muséum,
2004).
B R E N N I N K M E Y E R - D E R O O I J 199 O
Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij, B . "Zeldzame blocmcn
'Fatta tutti del naturel' door Ja n Brueghel I."
Oud Holland 19 4 (1990), pp. 218-55 .
B R E N N I N K M E Y E R - D E ROOI J 199 6
Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij, B. Roots of SeventeenthCentury
Flower Painting (Leiden , 1996).
BROOS 1993
Broos, Ben. Intimacies and Intrigues: History
Paintings in the Mauritshuis(Th e Hague an d
Ghent, 1993) .
L I T E R A T U R E 253
B R O O S 1995
Broos, Ben. "Jan van Beuningen: A Gentleman
of Standing in the Art World." Mauritshuis in
Focus 8, no. 2 (1995), pp. 20-26.
B R O O S A N D W A D U M 1993
Broos, Ben, and J0rgen Wadum. "Vier panelen
uit één boom (Fou r Panels from On e Tree)."
Mauritshuis i n Focus 6, no. i (1993), pp. 13-16.
B R O S E N S 1 9 9 8
Brosens, K. '"Wintergezicht" (1911) en
'Lentegezicht' (1612) door Denijs van Alsloot en
Hendrick d e Clerck. Een stilistische en iconografische
analyse." Jaarboek va n bet Koninklijk
Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp en (1998),
pp. 293-308.
B R O W N 1979
Brown, Christopher. "Ja n Brueghel the Elder. "
Connoisseur 201 (1979), pp. 174-77.
BROWN 199 6
Brown, C. Rubens^ Landscapes (London , 1996) .
B R O W N , R E E V E , A N D W Y L D 198 2
Brown, C., A. Reeve, and M. Wyld. "Rubens '
The Waterin g Place.'" NationalGallery Technical
Bulletin (London) 6 (1982), pp. 27-39 .
B R U G E S 200 2
Borchert, Till-Holger, ed. The Age of Va n Eyck:
The Mediterranean World and Early Netherlandish
Painting, 1430-1530. Exh. cat. (Bruges,
Groeningemuseum, 2002) .
B R U S S E L S 1965
De eeuw van Rubens. Exh. cat. (Brussels,
Koninklijke Musea voor Schon e Kunsten, 1965).
BRUSSELS 197 5
Maîtres flamands du dix-septième siècle. Exh. cat.
(Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de
Belgique, 1975) .
B R U S S E L S 198 0
Bruegel—une dynastie d e peintres(Dutch edition :
Bruegel—Een dynastie va n schilders). Exh . cat.
(Brussels, Palais des Beaux-Arts, 1980).
BRUSSELS 198 5
Splendeurs d 3
Espagne et les villes belges 1500-1700.
Exh. cat. (Brussels , Palais des Beaux-Arts, 1985).
BRUSSELS 199 4
Keizer Karel. Wandtapijten en wapenrustingen uit
de Spaanse Koninklijke Verzamelingen. Exh. cat.
(Brussels, Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire,
1994).
B R U S S E L S 1997-9 8
Balis, Arnout, an d Piet Coessens, eds . Kunst in
de bank—Een keuze van Rubens totMagritte.
Exh. cat. (Brussels, Paleis voor Schone Kunsten,
1997-98).
B R U S S E L S 1 9 9 8 - 9 9
Thomas, Werner, and Luc Duerloo, eds . Albert
& Isabella,1598-1621. Exh. cat. 2 vols. (Brussels,
Musées royaux d'art et d'histoire, an d Leuven,
Katholieke Universiteit, 1998-99).
B R U S S E L S 200 2
Rubens, een Europees schilder—Tentoonstelling van
de werken van de Gemaldegalerie derAkademie der
Bildenden Kunste in Wien. Exh. cat. (Brussels,
Stadhuis, 2002).
B R U S S E L S - R O M E 199 5
Fiamminghi a Roma, 1508-1608: artistes des PaysBas
et de la principautéde Liège à Rome à la
Renaissance. Exh. cat. (Brussels, Palais des
Beaux-Arts, and Rome, Palazz o délie
Esposizione, 1995) .
B R U S S E L S - S C H A L L A B U R G 199 1
Van der Stock, Jan, ed. Stad in Vlaanderen:
cultuur en maatschappij, 1477-1787. Exh. cat.
(Brussels, Galerij van het Gemeentekrediet,
1991).
C A M P B E L L 1981
Campbell, Lome. "The Earl y Netherlandish
Painters and Their Workshops." In Le Dessin
sous-jacent dans la peinture,Colloque III,
6-7-8 septembre 1979, Le Problème Maître de
Flémalle-van der Weyden. Edite d b y
D. Hollanders Favar t and R. van Schoute .
Université Catholique d e Louvain, Institu t
supérieur d'archéologie e t d'histoire d e l'art,
Document d e travail no. n (Louvain-la-Neuve ,
1981), pp. 43-61.
C A M P B E L L 199 0
Campbell, Lorne. Renaissance Portraits. European
Portrait-Painting in thé I4th, isth and i6th
Centuries (New Haven an d London, 1990) .
C A M P B E L L 199 8
Campbell, Lorne. Th e Fifteenth-Century
Netherlandish Schools. National Gallery
Catalogues (London , 1998).
C A M P O W E Y E R M A N 1729-6 9
Campo Weyerman, Jacob. De levens-beschryvingen
der Nederlandsche konst-schilders en konstschilderessen,
met een uytbreyding over de schilderkonst
der ouden. 4 vols. (Th e Hague an d
Dordrecht, 1729-69) .
C A N B E R R A - M E L B O U R N E 199 2
Rowan, D., et al. Rubens and the Italian
Renaissance. Exh. cat. (Canberra, Australian
National Gallery, and Melbourne, Nationa l
Gallery of Victoria, 1992) .
C L E V E L A N D 1956
The Venetian Tradition. Exh. cat. (Cleveland
Museum of Art, 1956).
COLOGNE 197 7
Miiller Hofstede, Justus . Peter Paul Rubens,
1577-1640.1: Rubens in Italien: Gemalde, Ôlskizzen,
Zeichnungen. Exh. cat. (Cologne, Wallraf Richartz-Museum,
1977).
C O L O G N E - A N T W E R P - V I E N N A 1 9 9 2 - 9 3
Mai, Ekkehard, and Hans Vlieghe, eds . Von
Bruegel bis Rubens.Dasgoldene Jahrhundertder
flamischenMalerei. Exh. cat. (Cologne, Wallraf Richartz-Museum;
Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum
voor Schon e Kunsten; and Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1992-93) ,
C O R B E I L E T AL . 199 2
Corbeil, Marie-Claude, et al. "The 'Leopards ' in
Montreal: An Attribution t o Rubens Disproved. "
The Burlington Magazine13 4 (1992), p. 724.
C O R E M A N S A N D T H I S S E N 196 2
Coremans, P., and J. Thissen, "Composition et
structure des couches originale." Bulletin, Institut
royal du patrimoine artistique/Koninklijk Instituut
voor het Kunstpatrimonium (Brussels ) 5 (1962),
pp. 119-27.
C O S T A M A G N A 199 5
Costamagna, Alba. "'La più bella et superba
occasione di tutta Roma'—Ruben s per Paitar
maggiore di Santa Maria in Vallicella." In
La Regola e la Fama. San Filippo Neri e lArte,
pp. 150-73 (Rome, Museo Nazionale di Palazzo
Venezia, 1995).
COSTARAS 1994
Costaras, N. " A Contrast i n Styles: The Descent
into Limbo by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Han s
Rottenhammer." Mauritshuisin Focus 7, no. i
(1994), pp. 18-22.
CRIVELLI 186 8
Crivelli, G . Giovanni Brueghel, pittor fiammingo.
Sue lettere e quadretti esistenti pressa l'Ambrosiana
(Milan, 1868).
C R U Z A D A V I L L A A M I L 187 4
Cruzada Villaamil, G. Rubens, diplomático español;
sus viajes á España y noticia de sus cuadros, según los
inventarios de las casas reales de Austriay de Borbon
(Madrid, 1874).
254 L I T E R A T U R E
C U T L E R 2OO 3
Cutler, L . C. "Virtue an d Diligence—Jan
Brueghel I and Federico Borromeo." Nederlands
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek5 4 (2003), pp- 203-27.
DALY 1985
Daly, Peter M., éd., with Virginia W. Callaban.
Andreas Alciatus. 2 vols. (Toronto an d Buffalo ,
1985).
VAN DAMM E 199 0
Damme, J. van. "De Antwerpse tafereelmakers
en hun merken: Identificati e en betekenis."
Jaarboek voor het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone
Kunsten Antwerpen (1990), pp. 193-236 .
DAUER 198 8
Dauer, H. Staatliches MuseumSchloss Mosigkau
Katalog der Gemdlde Alter Bestand (Dessau, 1988) .
DAVIES 1906-0 7
Davies, R . "An Inventory o f the Duke of
Buckingham's Picture s at York House in 1635. "
The Burlington Magazine1 0 (1906-1907),
pp. 376-82 .
DE M A R C H I AN D VA N M I E G R O E T 199 4
De March!, Neil, and Hans J. Van Miegroet.
"Art, Value, and Market Practices in the
Netherlands i n the Seventeenth Century." Art
Bulletin 76 (1994), pp. 451-64.
DE M A R C H I A N D V A N M I E G R O E T 199 8
De Marchi, Neil, and Hans J. Van Miegroet.
"Novelty an d Fashion Circuits in the MidSeventeenth-Century
Antwerp-Paris Ar t Trade."
Journal o f Medieval an d Early Modern Studies 28,
no. i (1998) , pp. 201-46.
D E M E E S T E R 1981
Demeester, J. "Le domaine de Mariemont sous
Albert et Isabelle 1598-1621."Annales du Cercle
Archéologique deMons 7 1 (1978-81), pp. 181-282 .
DEMPSEY 196 7
Dempsey, C . "Euanthes Redivivus: Rubens' s
Prometheus Bound? Journalof the Warburg and
CourtauldInstitutes 3 0 (1967), pp. 420-25 .
D E N B O S C H - L E U V E N 2 O O 2 - O 3
De vier jaargetijdenin de kunst van de Nederlanden
1500-1750. Exh. cat. (De n Bosch , Noordbrabant s
Museum, an d Leuven, Stedelijk Museum Vander
Kelen-Mertens, 2002-03) .
DENUCÉ 193 1
Denucé, J. Kunstuitvoer in de i?e Eeuw te
Antwerpen de firma Forchoudt (Th e Hague, 1931).
DENUCÉ 193 2
Denucé, J . De Antwerpsche "Konstkamers" —
Inventarissen van kunstverzamelingen te Antwerpen
in de i6e en ije eeuwen. Bronnen voor de
geschiedenis van de Vlaamsche Kunst 2
(The Hague, 1932).
DENUCÉ 193 4
Denucé, J . Brieven en documenten betreffendJa n
Brueghel I e n II.Bronne n voor de geschiedenis
van de Vlaamse Kunst 3 (Antwerp and Th e
Hague, 1934).
DENUCÉ 1949
Denucé, Jan. No, Peter Pauwel Rubens.
Documenten uit den Kunsthandel te Antwerpenin
de XVIIe Eeuw van Matthijs Musson. Bronnen
voor d e Geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Kunst 5
(Antwerp and The Hague, 1949).
DE PILE S 167 7
De Piles, Roger. Conversations sur la connaissance
de la peintureet sur le jugementqu'on doit fairedes
Tableaux (Où par occasion il est parléde la vie de
Rubens} & de quelques-uns de ses plusbeaux
ouvrages) (Paris , 1677).
DE P I L E S l68 l
De Piles , Roger. Dissertation sur les ouvragesdes
plus fameuxpeintres (Paris, 1681).
DESSAU 200 3
Oranienbaum—Huis van Oranje. Exh. cat.
(Dessau, Oranienbaum, 2003).
DETROIT 193 6
Sixty Paintings and Some Drawings by Peter Paul
Rubens. Exh. cat. (Detroit Institut e o f Arts,
1936).
D Í A Z P A D R Ó N 1975
Díaz Padrón, Matías . Museo del Prado, Catálogo d
pinturas. Escuela Flamenca. Siglo XVII. 2 vols.
(Madrid, 1975). .
DÍAZ P A D R Ó N 1995
Díaz Padrón, Matías. El siglo de Rubens en Museo
del Prado. Catálogo razonado de pinturaflamenca de
siglo XVII. 3 vols. (Barcelona, 1995).
D I E M E R 198 0
Diemer, Peter . "Materialie n zu Entstehung und
Ausbau der Kammergalerie Maximilians I. Von
Bayern." In Quellen und Studien zur Kunstpolitik
der Wittelsbacher vom 16. bis zum18. Jahrhundert^
edited b y Hubert Glaser, pp. 129-74 (Munich
and Zurich, 1980) .
e
D I L I S 192 3
Dilis, E. M. "La Confrérie des Romanistes."
Annales de l'Académie Royale d'Archéologie de
Belgique 70 (1922), pp. 416-88 [Antwerp, 1923].
D O E R N E R 1962
Doerner, M. Th e Materialsof the Artist(Ne w
York, 1962).
DOGAER 197 1
Dogaer, G . "De inventaris der schilderijen van
Diego Duarte."/##r¿w& Koninklijk Museum voor
Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1971), pp. 195-221 .
D O H E R T Y 200 5
Doherty, Tiarna. "Collaboration Unveile d in the
Study and Treatment o f 'Mars Disarmed by
Venus' by Peter Paul Rubens an d Jan Brueghel I
and Recent Finding s i n the Study of the Collaborative
Works of Rubens and Jan Brueghel I,
with contributions b y Mark Leonard an d J0rgen
Wadum." Beitrage zur Erhaltung von Kunst-und
Kulturgut i (2005) , pp. 13-20.
DOLCE 191 3
Dolce, L . Dialogo dei colorí Ai Ludovico Dolci
(Lanciano, 1913).
D O R D R E C H T 195 5
Bloem} bloem., plant.Exh. cat. (Dordrecht s
Museum, 1955) .
D O R D R E C H T 2 O O O - O 1
Grieksegoden en helden. Exh. cat. (Dordrecht s
Museum, 2000-01).
D R E S D E N 199 2
Gemdldegalerie Dresden. Alte Meister. Katalog der
ausgestellten Werke (Leipzig , 1992).
D R O S S A E R S A N D L U N S I N G H S C H E U R L E E R
1974-76
Drossaers, S. W. A., and Th. H. Lunsing h
Scheurleer. Inventarissen van de inboedels in de
verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmede gelijk te
stellen stukken 1567-1795. 3 vols. (Th e Hague,
1974-76).
D U E R L O O 199 7
Duerloo, L . "Pietas Albertina. Dynastiekc
vroomheid en herbouw van het vorstelijk gezag."
Bijdragen en Mededelingen tot de Geschiedenis van
de Nederlanden 11 2 (1997), pp. 1-18 .
D U N B A R 197 9
Dunbar, Burton. "The Questio n of Cornelis
Massys' Landscape Collaboration wit h Quinten
and Jan Mzssy s "Jaarboekva n het Koninklijk
Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1979),
pp. 125-41.
L I T E R A T U R E 255
D U S S E L D O R F 2OO 3
Der erste Pfalzgrafam Niederrhein. Wolfgang
Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg (1578-1653) und
Dusseldorf in der ersten Halfte des 17. Jahrhunderts.
Exh. cat. (Dusseldorf, Stadtmuseum, 2003).
D U V E R G E R 1984 Duverger,
Erik . Antwerpse kunstinventarissen
uit d e zeventiende eeuw. 13 vols. Fonte s Historia e
Artis Neerlandicae (Brussels, 1984-).
D U V I V I E R i86 0
Duvivier, C . "Documents concernant l e peintre
Jean Breughel." Revue d'Histoire e t d'Archéologie 2
(1860), pp. 329-35, 439-61.
E C K A R D T 198 0
Eckardt, G. Die Gemalde in der Bildergalerie von
Sanssouci (Potsdam an d Sanssouci, 1980).
E D I N B U R G H - N O T T I N G H A M 2OO 2
Wood, Jeremy. Rubens: Drawingon Italy. Exh.
cat. (Edinburgh, Nationa l Galler y of Scotland ,
and Nottingham, Djanogl y Gallery, 2002).
EEMANS 1964
Eemans, M. Brueghel de Velours (Brussels , 1964).
E I S L E R 1967
Eisler, Colin. "Rubens ' Uses of the Norther n
Past: The Michiels Triptych and Its Sources. "
Bulletin des MuséesRoyaux des Beaux-Ansde
Belgique1 6 (1967) , pp. 43~77 EISLER
199 0
Eisler, Colin. Paintings in the Hermitage (Ne w
York, 1990).
ELIAS 193 1
Elias, H. J . Kerk e n Staat in de Zuidelijke
Nederlanden onder de regeering der aartshertogen
Albrecht en Isabella (Leuven , 1931).
ENGEL 193 9
Engel, H. "Alphabetica l List of Dutch Zoologica l
Cabinets an d Menageries." Bijdragen to t de
Dierkunde 27 (1939), pp. 247-346.
E R T Z 1979
Ertz, Klaus. Jan Brueghel der Altere1568-1625:
Die Gemalde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog
(Cologne, 1979).
ERTZ 198 1
Ertz, Klaus . Jan Brueghel der Altere(1568-1625)
(Cologne, 1981) .
ERTZ 198 4
Ertz, Klaus . Jan Breughel derjungere1601-1678.
Die Gemalde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog (Frere n
and Lucca, 1984).
E S S E N - V I E N N A 1 9 9 7 - 9 8
Ertz, Klaus, ed. Breughel-Brueghel: Pieter Breughel
derjungere 1565-1637/8-) r
an Brueghel der Altere
1568-1625, Flamische Malerei um 1600. Tradition und
Fortschritt. Exh. cat. (Essen, Villa Hiigel, and
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1997-98) .
E S S E N - V I E N NA 2OO 3
Die Flamische Landschaft 1520-1700. Exh cat .
(Essen, Villa Hiigel, and Vienna, Kunsthistorisches
Museum , 2003) .
E S T E R H Á Z Y 190 1
Esterházy, J. Die Familie Esterházy (Budapest ,
1901).
EVERS 194 2
Evers, H. G . Peter Paul Rubens (Munich, 1942) .
EVERS 1944
Evers, H. G . Rubens und sein Werk (Brussels,
1944).
F A I R F A X 175 8
Fairfax, B . Catalogue of the Curious Collectionof
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (London ,
1758).
F A L C H E T T I 196 9
Falchetti, A. La Pinacoteca Ambrosiana (Venice,
1969).
F E R I N O - P A G D E N 199 1
Ferino-Pagden, Sylvia, et al. Die Gemaldegaleñe
des Kunsthistorisches Museums in Wien (Vienna,
1991).
F F O U L K E S 191 1
Ffoulkes, Charles. "A Craft-Picture by Jan
Brueghel." The Burlington Magazine1 9
(April-September 1911), pp. 41-48.
FILIPCZAK 198 7
Filipczak, Zirka Zarema. Picturing Art i n
Antwerp, 1550-1700 (Princeton , 1987) .
F R E D E R I C K S E N 198 5
Fredericksen, Burton . "Recen t Acquisitions o f
Paintings: The J. Paul Getty Museum." The
Burlington Magazine12 7 (1985), p. 261.
F R E E D B E R G 1981
Freedberg, D . "The Origin s an d Rise of the
Flemish Madonnas in Flower Garlands .
Decoration and Devotion." MünchnerJahrbuch
der bildenden Kunst 3, no. 3 2 (1981), pp. 115-50 .
F R E E D B E R G 198 4
Freedberg, D. "Review of 'Jan Brueghel der
Altere' by Klaus Ertz." The Burlington Magazine
126 (1984), pp. 575-77 F
R E E D B E R G 1991
Freedberg, D. "Science, Commerce , an d Art:
Neglected Topic s at the Junction o f History and
Art History." In Art i n History, History i n Art:
Studies in iTth-Century Dutch Culture. Edited b y
D. Freedberg and J. de Vries, pp. 376-42 8 (Sant a
Monica, Calif , 1991) .
F R I E D L A E N D E R 195 5
Friedlaender, Walter. Caravaggio Studies
(Princeton, 1955).
F R I E D L Á N D E R 1967-7 6
Friedlànder, Ma x J. Early Netherlandish Painting.
14 vols, in 16. Translated by Heinz Norden .
Comments an d notes b y Nicole VeronéeVerhaegen
(New York, 1967-76).
F U C I K O V Á A N D K O N E C N Y 198 3
Fuciková, Eliska, and Lubomir Konecny. "Einige
Bemerkungen zur 'Gesichts-Allegorie5
von Paolo
Fiammingo und zu seinen Auftràgen fur di e
Fugger." Ane Véneta 3 7 (1983), pp. 67-76.
G A B R I E L I 1 9 3 3 - 34
Gabrieli, G. "Federico Borrome o a Roma. "
Archivio délia Società Romana di Storia Patria
56-57 (1933-34), pp. 157-217 G
A L E S L O O T 185 4
Galesloot, A . L. La maison de chasse des ducs de
Brabant et de l'ancienne cour de Bruxelles (Brussels
and Leipzig, 1854) .
GAYO G A R C Í A A N D V E R G A R A 2OO4
Gayo García, María Dolores, an d Alejandro
Vergara. "Filopómenes reconcido pou r uno s
ancianos en Megara, de Rubens y Snyders."
Boletín del MuseoNacional del Prado 22, no. 4 0
(2004), pp. 26-37 .
VAN G E H R E N 197 9
Van Gehren, G . "Jan Brueghel der À." Weltkunst
49 (i979), pp. 1760-61.
V A N G E L D E R 1950/5 1
Gelder, J. G. van. "Rubens in Holland in de
Zeventiende Eeuw. " Nederlands Kunsthistorisch
Jaarboek 3 (1950/51), pp. 103-50 .
GENOA 1996
Boccardo, Piero, an d Clario Di Fabio. Dipinti
Fiamminghi e Olandesi delta Gallería Doria
Pamphilj. Exh . cat. (Genoa, Palazz o Ducale,
1996).
G E R S O N AN D TE R K U I L E 196 0
Gerson, H., and E. ter Kuile.vlrí and Architecture
in Belgium 1600-1800 (Baltimore , 1960) .
256 L I T E R A T U R E
G H E N T 196 0
Bloem en tuin in de Vlaamse kunst. Exh. cat.
(Ghent, Museu m voo r Schone Kunsten, 1960) .
GIBSON 1989
Gibson, Walte r S. Mirror o f the Earth: Th e World
Landscape in Sixteenth-Century flemish Painting
(Princeton, 1989) .
GIFFORD 1999
Gifford, M . "Landscape Paintin g Style and
Technique: Fidelit y to the Sixteenth-century
Tradition in Early Seventeenth-Centur y
Landscape Production." In La Peinture dans les
Pays-Bas au i6e Siècle. Colloque XIIpour l'étude du
dessin sous-jacent et de la technologie dans la peinture
Septembre 11-13,1997•> edited b y R. va n Schoute
and H. Verougstraete. (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1999),
pp. 177-88.
G I L L I A R D 196 9
Gilliard, E. T. Birds o f Paradise and Bower Birds
(London, 1969).
GLASGOW 196 1
Dutch and Flemish, Netherlandish and German
Paintings, Glasgow An Gallery and Museum.
2 vols. Exh . cat. (Glasgow , Art Galler y and
Museum, 1961) .
GLUCK 191 2
Gluck, G . "Les peintres d'animaux, de fruits et
de fleurs. " I n Trésor de l'art belge au XVIe siècle.
Mémorial de ^exposition d'art ancien à Bruxelles
(Brussels and Paris , 1912).
GLUCK 192 8
Gluck, Gustav. Katalog der Gemdldegalerie
(Vienna, 1928).
GLUCK 193 3
Gluck, Gustav. Rubens, Van Dyck un d ih r Kreis
(Vienna, 1933).
G O E T G H E B E U R 1 9 9 O
Goetghebeur, N. "Preliminary Study and
Approach t o the Cleaning of 'The Raising of the
Cross' by Peter Pau l Rubens i n Antwerp
Cathedral." I n Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings,
edited by J. S. Mills and P . Smith, pp. 1- 5
(London, 1990).
VAN D E G R A A F 195 8
Graaf, J. A. van de. H et De May erne manuscript
aïs bron voor de schilderkunst van de barok
(Mijdrecht, 1958) .
G R E E N W I C H - C I N C I N N A T I - B E R K E L E Y 2 0 0 4 - 0 5
Sutton, Peter C, and Marjorie E. Wieseman
with Nico van Hout. Drawn b y the Brush—
Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens. Exh. cat.
(Greenwich, Conn. , Bruce Museum o f Arts and
Science; Cincinnati Art Museum; an d Berkeley,
University of California, Berkeley Art Museu m
and Pacific Film Archive, 2004-05).
G R E G O R I 200 1
Gregori, M. "Federico Borrome o e le ghirlande
di fiori." l\\ Mélanges en hommage àPierre
Rosenberg: Peintures etdessins en Prance et en Italie
XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles, pp. 222-2 7 (Paris, 2001).
G R O S S M A N N 197 3
Grossmann, F. Pieter Bruegel:Complète Edition of
the Paintings (New York, 1973).
THE H A G U E 1 9 9 7 - 9 8
Ploeg, P. van der, an d C. Vermeeren et al.
Vorstelijk verzameld: de kunstcollectie van Frederik
Hendrik en Amalia/Princely Patrons: The Collection
of Frederick Henry of Orange and Amalia van
Solms. Exh. cat. (The Hague, Mauritshuis,
1997-98).
T H E H A G U E 1 9 8 8 - 8 9
Paintings from England—William III and the
Royal Collections. Exh. cat. (The Hague,
Mauritshuis, 1988-89) .
HAIRS 195 7
Hairs, Marie-Louise. "Collaboratio n dan s
les tableaux de fleurs flamands." Revue belge
d'archéologie et de l'histoire de Van 26 (1957) ,
pp. 149-62.
H A I R S 1977
Hairs, Marie-Louise . Dans le Sillage de Rubens.
Les Peintres ^HistoireAnversois au XVJIe Siècle
(Liège, 1977) .
H A L K I N 194 6
Halkin, L. "L'Itinéraire de Belgique d e
Dubuisson-Aubenay 1623-1628." Revue belge
d'archéologie et d'histoire de Pan 2 6 (1946),
pp. 47-76.
HALL 197 4
Hall, J . Dictionary of Subjects an d Symbols i n A n
(London, 1974).
H A M M - M A I N Z 2OO 1
Hàrting, Ursula, et al. Ganen un d Hofe de r
Rubenszeit im Spiegel der Malerfamilie Brueghel
und der Künstler um Peter PaulRubens. Exh. cat.
(Hamm, Gustav-Lubcke-Museum, and Mainz,
Landesmuseum, 2001).
H A R K S E N 1976
Harksen, J. Schloss Mosigkau. Alter Gemdldebestand
(Dessau, 1976).
H À R T I N G 198 9
Hàrting, U . Frans Francken dcr Jüngere
(1581-1642): Die Gemdlde mit kritischem
Oeuvrekatalog (Freren , 1989).
H À R T I N G 199 3
Hàrting, U . "'Doctrina es pietas' übcr frühe
Galenebilder."/##r£0£& van het Koninklijk
Museum voor Schone Kunstcn Antwerpen (1993) ,
pp. 95-133 H
À R T I N G AN D BORM S 2OO 3
Hàrting, U. , and K. Borms. Abraham Govaens:
der Waldmaler (1589-1626) (Schoten , 2004).
H A S K E L L A N D P E N N Y 198 1
Haskell, E , an d N. Penny . Taste and the
Antique—The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500-1900
(New Haven an d London, 1981) .
H A V E R K A M P - B E G E M A N N 197 1
Haverkamp-Begemann, E. "Purpose an d Style:
Oil Sketches of Rubens, Jan Brueghel,
Rembrandt." Painterly Painting: An News
Annual 3 7 (1971), PP- 57~74.
H E I K A M P 196 6
Heikamp, D. "La Medusa del Caravaggio e
l'armatura dello scia Abbâs di Persia." Paragonc
199 (1966) , pp. 62-76 .
H E I N Z 197 3
Heinz, G . "Geistliches Blumenbild un d
dckoratives Stilleben i n der Geschichte der
Kaiserlichen Gemàldesammlungen." Jahrbuch
der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wicn 6 9
(1973), PP- 1-30 .
H E L D 194 1
Held, J. S. "AchelouY Eznquct?" Art Quarterly 4
(1941), pp- 122-33 .
H E L D 195 9
Held, J. S. Rubens: Selected Drawings. 2 vols.
(London, 1959) .
HELD 196 3
Held. J. S. "Prometheus Bound. " Philadelphia
Museum o f An Bulletin 5 9 (1963), pp. 17-32 .
HELD 197 5
Held, J. S."Rubens's 'Leopards'—A Milestone
in the Portraya l of Wild Animals: La premiere
oeuvre d'envergure d e Rubens au Canada. "
Montreal Museum o f Fine Ans 7 , no. 3 (Winter
1975), PP- 5-14.
L I T E R A T U R E 257
H E L D 198 0
Held, J. S. The Oil Sketches of Peter Paul Rubens.
A Critical Catalogue. 2 vols. (Princeton , 1980).
HELD 198 2
Held, J. S. Rubens and His Circle: Studies. Edited
by Anne Lowenthal, Davi d Rosand, and John
Walsh, Jr. (Princeton, 1982).
HELD 198 3
Held, J. S. "Thoughts on Rubens' Beginnings. "
In Papers Presented at the International Rubens
Symposium, April 14-16,1982, The Johnand Mabel
Ringling Museumof Art, State Art Museum of
Florida^ edite d by William H. Wilson, pp. 14-35
(Sarasota, Fla., 1983).
HELD 198 7
Held, J. S. Rubens-Studien (Leipzig, 1987 ) (1987) .
H E N D R I X 198 4
Hendrix, L. "Joris Hoefnagel and the Tour
Elements.5
" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton, 1984) .
HENDRIX 199 7
Hendrix, Lee, and Thea Vignau-Wilberg. Nature
Illuminated: Flora and Fauna from the Court of
Rudolf I I (Lo s Angeles, 1997).
HOET A N D T E R W E S T E N 1752-7 0
Hoet, G., an d P . Terwesten. Catalogus of
Naamlystvan Schilderyen, met derzelverpryzen.
3 vols. (Th e Hague, 1752-70).
HOFF 197 8
Hoff, Arne. Dutch Firearms. Edited by Walter
Stryker (London, 1978) .
H O L L S T E I N 1 9 4 9 ~
Hollstein, R W. H. Dutch and Flemish Etchings,
Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700
(Amsterdam, 1949-).
H O L L S T E I N 1993 ~
Hollstein, R W. H. Th e New Hollstein: Dutch
and Flemish Etchings, Engravings, and Woodcuts,
1450-1700.15 vols, to dat e (Roosendaal, Th e
Netherlands, 1993) .
HONIG 199 5
Honig, Elizabeth. "Th e Beholde r as Work of
Art: A Study in the Location o f Value in
Seventeenth-Century Flemish Painting. "
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek4 6 (1995) ,
pp. 253-97.
H O N I G 199 8
Honig, Elizabeth. Painting and the Marketin
Early Modern Antwerp (Ne w Haven an d London,
1998).
H O N I G 2OO 5
Honig, Elizabeth. "Paradise Regained: Rubens ,
Jan Brueghel, and the Sociability of Visual
Thought." Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek56
(in press).
VAN H O O G S T R A E T E N 167 8
Hoogstraeten, Samue l van. Inleyding to t de hooge
schoole der Schilderkonst (Rotterdam , 1678) .
H O U B R A K E N 1718-2 1
Houbraken, Arnold. De groóteschouburgh der
Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen. 3 vols.
(Amsterdam, 1718-21).
VAN HOU T 199 8
Hout, N. van. "Meaning and Development of
the Ground-layer in Seventeenth Centur y
Painting." I n Looking through Paintings: The Study
of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of
Art Historical Research, edited by E. Hermens ,
pp. 204-5. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboe k n
(Baarn, 1998).
VAN HOU T 2OO O
Van Hout, N. "Rubens an d Dead Colouring :
Some Remarks on Two Unfinished Paintings "
In Vlieghe et al. 2000 (se e below), pp. 279-88.
H Ü B N E R 187 2
Hiibner, Julius. Verzeichniss der Kóniglichen
Gemalde-Gallerie zu Dresden (Dresden, 1872).
H U Y G E N S / H E E S A K K E R S 198 7
Constantijn Huygens —Mijnjeugd. Translate d
and with commentary by C. L. Heesakkers
(Amsterdam, 1987).
H U Y G H E B A E R T 192 7
Huyghebaert, L . Saint Hubert, Patron des
Chasseurs (Antwerp, 1927).
I N C I S A DELL A R O C C H E T T A 196 3
Incisa délia Rocchetta, G . "Documenti inediti sui
quadri del Rubens nella Chiesa Nouva."vl£ta délia
Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia III.
Rendiconti 35 (1963), pp. 161-83 .
JACKSON 200 4
The Glory of Baroque Dresden: The State Art
Collections Dresden. Exh. cat. (Jackson, Miss.,
Mississippi Arts Pavilion, 2004).
JAFFÉ 196 3
Jaffé, M . "Peter Paul Rubens and the Oratoria n
Fathers." Proporzioni 4 (1963) , pp. 208-42.
JAFFÉ 197 1
Jaffé, M . "Rubens an d Snyders: A Fruitful
Partnership." Apollo93 (1971), pp. 184-96.
JAFFÉ 197 7
Jaffé M. Rubens and Italy (Londo n an d Ithaca,
N.Y., 1977) .
J A F F É 198 9
Jaffé, M . Rubens: catalogocomplete. Translated by
Germano Mulazzani (Milan, 1989).
J O N C K H E E R E 2004-0 5
Jonckheere, K. '"When the Cabinet from He t
Loo was Sold': The Auction of William Ill's
Collection of Paintings, 2 6 July 1713." Simiolus
(2004-05), pp . 156-215.
J O N E S 198 8
Jones, Pamela M. "Federico Borrome o as a
Patron of Landscapes and Still-Lifes. Christia n
Optimism in Italy ca. 1600? Art Bulletin 70
(1988), pp. 260-75 .
JONES 199 3
Jones, Pamela M. Federico Borromeo and the
Ambrosiana: Art Patronage and Reform in
Seventeenth-Century Milan (Cambridg e and
New York , 1993).
JOST 196 3
Jost, L "Hendrick van Balen d.À. Versuch einer
Chronologie der Werken aus den ersten zwe i
Jahrzehnten des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts unter
besonderer Berucksichtigung der Kabinettbilder."
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek1 4 (1963),
pp. 83-128.
JUSTI 188 6
Justi, Karl. "Altflandrische Bilder in Spanien
und Portugal: i. Joachim Patinier und Quentin
Metsys." Zeitschrift fu r Bildende Kunst 21 (1886),
pp. 93-95K
A R C H E S K I 2OO 1
Karcheski, Walter J. "Rubens's Lost Negroli
Helmet Painted by Bartholomeus Breenbergh
and Others ?Apollo (Januar y 2001), pp. 28-33.
K A S S E L - F R A N K F U R T 2OO 4
Lange, Justus, et al. Pan & Syrinx: Ein Erotische
Jagd. Peter Paul Rubens, JanBrueghel und ihre
Zeitgenossen. Exh. cat. (Kassel, Staatliche
Museen, and Frankfurt, Stàdelsche s
Kunstinstitut, 2004).
K A V A L E R 1 9 9 9
Kavaler, Ethan Matt. Pieter Bruegel: Parables of
Order and Enterprise (Cambridge , 1999).
K E E R S M A E K E R S 195 7
Keersmaekers, A. "Drie rebus-blazoenen van de
Antwerpse c
Violieren.'" Verslagen e n Mededelingen
van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Académie voor Taal- en
Letterkunde (1957) , pp. 343-50 .
258 L I T E R A T U R E
K I M B A L L 195 2
Kimball, Fiske. "Rubens' Prometheus" The
Burlington Magazine 9 4 (1952) , pp. 67-70.
KIRBY 1999
Kirby, J. "The Painter's Trade in the Seventeent h
Century: Theory and Practice." National Gallery
Technical Bulletin (London ) 2 0 (1999), pp. 5-49 .
K I S L I N G 200 1
Kisling, Vernon N., Jr., ed. Zoo and Aquarium
History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological
Gardens (Boca Raton, Fla., 2001).
KLEIN 1998
Klein, P. "Some Aspects of the Utilization o f
Different Woo d Species in Certain Europea n
Workshops." I n Painting Techniques: History,
Materials and Studio Practice. Contributions tothe
IIC iTth International Congress, Dublin, 7-11
September 1998, pp. 112-1 4 (Dublin, 1998).
KOLB 1998
Kolb, A. Faber. "Varieties of Repetition: 'Trend '
versus 'Brand' in Landscape Paintings by
Joachim Patinir and His Work Shop" Journal
of Medieval an d Early Modern Studies 28, no. i
(Winter 1998), pp. 167-200.
KOLB 2000
Kolb, A. Faber. "Cataloguing Natur e i n Art:
Jan Brueghel the Elder's Paradise Landscapes"
(Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California,
2000).
K O L B 200 5
Kolb, A. Faber. Jan Brueghel the Elder—The Entry
of the Animalsinto Noah}
s Ark (Los Angeles,
2005).
K O M P A N J E 200 4
Kompanje, E . J. O. "Lepus cornutus: Een haas met
een gewei. Een mythologisch wezen, een grap
van de taxidermist of realiteit?" Straatgras—
berichten uit he t natuurmuseum Rotterdam1 6
(2004), pp. 45-47K
O S L O W 1995 3
Koslow, Susan. Frans Snyders: Th e Noble Estate:
Seventeenth-century Still-life and Animal Painting
in the Southern Netherlands(Antwerp , 1995) .
KOSLOW 1995 6
Koslow, Susan . '"How looked the Gorgon
then... ': The Science and Poetics of The Head
of Medusa b y Rubens an d Snyders. " In Shop Talk.
Studies in Honor of Seymour S live,Presented on
His Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited by Cynthia P.
Schneider et al., pp. 147-49, 349-5 0
(Cambridge, Mass. , 1995).
KOSLOW 1996
Koslow, Susan . "Law and Order i n Rubens's
Wolf and Fox Hunt''Art Bulletin 78, no. 4
(Dec. 1996), pp. 680-706.
L A U R E Y S S E N S 196 7
Laureyssens, Willy. "De samenwerking van
Hendrick de Clerck en Denijs van Alsloot,"
Bulletin des MuséesRoyaux des Beaux-Artsde
Belgique (Bulletin Koninklijke Musea van Schone
Kunsten van België) 1 6 (1967) , pp. 163-78 .
L E V Y - V A N HAL M 1998
Levy-van Halm, K . "Where Di d Vermeer Buy
His Painting Materials? Theory an d Practice." In
Vermeer Studies. Studies in the Histor y o f Art 55
(Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts,
Symposium Paper s 33). Edited b y I. Gaskel and
M. Jonker (Washington , D.C., an d New Haven ,
1998).
L I E D T K E 1984
Liedtke, Walter. Flemish Paintings in the
Metropolitan Museum o f Art. 2 vols. (New York,
1984).
L I E D T K E 1989
Liedtke, Walter A. Royal Horse and Rider:
Painting, Sculpture and Horsemanship, 1500-1800
(New York, 1989).
LILLE 200 4
Rubens. Exh. cat. (Lille, Palais des Beaux-Arts,
2004).
L I N D 194 6
Lind, L. R. "The Lati n Life of Peter Paul Rubens
by his Nephew Philip: A Translation."Art
Quarterly 9 (1946), pp. 37~44 LOISEL
191 2
Loisel, G . Histoire des ménageries de l'antiquité à
nos jours(Paris, 1912).
LONDON 185 0
Catalogue of Pictures by Italian,Spanish, Flemish,
Dutch, French and English Masters.Exh . cat.
(London, Britis h Institution, 1850) .
L O N D O N 1867
Catalogue of Pictures by Italian, Spanish, Flemish,
Dutch, French and English Masters.Exh. cat.
(London, Britis h Institution, 1867) .
LONDON 1979
Jan Brueghel the Elder: A Loan Exhibition of
Paintings. Exh. cat. (London, Bro d Gallery,
1979).
LONDON 200 3
Masterpieces from Dresden. Exh. cat. (London,
Royal Academy of Arts, 2003).
LONDON 2003 3
Jaffé, D. , an d A. Bradley. Rubens:The Massacre of
the Innocents. Exh. cat. (London, Apollo magazine
and National Gallery, 2003).
LONDON 2005-0 6
Jaffé, David , and Elizabeth McGrath, et al.
Rubens: A Master in the Making.Exh . cat.
(London, Nationa l Gallery of Art, 2005-06).
L O N D O N - R O M E 2OO 1
Brown, Beverly Louise, ed . Th e Genius of Rome
1592-1623. Exh. cat. (London, Roya l Academy of
Arts, and Rome, Palazz o Venezia, 2001).
L O S A N G E L E S - L O N D O N 2 O O 3 ~ O 4
Kren, Thomas, an d Scot McKcndrick, with
contributions b y Maryan W. Ainsworth et al.
Illuminating the Renaissance: The Triumph of
Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe. Exh. cat.
(Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, and
London, Royal Academy of Arts, 2003-04).
L O W E N T H A L 198 6
Lowenthal, A. W.Joachim Wtcwael and Dutch
Mannerism (Doornspijk , 1986) .
LUGT 1949
Lugt, Frits . Musée du Louvre. Inventairegénéral
des dessins des écoles du nord. École flamand e (Paris ,
1949).
M A A S T R I C H T - B R U S S E L S 2 O O 1 - O 2
Van den Brink , Peter, éd. Brueghel Enterprises.
Exh. cat . (Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum, and
Brussels, Musées Royau x des Beaux-Arts de
Belgique, 2001-02).
MADRID 1992
Díaz Padrón, M., and M. Royo-Villanova.
David Teniers, Jan Brueghel y los Gabinetes de
Pinturas. Exh. cat. (Madrid, Museo Nacional
del Prado, 1992) .
M A D R I D 1998
Las Tres Gracias de Rubens. Exh. cat. (Madrid,
Museo Nacional del Prado, 1998) .
M A D R I D 1999-200 0
El arte en la corte de los Archiduques Albertode
Austria e Isabel Clara Eugenia, 1598-1633: un reino
imaginado. Exh. cat. Introduction b y Alejandro
Vergara (Madrid, Sala de Exposiciones
Temporales de Palacio Real, 1999).
L I T E R A T U R E 259
M A D R I D 2OO 1 -O 2
Scroth, Sarah , Alejandro Vergara, and Thea
Vignau-Wilberg. Rubens. Dibujos para el retrato
ecuestre del duque de Lerma. Exh. cat. (Madrid,
Museo Nacional del Prado, 2001-02).
MADRID 200 4
Vergara, Alejandro. Rubens: The Adorationof the
Magi. Exh . cat. (Madrid, Museo Naciona l del
Prado, 2004) .
DE M A E Y E R 1955
De Maeyer, M. Albert en Isabella en de
Schilderkunst. Bijdrage tôt de geschiedenisvan de
XVTIe—eeuwse schilderkunst in de Zuidelijke
Nederlanden. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke
Vlaamse Académie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en
Schone Kunsten van Eelgie'. Klasse der Schon e
Kunsten, no. 9 (Brussels, 1955).
M A G U R N 195 5
Magurn, R . Saunders, trans, and éd. The Letters
of Peter Paul Rubens (Cambridge, Mass. , 1955) .
M A N C H E S T E R 1857
Art Treasures of the United Kingdom. Exh. cat.
(City of Manchester Art Gallery , 1857).
VAN M A N D E R 160 4
Van Mander, Karel. Wtlegghingh o p den
Metamorphosis Pub. Ouidy Nasonis, Allés streckende
tot voordering des vromen en eerlijcken borgherlijcken
wandels seer dienstich den schilders, dichters en constbeminders,
oock yeghelijck wt leering by eengebracht
engheraemt (1604. Reprint, Haarlem, 1969) .
VAN M A N D E R / M I E D E M A 1973
Mander, Karel van. Den Grondt der edel vrij
Schilder-const. Published, translated, and with
commentary by Hessel Miedema. 2 vols.
(Utrecht, 1973) .
V A N M A N D E R / M I E D E M A 1 9 9 4 ~ 9 9
Mander, Karel van. The Lives of the Illustrious
Netherlandish and German Painters;Preceded by the
lineage circumstances and place of birth, life and
works of Karel van Mander, painter and poet, and
likewise his death and burial. Edited by Hessel
Miedema. 6 vols. (Doornspijk, 1996).
M A N T U A - M I L A N 1977
Mulazzani, G., et. al. Rubens aMantova.
Exh. cat. (Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, 1977).
M A R E T T E 196 1
Marette, J. Connaissance des primitifsl'étude du bois
(Paris, 1961).
M A R I J N I S S E N E T AL . 198 8
Marijnissen, Roger H., et al. Bruegel: Tout
l}
oeuvre peint et dessiné. Translated by C. Krings,
J. Rossbach, and M. Vincent (Antwer p and Paris
1988).
G. M A R T I N 197O
Martin, Gregory. The Flemish School, ca. 1600ca.
IODO (London , 1970) .
M A R T I N 196 9
Martin, John Rupert. Rubens: The Antwerp
Altarpieces (Ne w York, 1969).
MARTIN 197 2
Martin, John Rupert. The Decorations for the
Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi. Corpus Rubenianum
Ludwig Burchard, pt.1 6 (Brussels, 1972).
M A R T I N I 1975
Martini, A. I tr e libri delle laudi divine di Federico
Borromeo: ricerca storico-stilistica (Padua, 1975).
M A U R I T S H U I S 187 4
Stuers, Victor de. Notice historique et descriptive des
tableaux et des sculptures exposés dans le MuséeRoyal
de la Haye (Th e Hague, 1874) .
M A U R I T S H U I S 1935
Martin, W. Musée Royal de tableaux Mauritshuis
à La Haye. Catalogue raisonné des tableaux et sculptures
(The Hague, 1935).
M A U R I T S H U I S 199 3
Mauritshuis—Illustrated General Catalogue
(The Hague, 1993)M
A U R I T S H U I S 2OO 4
Buvelot, Q., éd . Royal Picture Gallery
Mauritshuis—A Summary Catalogue (The HagueZwolle,
2004).
M C G R A T H 199 7
McGrath, Elizabeth. Rubens: Subjects from
History. Corpu s Rubenianu m Ludwig Burchard,
pt.1 3 (London, 1997) .
M E G A N C K 199 8
Meganck, Tine. De kerkelijke architectuur van
Wensel Cobergher 1577/61-1634 in het licht van zijn
verblijfte Rome. KoninklijkeAcadémie voor
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van
België. Klasse der Schone Kunsten 60, no. 4
(1998).
M E I J E R 197 5
Meijer, Bert W. "Paolo Fiammingo Reconsidered."
Mededelingen va n het Nederlands
Instituut t e Rome 37 (1975), pp. 117-30 .
MEIJER 198 3
Meijer, Bert W. "Paolo Fiammingo tra indigeni
e 'foresti a Venezia." Prospettiva 3 2 (1983),
pp. 20-32.
M E L I O N 199 1
Melion, W. Shaping th e Netherlandish Canon.
Karel van Mander's Schilderboek (Chicago , 1991).
M E R R I A M 199 4
Merriam, Susan. "Collaboration i n Antwerp and
the Working Partnership of P. P. Rubens and Ja n
Brueghel." (M.A. thesis, Tufts University, 1994).
VAN DE R M E U L E N 199 4
Meulen, Marjon va n der. Rubens} Copies after th e
Antique. 3 vols. Corpus Rubenianum Ludwi g
Burchard, pt. 2 3 (London, 1994) .
M I R A E U S 1021-2 2
Miraeus, Aubertus. De VitaAlberti Eelgarum
Principis commentarius (Antwerp, 1621-22).
VON ZU R MÜHLE N 199 0
Mutilen, I. von zur. "Nachtridentinische
Bildauífassungen: Cesar e Baronio und Rubens '
Gemàlde fur S . Maria in Vallicella in Rom."
Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 41 (1990),
pp. 23-60.
VON ZU R M Ü H L E N 199 6
Miihlen, I. von zur. "S. Maria in Vallicella: Zur
Geschichte des Hauptaltars." Romisch es Jahrbuch
der Bibliotheca Hertziana 3 1 (1996), pp. 247-72 .
VON ZU R M Ü H L E N 199 8
Miihlen, I . von zur. Bild und Vision: Peter Paul
Rubens und de rcc
Pinsel Gottes" (Frankfurt, 1998) .
V A N M U L D E R S 2OO O
Mulders, Christin e van. "Peter Pau l Rubens en
Jan Brueghel I: d e drijfveren va n hun same n werking."
In Vlieghe et al. 2000 (see below),
pp. 111-26.
V A N M U L D E R S 2OO 3
Mulders, Christin e van. "Een analyse van het
creatief procès in het œuvre van Peter Paul
Rubens in samenwerking met Jan Brueghel de
Oude en Jan Brueghel de Jonge." (Ph.D. diss.,
Brussels, Vrije Universiteit, 2003).
V A N M U L D E R S 2OO 4
Mulders, Christine van. "Die Zusammenarbei t
zwischen Peter Paul Rubens und Jan Brueghel
d.À." In Kassel-Frankfurt 200 4 (se e above),
pp. 59-79-
,
260 L I T E R A T U R E
V A N M U L D E R S 2 O O 4 3
Mulders, Christin e van . "Jean Brueghe l et les
représentations du Paradis Terrestre." In
Flamische Kunst in Ungarn. Kolloquium in der
Ungarischen Nationalgalerie, Budapest, 2000
(Brussels, 2004).
V A N M U L D E R S 2 O O 5
Mulders, Christin e van. "De ontwapening van
Mars door Venus, een schilderij van J. Brueghel
de Oude in samenwerking met P.P. Rubens."
In Florissant. Bijdragen tôt de kunstgeschiedenis
der Nederlanden isde-iyde eeuw, opgedragen aan
Prof. Carl Van de Velde (Brussels , 2004).
M U L L E R 198 9
Muller, J . Rubens: The Artistas Collector
(Princeton, 1989) .
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 1957
Millier Hofstede, Justus . "Zum Werke des Otto
van Veen 1590-1600." Bulletin des MuséeRoyaux
des Beaux-Ans d e Belgique 6 (1957) , pp. 127-74 .
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 196 2
Müller Hofstede , Justus . "Nordische Meister
des Manierismus und Friihbaro k in der Alten
Pinakothek Miinchen." Panthéon 20 (1962) ,
pp. 117-20.
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 1962 8
Miiller Hofstede, Justus . "Zur Antwerpener
Friihzeit von P . P. Rubens." Münchner Jahrbuch
der Bildenden Kunst, n.s. 2, no.1 3 (1962) ,
pp. 179-216.
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 196 6
Millier Hofstede, "Z u Rubens' zweite m
Altarwerk fur Sta . Maria in Vallicella." Nederlands
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek1 7 (1966) , pp. 1-78 .
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 196 8
Millier Hofstede, Justus . "Rubens un d Jan
Brueghel: Diana und ihr e Nymphen." Jahrbuch
der Berliner Museen1 0 (1968) , pp. 200-32 .
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 197 1
Miiller Hofstede , Justus . "Abraham
Janssens. Zum problemati k des flàmischen
Caravaggismus."/#/7r¿;2¿¿:/; der Berliner Museen13
(1971), pp- 208-303 .
M U L L E R H O F S T E D E 198 4
Miiller Hofstede , Justus . "'Non Saturatur Oculu s
Visu'—Zur 'Allégorie des Gesichts von Peter
Paul Rubens un d Jan Brueghel d . À'." In
Vekeman and Miiller Hofstede 198 4 (see below),
pp. 243-86 .
M U N I C H 198 0
Um Glauben und Reich, Kurfurst Maximilian I.
Wittelsbach undBayern. Exh . cat. 2 vols. Edite d
by Hubert Glase r (Munich, Residenz, 1980) .
MUNICH 199 3
Siefert, Helge, éd. Zum Ruhme des Helden.
Historien- und Genremalerei des 17. und 18.
Jahrhunderts aus den Bestanden der Alten
Pinakothek. Exh. cat. (Munich, Alte Pinakothek,
1993).
M U R R A Y A N D G R O E N 199 4
Murray, S., and K. Groen. "Four Early Dutch
Flower Painting s Examine d with Referenc e
to Crispijn van de Passe's 'Den Blom-Hof.'"
Hamilton Kerr Institute Bulletin 2 (1994),
pp. 7-20 .
N A V Í O 1962
Navio, J. López. "L e gran colección de pinturas
del Marqés de Leganés." AnalectaCalasanctiana
7-8 (1962) , pp. 262-330.
N E U M A Y R 102 0
Neumayr von Ramssla, J. W. Wilhelm. Des durchlauchtigsten
Herrn. Joh. Ernst d. jüng.Hertzogen
zu Sachsen, Reise in Frankreich, Engelland und
Niederland (Leipzi g 1620).
NEVEROV 197 9
Neverov, Oleg . "Gems i n the Collection o f
Rubens." The Burlington Magazine 12 1 (1979),
pp. 424-32.
NEW Y O R K 1919
Paintings by MastersoftheXVIIth Century.
Exh. cat . (New York, Lotos Club, 1919) .
N E W Y O R K 197 3
Nudes in Landscapes. Exh . cat. (New York,
Metropolitan Museu m of Art, 1973) .
NEW Y O R K 197 7
Highlights o f the Untermyer Collection. (New York,
Metropolitan Museu m of Art, 1977) .
N E W Y O R K 1 9 9 8 - 9 9
Pyhrr, Stuart W. Heroic Armor o f the Italian
Renaissance: Filippo Negroli and His
Contemporaries. Exh. cat. (New York,
Metropolitan Museu m o f Art, 1998-99).
NEW YOR K 1998-99 3
Ainsworth, Maryan Wynn, and Keith
Christiansen, eds. From Van Eyck t o Bruegel:
Early Netherlandish Paintingsin the Metropolitan
Museum o f Art. Exh . cat. (New York,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998).
N E W Y O R K 200 2
Campbell, Thomas P . Tapestry i n the Renaissance:
Art an d Magnificence. Exh . cat. (New York,
Metropolitan Museu m o f Art, 2002).
N E W Y O R K 200 5
Logan, Anne-Marie, in collaboration with
Michiel C. Plomp. Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640):
The Drawings. Exh. cat. (New York,
Metropolitan Museu m of Art, 2005).
N E W Y O R K - P A R I S 2 O O 1 - O 2
Northern European Old Master Drawings and Oil
Sketches. Exh. cat. (New York and Paris , Haboldt,
2001-02).
N I C O L A I 177 9
Nicolai, Friedrich. Beschreibungder Kbniglichen
Residenzstadte Berlin und Potsdam, allerdaselbst
befindlichen Merkwürdiakeiten und der umlieaenden
Gegend (Berli n 1779) .
N O R D E N F A L K 1 9 8 5
Nordenfalk, C . "The Fiv e Senses in Flemish Art
before 1600. " In Netherlandish Mannerism: Papers
Given at a Symposium in the Nationalmuseum,
Stockholm, Sept. 21-22,1084. Edited b y G. CavalliBjôrkman
(Stockholm , 1985) .
N O R D E N F A L K 1 9 8 5 8
Nordenfalk, C . "The Fiv e Senses in Lat e
Medieval and Renaissanc e Art" Journal of the
Warburg an d Courtauld Institutes 48 (1985) ,
pp. 1-22.
N O R R I S 194 O
Norris, Christopher. "Ruben s befor e Italy." The
Burlington Magazine 7 6 (1940), pp. 184-94.
O L D E N B O U R G 192 1
Oldenbourg, Rudolf . P. P. Rubens.Des Meisters
Gemalde. Klassiker der Kuns t 50 (Stuttgart and
Berlin, 1921).
PACHECO 1649
Pacheco, Francisco. Artede la Pintura (1649).
P A D U A - R O M E - M I L A N 199 0
Bodart, Didier, et al. Pietro Paulo Rubens.
Exh. cat. (Padua, Palazzo del Raggione; Rome ,
Palazzo delle Esposizioni; and Milan, Socictà per
le Belle Arti ed Esposizioni Permanente, 1990).
PARIS 180 7
Statues, bustes, bas-reliefs, bronzes, et autres antiquités,
peintures, dessins et objets curieux conquis par la
Grande Armée, dans les années1806 et 1807: dont
l'exposition a eu lieu le 14 octobre 1807, premier
anniversaire de la Bataille d'Jena (Paris , 1807).
L I T E R A T U R E 20 1
P A R I S 193 6
Rubens et son temps. Exh. cat. (Paris, Musée
National d e l'Orangerie, 1936).
PARIS 1977-7 8
Foucart, J., et al., Le siècle de Rubens dans les collections
publiquesfrançaises. Exh. cat. (Paris, Grand
Palais, 1977-78).
P A R I S 197 8
Jestaz, Bertrand, an d Rosalind Bacou./z¿/£ 5
Romain, L'histoire de Scipion: tapisseries et dessins.
Exh. cat. (Paris, 1978).
PARIS 197 9
Brejon d e Lavergnée, A., et al. Écoles flamande et
hollandaise. Exh. cat. (Paris, Musée du Louvre ,
1979).
P A R I S 2 O O O - 0 1
d'Anthenaise, C. Vie de chiens. Exh. cat. (Paris ,
Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature, 2000-01).
PARIS-LYON 1991
Buijs, Hans, and Maria van Berge-Gerbaud.
Tableaux flamands et hollandais du Musée des
Beaux-Arts de Lyon.Exh. cat. (Paris, Institu t
Néerlandais, and Lyon, Musée des Beaux-Arts,
1991).
P A S T U R E 192 5
Pasture, A. La restauration religieuse aux Pays-Bas
Catholiques sous les Archiducs Albert et Isabelle
1598-1633 (Louvain , 1925).
PAULUSSEN 199 7
Paulussen, M. JanBrueghel dÀ. «Weltlandschaft»
und enzyklopiidisches Stilleben (Aachen, 1997).
P E L T Z E R 191 6
Peltzer, R. A. "Hans Rottenhammer."/^^^^
der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerhochsten
Kaiserhauses in Wien 33 (1916), pp. 293-365 .
P E L T Z E R 192 5
Peltzer, A. R., ta. Joachim von Sandrart's
Académie der Bau-Bild und Malery-Künste von 1675
(Munich, 1925) .
P E N N I N G T O N 198 2
Pennington, R . A Descriptive Catalogue of the
Etched Work ofWenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677
(Cambridge, 1982).
P H O E N I X - K A N S A S C I T Y - T H E H A G U E 1 9 9 8 - 9 9
Komanecky, M. K. , et al. Copper a s Canvas:
Two Centuries of Masterpiece Paintings on Copper,
1575-1775. Exh. cat. (Phoenix Museum of Art;
Kansas City, Nelson Atkins Museum of Art;
and The Hague, Mauritshuis, 1998-99).
PIJL 1996
Fiji, L. "Een val van Icarus van Paul Bril en diens
artistieke relaties met Hans Bol, Lodewijk
Toeput e n Jan Brueghel." Oud Holland n o
(1996), pp. 70-78.
P I J L 199 8
Fiji, L. "Paintings b y Paul Bril in collaboration
with Rottenhammer, Elsheime r and Rubens."
The Burlington Magazine14 0 (1998) , pp. 660-67.
PIJL 200 5
Fiji, L. "Review o f U. Hàrting an d K. Borms,
Abraham Govaerts. Der Waldmaler (1589-1626)?
The Burlington Magazine147 (2005), p. 560.
P L E S T E R S 198 3
Plesters, J. "'Samson and Delilah5
: Rubens and
the Art and Craft o f Painting on Panel." National
Gallery Technical Bulletin (London) 7 (1983),
pp. 30-50 .
P O E S C H E L 200 1
Poeschel, Sabine. "Rubens' Battle of the
Amazons as a War-Picture. The Modernisatio n
of a Myth." Artibuset Historiae 22, no. 4 3 (2001),
pp. 91-108.
P O L L - F R O M M E L , R E N G E R , A N D S C H M I D T 199 3
Poll-Frommel, V., K. Renger, an d J. Schmidt.
"Untersuchungen an Rubens Bildern: Die
Anstückungen der Holztafeln." \t\Jahresbericht
Bayerische Staatgemaldesammlungen, pp. 24-35
(Munich, 1993).
P O M M E R E U L 179 8
[Le Général Pommereul]. "État des objets d'arts
envoyés aux divers musées français, e t conquis
par les armées de la République pendant la
guerre de la líbrete." In De l'art de voir dans les
Beaux-Arts, traduit de l'italien de Milizia,
pp. 275-316 (Paris, n.d. [1798]).
POP H AM 195 2
Popham, A. E. "A Drawing of Frans Snyders."
The Burlington Magazine94 (1952) , pp. 236-37.
P O P H A M A N D W I L D E 194 9
Popham, A. E., and J. Wilde. The Italian
Drawings of the XVand XVI Centuries in the
Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle
(London, 1949) .
PREST 198 1
Prest, J. The Garden of Eden: The Botanic Garden
and the Re-Creation of Paradise (New Haven an d
London, 1981).
VAN P U Y V E L D E 194 9
Puyvelde, L. van. "L'atelier e t les collaborateurs
de Rubens." Gazette des Beaux-Arts^ sixt h ser., 35
(1949), pp. 115-28; and 3 6 (1949), pp. 221-60.
V A N P U Y V E L D E 196 4
Puyvelde, L. van. "Le banquet d'Acheloüs par
Rubens." Gazette des Beaux-Arts63 (1964),
pp. 93-98.
QUINT 198 6
Quint, A. Cardinal FedericoBorromeo as a Patron
and a Critic of the Artsand His Musaeum of 1625.
Outstanding Dissertation s in the Fine Arts (Ne w
York and London, 1986).
Q U I N T A N A L A C A C I 1987
Quintana Lacaci , Guillermo. Armería del Palada
Real de Madrid(Madrid , 1987).
RAGGIO 195 8
Raggio, Olga . "The Myth of Prometheus.
Its Survival and Metamorphoses u p to the
Eighteenth Century. " Journalo f the Warburg an d
Courtauld Institutes 21 (1958), p. 44-62.
RATTI1910
Ratti, A.S. "L'odissea d'un bellissimo BrueghelRubens,
gia nella Pinacoteca Ambrosiana di
Milano rRassegna Arte (Januar y 1910).
RÉAU 1955-5 9
Réau, Louis. Iconographie d e l'art chrétien. 6 vols.
(Paris, 1955-59).
DE R E I F F E N B E R G 1837
Reiffenberg, Baro n de, éd. "Vita Petri i Paulii
Rubenii (1676)." Nouveaux Mémoires de lAcademie
Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles 10
(1837), pp. lo-ii.
R E N G E R AN D DEN K 2OO 2
Renger, Konrad, with Claudia Denk. Flamische
Malerei des Barockin der AltenPinakothek
(Munich and Cologne, 2002).
R E N G E R A N D S C H L E I F 2OO 5
Renger, Konrad, and Nina Schleif. Staatsgalerie
Neuburg an der Donau. Flamische Barockmalerei
(Munich and Cologne, 2005) .
REZNICEK1977
Reznicek, E. K. J. "Opmerkingen bij
Rembrandt." Oud Holland 91 , nos. 1-2 (1977),
pp. 75-107.
R I M E R 2OO1
Rimer, Graeme. Wheelock Firearms of the Royal
Armouries (Leeds, 2001).
262 L I T E R A T U R E
R I P A 160 3
Ripa, Cesare . Iconología overo descrittione di
diverse imagini cávate dalPantichittà, e di propria
inventione (Rome, 1603).
R I T T E R S H A U S E N 178 8
Rittershausen, Joseph Sebastia n von. Die
vornehmste Merkwürdigkeiten der Residenzstadt
Münchenfür Liebhaber der bildenden Künste
(Munich, 1788) .
R O B É I S 198 9
Robéis, H. Frans Snyders (Munich , 1989) .
R O B L O T - D E L O N D R E 191 3
Roblot-Delondre, L. Portraits d'Infantes XVIe
Siècle (Pari s and Brussels , 1913)R
O E T H L I S B E R G E R A N D B O K 1993
Roethlisberger, M. G., and M. J. Bok. Abraham
Bloemaert and his Sons—Paintings and Prints
(Doornspijk, 1993) R
O M B O U T S A N D V A N L E R I U S 1864-7 6
Rombouts, Ph., an d Th. Van Lerius. De Liberen
en andere Historische Archieven der Antwerpsche
Sint Lucasgilde (Antwer p and The Hague,
1864-76. Reprint, Amsterdam , 1961) .
ROOSES 1886-9 2
Rooses, M. UOeuvre de P.P. Rubens; histoire
et description d e ses tableauxet dessins. 5 vols.
(Antwerp, 1886-92) .
ROOSES 1900
Rooses, M. "La galerie du Marquis de Léganès."
Rubens-Eulletijn 5 , no. 3 (1900), pp. 164-72 .
ROOSES 190 3
Rooses, M. Rubens } sa vie et ses oeuvres
(Amsterdam an d Antwerp, 1903) .
R O O S E S A N D R U E L E N S 1 8 8 7 - 1 9 0 9
Rooses, Max, and Charles Ruelens .
Correspondance de Rubens et documents épistolaires
concernant sa vie et ses oeuvres.6 vols. (Antwerp ,
1887-1909).
R O S A N D 196 9
Rosand, David. "Rubens's Munich Lion Hunt:
Its Source s an d Significance" Ar t Bulletin 5 1
(1969), pp. 29-40.
R O S E N B E R G 190 5
Rosenberg, A . P . P. Rubens.Des MeisterGemalde }
Klassiker der Kunst (Stuttgar t an d Leipzig , 1905) .
R O S E N B E R G 193 1
Rosenberg, J. "Eine Rubens-Zeichnung nach
einer Tierbronze de s 16. Jahrhunderts."
Panthéon 7 (1931), pp. 105-6 .
R O S E N T H A L 1 9 9 3
Rosenthal, Lisa. "Manhood and Statehood:
Rubens's Construction of Heroic Virtue." Oxford
Art Journal 16 , no. i (1993) , pp. 92-111.
R O S E N T H A L 2OO O
Rosenthal, Lisa . "Seizing Opportunity : Rubens' s
Occasio and the Violence of Allegory." Jaarboek
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen
(2000), pp. 185-207.
R O S E N T H A L 2O0 5
Rosenthal, Lisa . Gender, Politics, and Allegory i n
the Art o f Rubens (Cambridge, 2005) .
R O S S I AN D R O V E T T A 199 7
Rossi, M. , an d A. Rovetta. L a Pinacoteca
Ambrosiana (Milan, 1997) .
R O T T E R D A M 199 4
Cornells Con—-Accomplished Plate-Cutter from
Hoorn in Holland / c
constich plaedt-snijdervan
Home i n Hollandt. Exh . cat. (Rotterdam ,
Museum Boijrnan s Van Beuningen, 1994).
R O T T E R D A M - M A D R I D 2 0 0 3 - 0 4
Lammertse, Friso, an d Alejandro Vergara. Peter
Paul Rubens: The Life o f Achilles. Exh. cat.
(Rotterdam, Museu m Boijman s Van Beuningen ,
and Madrid, Muse o Naciona l de l Prado,
2003-04).
R U B Y 199 9
Ruby, Louisa-Wood . Paul Bril: The Drawings
(Turnhout, 1999) .
S A F A R I K A N D T O R S E L L I 1982
Safarik, E. , an d G. Torselli. La Gallería Doria
Pamphilj a Roma (Rome , 1982).
S A I N T E N O Y 1 9 3 2 - 35
Saintenoy, Paul. Les Artset les Artistes a la Cour
de Bruxelles. 3 vols. Mémoires d e la Classe de s
Lettres Brussel s (Brussels, 1932-35).
S A V E L S B E R G 199 4
Savelsberg, W. "Peter Paul Rubens un d Jan
Brueghel d. À: Flora und Zephyros. " In East of
Eden (exh . cat.), pp. 10-12 (Dessau, Rokoko
Lustschlossanlage Mosigkau, 1994) .
S A V E L S B E R G 2OO 3
Savelsberg, W. "Das Gemeinschaftswer k Flora
und Zephirus von Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640 )
und Jan Brueghel d.Á. (1568-1625)—Ein
Glanzlicht des oranisch-nassauischen
Bilderschatzes in Dessau-Wôrlitz." In Dessau
2003 (see above), pp. 48-59.
S C A R P A S O N I N O 199 2
Scarpa Sonino, A. Cabinet d}
Amateur. Le Grandi
Collezioni d'arte nei Dipinti dal XVII al XIX Secólo
(Milan, 1992).
S C H L E I S S H E I M 190 5
Katalog der Gemaldegalerie, Konigliches Schloss }
Schleissheim (Munich, 1905) .
S C H L E I S S H E I M 1914
Kataloy der koniglichen Gemaldeg alênezu
Schleissheim (1914).
S C H L I C H T E N M A I E R 1988
Schlichtenmaier, H. Studien zum Werk Hans
Rottenhammers des Alteren(1564-1625): Maler und
Zeichner mit Werkkatalog (Stuttgart , 1988) .
SCHMIDT 195 5
Schmidt, W . Kleiner Führer durch das Staatl.
Museum SchlossMosigkau (Dessau , 1955) .
SCHUG 1985-8 6
Schug, A. "'Helen in jedem Weibc'—Helen
Fourment und ein e Besonderer Portrattypus im
Spàtwerk von Pete r Pau l Rubens." WallrafRichartz
Jahrbuch 46-47 (1985-86), pp. 119-64.
S C H W A R T Z AN D BO K 1989
Schwartz, G., and M. J . Bok. Pieter Saenredam—
The Painter and His Time (New York, 1989).
S E G A L 1982
Segal, Sam. "Een vroeg blocmstuk va n Jan
Brueghel de oude." Tableau 4, no . 5 (April, 1982),
pp. 490-99S
E S T I E R I 194 2
Sestieri, E., ed. Catalogo délia Gallería ExFidecommissaria
Doria-Pamphilj (Rome , 1942) .
VON SIMSO N 1996
Simson, O. von. Peter Paul Rubens 1577-1640.
Humanist, Maler, Diplomat (Mainz , 1996).
VAN DE R SLOO T 195 9
Sloot, R. B. E va n der. "Harnassen uit einde
i6e en begin i7e eeuw in de Noordelijke
Nederlanden." Nederlands Kunsthistorisch
Jaarboek 1 0 (1959) , pp. 99-124 .
SMITH 1829-4 2
Smith, John. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of
the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish, and French
Painters. 9 vols. (Londo n 1829-42) .
S M O L A R - M E Y N A R T 199 1
Smolar-Meynart, Ariette, e t al. Het Paleis van
Brussel. Acht Eeuwen Kunst e n Geschiedenis. Exh.
cat. (Brussels , Koninklijk Paleis, 1991).
S O L E R D E L C A M P O 2OO O
Soler del Campo, Alvaro . Real Armería.Plació
Real (Madrid , 2000) .
L I T E R A T U R E 263
S P E T H - H O L T E R H O F F 1957
Speth-Holterhoff, S . Les Peintres Flamands de
Cabinets d'Amateurs au XVIIe Siècle (Brussels,
1957).
S T A R I N G 1958
Staring, A. Jacob de Wit, 1693-1754- (Amsterdam,
1958).
S T E C H O W 196 8
Stechow, Wolfgang. Rubens and the Classical
Tradition (Cambridge , Mass., 1968).
V A N D E R S T I G H E L E N 199 0
Stighelen, Katlijn e van der. "Produktiviteit
en samenwerking in het Antwerpse kunstenaarsmilieu,
1620-1640." Gemeentekrediet.
Driemaandelijks tijdschrift van ket Gemeentekrediet
van België 172 (1990), pp. 5-15 .
VAN DE R S T O C K 199 1
Stock, Jan van der, scientific coordinator. L a Ville
en Flandre: Culture et Société 1477-1787- Exh. cat.
(Brussels, Gallery of the Credit Communal, 1991) .
STOICHITA 199 3
Stoichita, V . L'instaurationdu Tableau (Paris,
1993).
S T O I C H I T A 199 7
Stoichita, V . The Self-Aware Image: An Insight into
Early Modern Meta-Painting (Cambridge , 1997).
V A N S U C H T E L E N 199 0
Suchtelen, A. van. "New Evidence on a Series
of Landscape Paintings by Adriaen van de
Venne."/. Paul Getty Museum Journal1 8 (1990) ,
pp. 99-112.
S U T T O N 198 3
Sutton, Peter C. "Tutti finiti con amore5
:
Rubens' Prometheus Bound? In Essays in Northern
European Art Presented to Egbert HaverkampBegemann,
pp. 270-75 (Doornspijk , 1983) .
SUTTON 199 0
Sutton, Peter C. Northern European Paintings in
the Philadelphia Museum of Art, fromthe Sixteenth
through the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia ,
1990).
T A M I S 2OO O
Tamis, Dorien. "The Genesis of Albert Cornelis'
Coronation of the Virgin i n Bruges." The
Burlington Magazine14 2 (November 2000),
pp. 672-80.
T A M I S 2OO 1 - O2
Tamis, Dorien. "I n kompagnie geordonneert e n
geschildert, ee n onderzoek naar de ontstaansgeschiedenis
van het Aardse Paradijs va n Peter
Paul Rubens en Jan Brueghel d.O." Oud Holland
115, no. 2 (2001-02), pp. 111-30 .
T A P I É 1997
Tapié, A. Le sens cachés des fleurs. Symbolique e t
botanique dans la peinturedu XVIIe siècle (Paris,
1997).
T E R L I N D E N 192 2
Terlinden, Vicomte C. "Notes et documents
relatifs à la galerie de tableaux conservée au
château de Tervuren au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. "
Annales de l'académie royale d'archéologie de
Belgique^ sixt h ser., io (1922) , pp. 180-98,
347-406.
T E R L I N D E N 1943
Terlinden, Vicomte C . L'archiduchesse Isabelle.
Notre Passé (Brussels, 1943).
T E R L I N D E N 195 2
Terlinden, Vicomte C. "Henri de Clerck
'Le peintre de Notre-Dame de la Chapelle'
1570-1630." Revue belge d'archéologie et d'histoire
de l'art 21 (1952), pp. 81-112 .
T E R L I N D E N 196 1
Terlinden, Vicomte C. "Un catalogue manuscrit
de l'arsenal du Bruxelles dans la dernier quart
du XVIIe siècle." Cahiers Bruxellois 6 (1961),
pp. 148-52.
T E Y S S È D R E 196 3
Teyssèdre, B. "Une collection français e d e
Rubens au XVIIe siècle: le Cabinet du duc de
Richelieu décrit par R. de Piles (1676-1681)."
Gazette des Beaux-Arts62 (1963), pp. 243-300 .
VAN T H I E L 1999
Thiel, P. J. J. van. Cornelis Cornelisz van Haerlem
1562-1638 (Doornspijk, 1999).
THIJS 199 0
Thijs, A. Va n Geuzenstad tôt katholiek bolwerk.,
maatschappelijke betekenis van de Kerk in contrareformatorisch
Antwerp (Turnhout, 1990) .
T H O R É - B Ü R G E R 1 8 5 8 - 6 0
Thoré-Burger, W. Musées de la Hollande. 2 vols.
(Paris, 1858-60).
TOKYO 1994
Nakamura, T., éd. Rubens and His Workshop: Th e
Flight of Lot and His Family from Sodom. Exh. cat
(Tokyo, National Museum o f Western Art,
1994).
.
T O K Y O - K O B E 2OO 4
Meisterwerke der Hollandischen und Flamischen
Malerei des KunsthistorischenMuseums Wien.
Exh. cat. (Tokyo and Kobe, 2004) .
TONCI 179 4
Tonci, Salvatore. Descrizione ragionate delta
Gallería Doria., precedutada un breve saggio di
pittura (Rome, 1794).
T O R S E L L I 196 9
Torselli, Giorgio. La Gallería Doria (Rome ,
1969).
T Ó T H - U B B E N S 196 8
Tóth-Ubbens, M . M . Schilderijen e n beeldhouwwerken
i$e en i6e eeuw, Koninklijk Kabinet van
Schilderijen Mauritshuis, Catalogus i(The Hague,
1968).
V O N U F F E N B A C H 1 7 5 3 ~ 5 4
Uffenbach, Z . C. von. Merkwürdige Reisen durch
Niedersachsen, Holland und Engelland. 3 vols.
(Frankfurt an d Leipzig, 1753-54) .
U T R E C H T - ' S - H E R T O G E N B O S C H 199 3
Boogert, Bo b van den, and Jacqueline Kerkoff.
Maria van Hongerije, 1505-1558. Koningin tussen
keizers en kunstenaars. Exh. cat. (Utrecht,
Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent , and
5
s-Hertogenbosch, Noordbrabants Muséum ,
1993).
V A E S 1 9 2 6 - 2 7
Vaes, M. "Le journal d e Jean Brueghel IL"
Bulletin de l'Institut historique de belge de Rome 6
(1926-27), pp. 163-222.
VASARi 1966 Vasari,
Giorgio. L £ Vite depiù eccellenti pittori
scultori et architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568.
Edited b y Rosanna Bettarini (Florence, 1966-).
V E K E M A N A N D M Ü L L E R H O F S T E D E 198 4
Vekeman, H., an d Justus Muller Hofstede, eds.
Wort und Bild in der niederlandischen Kunst und
Literatur des 16. undi7.Jh. (Erfstadt , 1984) .
VAN D E V E L D E 1975
Van d e Velde, Carl. Frans F loris(1519/20-1570).
Leven en Werken. 2 vols. Verhandelingen va n de
Koninklijke Académie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren
en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Schon e
Kunsten, no. 3 0 (1975).
V E R G A R A 199 9
Vergara, Alexander [Alejandro]. Rubens and His
Spanish Patrons (Cambridge, 1999).
264 L I T E R A T U R E
V E R M E Y L E N 2OO 3
Vermeylen, Filip. Painting for the Market:
Commercialization of Art in Antwerp^ Golden Age
(Turnhout, 2003).
VIENNA 193 0
Dreijahrhunderte Flamische Kunst 1400-1700.
Exh cat. (Vienna , Secession, 1930) .
VIENNA 193 5
Die jüngeren Brueghel und ihr kreis. Exh. cat.
(Vienna, P. de Boer, and Galeri e Sanct Lucas,
1935).
V I E N N A 197 7
Prohaska, Wolfgang, an d K. Schutz, et. al.
Peter Paul Rubens 1577-1640. Exh. cat. (Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum , 1977) .
VIENNA 198 7
Hofmann, Werner, et al. Zauber der Medusa:
Europaische Manierismen. Exh . cat. (Vienna,
Kiinstlerhaus, 1987).
V I E N N A 2OO O
Exotica: Portugais Entdeckungenim Spiegel
fürstlicher Kunst- und Wunderkammern der
Renaissance. Exh. cat. (Vienna , Kunsthistorische s
Museum, 2000) .
VIENNA 2004
Rubens in Wien. DieMeisterwerke. Exh . cat.
(Vienna, Liechtenstein Museum ,
Kunsthistorisches Museum, an d Gemaldegalerie
der Akademie der Bildenden Klinste, 2004) .
VIENNA 2004 3
Schroder, Klau s Albrecht, and Heinz Widauer.
Peter Paul Rubens. Exh. cat. (Vienna, Graphische
Sammlung Albertina, 2004) .
V I E N N A - E S S E N 2OO 2
Das flamischen Stilleben. Exh. cat. (Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum , an d Essen, Villa
Hiigel, 2002).
DE V I L L E R M O N T 1912
De Villerniont, M. Uinfante Isabelle,gouvernante
des Pays-Bas (Tamine s and Paris , 1912).
V L I E G H E 198 0
Vlieghe, Hans . "Review o f M. Díaz Padrón ,
Museo del prado.Catálogo de pinturas.Escuela
flamenca siglo XVII" Ar t Bulletin 6 7 (1980),
pp. 256-68 .
V L I E G H E 198 7
Vlieghe, Hans . Rubens Portraits of Identified Sitters
in Antwerp. 2 vols. Corpus Rubenianu m Ludwi g
Burchard, pt . 1 9 (London and New York , 1987).
V L I E G H E 199 2
Vlieghe, Hans, éd. De Vlaamse schilderkunst in
Noordamerikaanse musea (Antwerp, 1992).
VLIEGHE 199 3
Vlieghe, Hans . "Ruben s Bac k in Antwerp.
Reflections o n the Change in His Styl e and th e
Taste Pattern o f His Public. " In Actes duXXVIIe
Congrès International d'Histoire de l'Art (1989) ,
pp. 49-54 (Strasbourg, 1993) VLIEGHE
199 8
Vlieghe, Hans. Flemish An an d Architecture,
1585-1700 (Ne w Haven, 1998) .
V L I E G H E 200 0
Vlieghe, Hans , Arnou t Balis , and Carl van de
Velde. Concept., Design., and Execution in Flemish
Painting (1550-1700) (Turnhout , 2000) .
V L I E G H E 200 3
Vlieghe, Hans. "Review of'Da s flàmische
Stilleben 1550-1680." ' The Burlington Magazine
145 (February 2003), pp. 113-15 .
V L I E G H E A N D V A N D E R S T I G H E L E N 2 O O 5
Vlieghe, Hans, an d Katlijne Van der Stighelen,
eds. Sponsors o f the Past. Flemish Art an d
Patronage., 1550-1700. Proceedings of the Symposium
Organized at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
December 14-15, 2001 (Turnhout, 2005) .
VOLK 198 0
Volk, M Crawford. "New Ligh t o n a
Seventeenth Centur y Collector : Th e Marquis de
Lcgznés? Art Bulletin 62 (1980), pp. 256-68 .
V O O R H E L M S C H E E V O O G T 1873
Voorhelm Schneevoogt, C. G. Catalogue des
estampes gravéesd}
apres P. P. Rubens avec Vindications
des collections où se trouvent les tableaux et les
gravures (Haarlem, 1873) .
wAAGEN 183 0
Waagen, G . Verzeichniss der Gemalde-Sammlungen
des Koniglichen Muséums zu Berlin (Berlin, 1830).
WADUM 198 7
Wadum, J0rgen. "The Winte r Roo m at
Rosenborg Castl e and the History o f Technology
of 75 Flemish Panel Paintings." (Master' s thesis ,
School of Conservation, Roya l Academy of Fine
Arts, Copenhagen, 1987) .
WADUM 198 8
Wadum, J0rgen . "The Winte r Room at
Rosenborg Castle : A Unique Surviva l of
Antwerp Mass-Production. " Apollo (Augus t 1988),
pp. 82-87 .
W A D U M 199O
Wadum, J0rgen. "i7th C. Flemish Pane l Makers'
Red Chal k Master Marks." In Qth Triennial
Meeting, ICOM Committee forConservation,
Dresden., 26-31 August1990. Preprints, vol. 2.,
edited by K. Grimstad, pp. 663-66 (Los Angeles,
1990).
W A D U M 199 3
Wadum, J0rgen . "Recent Discoverie s on
Antwerp Pane l Makers' Marks. " Technologia Artis
(Prague) 3 (1993), PP - 96-100.
W A D U M 1996
Wadum, Jorgen. "A Preliminary Attempt t o
Identify Rubens ' Studi o Practice." In nt h
Triennial Meeting ICOM Committee for
Conservation, Edinburgh, 1-6 September 1996.
Preprints, edite d b y J. Bridgland, pp. 394-9 5
(London, 1996) .
W A D U M 199 8
Wadum, Jorgen . "The Antwer p Brand on
Paintings on Panels. " In Looking Through
Paintings: The Study of Painting Techniques and
Materials in Support of An Historical Research,
edited b y E. Hermens, pp. 179-98. Leids
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek u (Baarn , 1998).
W A D U M 1998 3
Wadum, J0rgen. "Historical Overview of PanelMaking
Techniques in the Northern Countries. "
In The Structural Conservation of Panel Paintings.
Proceedings of a Symposium at the]. Paul Getty
Museum, 24-28 April1995, edited b y K. Dardes
and A. Rothe, pp. 149-77 (Los Angeles, 1998).
WADUM 1998 6
Wadum, J0rgen . "Peeter Stas: An Antwerp
Coppersmith an d His Marks." In Painting
Techniques History, Materials and Studio Practice.
Contributions to the IIC (International Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic Worlis) lyth
International Congress, Dublin, 7-11 September
1998', edited b y A. Roy an d P . Smith, pp. 140-44
(London, 1998) .
W A D U M 2OO I
Wadum, J0rgen. "Het laatste nieuws uit het
paradijs—The Latest News fro m Paradise."
Mauritshuis i n Focus i (2001) , pp. 23-30.
W A D U M 200 2
Wadum, J0rgen. "Latest New s from Paradise:
A Preliminary Attempt t o Identif y Rubcns' s
Studio Practice , Part II." In i$th Triennial
Meeting, ICOM Committee forConservation, Rio de
Janeiro, 22-27 September 2002, Preprints^ edite d b y
R. Vontobel, pp. 473-48 (Rio de Janeiro, 2002).
L I T E R A T U R E 265
W A P E N S 1992
Wakens &Harnassen—Armes &Armures.
Koninklijk Museum voor het Léger en vein de
Krijgsgeschiedenis (Brussels , 1992).
W A R N K E 196 8
Warnke, M. "Italienische Bildtabernakel bis zum
Fruhbarock." MünchnerJahrbuch der bildenden
Kunst 19 (1968), pp. 61-102 .
W A S H I N G T O N , D.C . - C IN C IN N ATI 1 9 8 8 - 8 9
Brown, Beverly Louise, an d Arthur K.
Wheelock. Masterworks from Munich. Exh cat.
(Washington, D.C. , Nationa l Gallery of Art, and
Cincinnati Art Museum, 1988-89) .
WEBBER 197 2
Webber, Ronald. Th e Village Blacksmith (Newto n
Abbot, 1972) .
WEHLE 1946
Wehle, H. B. "The Feas t of Acheloüs by Rubens."
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 4 (1946) ,
pp. 179-83.
W E I R 197 4
Weir, Barbara J. "Notes on the Origin o f the
Domestic Guine a Pig." In Biology o f the
Hystricomorph Rodents. Edited b y I. W. Rowlands
and Barbara J. Weir. Symposium of the
Zoological Society of London 34 (London,
1974).
W E L U 198 3
Welu, James A. The Collector's Cabinet: Flemish
Paintings fromNew England Private Collections
(Worcester, Mass., 1983).
W E L Z E L 199 7
Welzel, B. Der Hofals Kosmos sinnlicher
Erfahrung. Der Fünfsinne-Zyklus von JanBrueghel
dÀ. und Peter Pauol Rubens als Bild der
erzherzoglichen Sammlungen Isabellas undAlbrechts
(Marburg, 1997) .
W E L Z E L 2OO O
Welzel, B. "Kunstvolle Inszenierung vo n
Naturlichkeit. Anmerkungen zu den
Blumenstilleben von Jan Brueghel d.À.." In
Künste und Natur in Diskursen der Frühen
Neuzeit. Edited by H. Laufhiitte , pp . 549-60.
Wolfenbiitteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschun g 35
(Wiesbaden, 2000) .
W E L Z E L 2OO 1
Welzel, B. "c
Euer Ehren môgen glauben, dass ich
noch niemals ein derartiges Gemâlde gemacht
habe'—Die Blumenbilder von Jan Brueghel d.À."
In Meisterwerke derMalerei. Vo n Rogiervan der
Weyden bi s Andy Warhol. Edited b y R. Brandt,
pp. 69-87 (Leipzig, 2001).
W E L Z E L 2OO 2
Welzel, B. "Wettstreit zwischen Kuns t und
Natur. Die Blumenstilleben von Jan Brueghel
d.À als Triumph des Bildes." Zeitschrift fur
Kunstgeschichte 6 5 (2002), pp. 325-42 .
W E L Z E L 2002 3
Welzel, B. "Garten aï s hôfische Sammlungen.
Pracht—Representation—Wissenschaft—
Kunst." In Garten und Hofe i m spaten Mittelalter.
Edited by U. Hàrting and E. Schwinzer ,
pp. 87-106 (Worms, 2002).
W E L Z E L 2OO 4
Welzel, B. "Sinnliche Erkenntnis, Wissenschaft
und Bildtheorie. Der Fünf-Sinne-Zyklus von Jan
Brueghel d.À. und Pete r Paul Rubens für das
erzherzogliche Paa r Albrecht und Isabella. "
In Vortrage und Refer ate, gehalten anlasslich des 10.
Kongresses Wolfenbutteler Arbeitskreises fur
Barockforschung in der Herzog August Bibliothek
Wolfenbüttel vo m 5. bis 8. April2000, pp. 231-4 5
(Wolfenbüttel, 2004).
WERCHE 200 4
Werche, B. Hendrick va n Balen 1575-1632. Ei n
Antwerpener Kabinettbildmaler der Rubenszeit.
2 vols. (Turnhout , 2004) .
W E R N E R 2OO 4
Werner, Elke Anna. "Peter Pau l Rubens und de r
Mythos des christlichen Europa." In Europa im
17. jahrhundert:ein politischer Mythos und seine
Bilder. Edited by Klaus Bussmann and Elke Anna
Werner (Stuttgart, 2004) .
W E T H E Y 1969-7 5
Wethey, Harold E. The Paintings of Titian. 3 vols.
(London, 1969-75).
WHITE 198 7
White, Christopher . Peter Paul Rubens: Man an d
Artist (New Haven an d London, 1987).
WIND 195 8
Wind, Edgar. Pagan Mysteriesin the Renaissance
(London, 1958).
W I N N E R 196 1
Winner, M. "Zeichnungen des Alteren Jan
Brueghel ?Jahrbuchder Berliner Museen, n.s. 3
(1961), pp. 190-241.
W I N N E R 1972
Winner, M. "Neubestimmtes und Unbestimmte s
im zeichnerischen Werk von Jan Brueghel d.A."
Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen1 4 (1972),
pp. 122-60.
WITLOX 2001
Witlox, M. "Final Varnishes for Oil Paintings
in Holland, 1600-1900: Evidence in Written
Sources." Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und
Konservierung (Gôttingen ) 15 , no. 2 (2001),
pp. 241-84.
W O E R M A N N 190 5
Woermann, Karl. Katalog der Koniglichen
Gemaldegalerie zu Dresden (Dresden , 1905) .
W O O L L E T T 200 1
Woollett, Ann e T. "Acquisition of the Year: Th e
Return fro m War: Mars Disarmed by Venus' by
Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder at
the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles ?Apollo
(2001), pp. 18-19.
W O O L L E T T 200 4
Woollett, Anne T. "The Altarpiec e in Antwerp,
1554-1615: Painting and the Militia Guilds. "
(Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2004).
Y O K O H A M A - S H I Z U O K A - O S A K A 199 0
Van Dyck} 1599-1641. Exh. cat. (Yokohama, Sogo
Museum of Art; Shizuoka Prefectura! Museum
of Art; and Osaka, Museum of Art, 1990) .
ZEUNER 196 3
Zeuner, Frederic k E. A History o f Domesticated
Animals (London , 1963) .
Z O E G E VO N M A N T E U F F E L 192 3
Zoege von Manteuifel, K. "Eine verschollene
Studienfolge Jan Brueghels d.À. und ihr e
Schicksalc? Berliner Museen 44 (1923) , pp. 5-15.
ZURICH E T AL. i947~5 3
Kunstschatze aus Wien. Exh. cat. ( Zurich-ParisStockholm-Copenhagen-London-U.S.
A.Oslo-Innsbruck-Vienna,
1947-53).
ZWOLLO 2000
Zwollo, An. "Jan Brueghel a Tervureri "Uarte
nella Storia. Contributi di critica e storia deWarte
per Gianni Carlo Sciolla. Edited by Valerio
Terraroli et al., pp. 449-54 (Milan, 2000).
266 L I T E R A T U R E
Index
Note: Italic page numbers indicat e illustrations . Parenthetical references
to Brueghel refe r to Jan Brueghel the Elder unles s otherwise noted .
Adam and Eve (Rubens), 4 6
Adam Gives Names to the Animals(Va n Tieghem and D e Kempeneer) , 194
The Adoration o f the Magi (Rubens) , 23 , 56-57
Adoration o f the Mystic Lamb (Hubert and Ja n va n Eyck). See The Ghent
Altarpiece (Adoration of the Mystic Lamb) ( Hubert and Jan va n Eyck )
Aertssen, Guilliam , 81, 241
Albert, Archdukeo f Austria (Mulle r afte r Rubens) , ios, 105
Albert (archduk e of Austria), 2, 4, 5 , $, 9, 15 , 17-19, 29, 46-47, 56, 70,
80, 82 , 85, 88, 94, 96-98 , 100-107, 102, 104, 105, I2
°5 I395 Ï54, 161,
197-98, 206
Allegory o f Air (Brueghel) , 144 , 198
Allegory o f Fire (Brueghel) , 12 , 140, 142, 149
Allegory o f Fire (Brueghe l and Va n Balen) , 55, 140-45,141, 149, 195, 230
Allegory o f the Four Elements (Brueghel and D e Clerck) , 139
Allegory o f Hearing, Taste, and Touch (afte r Brueghel) , 94-96, 95, 105
Allegory o f Hearing (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 90 , 92, 96-97, 105, 112, 244, 24 5
Allegory o f Sight (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 90 , 92, 94, 96 , 101 , 106, 119, 124,
197, 217, 218, 242, 243, 243
Allegory o f Sight and Smell (after Brueghel) , 94-96 , 95
Allegory o f Smell (Brueghel and Rubens) , 80 , 03, 94, 97-98 , 109, 243-44,
244
Allegory o f Spring (Brueghe l an d Va n Balen) , 8o, 80, 81, 10 5
Allegory o f Taste (Brueghe l an d Rubens) , viii, 90-99, pi, 104, 156, 161, 217,
218, 243-45, 244
Allegory o f Touch (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 55 , 57, 90-94, 93, 97, 219, 2.rp,
230, 243-4 4
Alsloot, Denis van , 136 , 13 9
Amorum Emblemata (Va n Veen), 56, 56
Anna o f Saxony (princes s of Orange), 17-1 8
Antverpia (Hoefnagel) , u
Apelles Painting Campaspe (Va n Haecht), 18
The Archduke Albert and the Archduchess Isabella in a Collector's Cabinet
(Francken and workshop with Jan Brueghel th e Younger), 4 , 5
The Archdukes Albert and Isabella before Castle Mariemont(Brueghel) , 104
The Archdukes Albert and Isabella Hunting before Castle Mariemont
(Brueghel), 104, 104
The Archdukes at th e Chase (Brueghel) , 88
The Archdukes in the Garden of Their Palace in Brussels (Ja n Brueghel
the Younger) , 88
The Art of Wa r (Gall e after Floris) , 56 , 57
Avont, Piete r van , The Holy Family in a Garland o f Fruit an d Flowers
(with Brueghel) , 163,164, 206
Avril, Jean-Jacques, Mars a u Retour de la Guerre (engraving after Rubens) ,
57-58,^
Balen, Hendrick van, 3, 10-13, 17, 60, 62-63 , 75, 124, 133, 13 9
Saint John the Baptist Preaching ', 149
works wit h other artists
Allegory o f Fire, 55, 140-45, 141•> 149 , 195, 23 0
Allegory o f Spring, 80-81 , 80., 105
Blazon for th e Rhetorician's Guild C(
De Violieren" 31 , 31
Ceres and th e Four Elements ', 160
Concert of the Muses, 9 7
The Feast ofAcheloüs, 62 , 63
Feast of the Gods, 149, 150
Fruit Garland with Angels, 80 , 152-55 , 153
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from
the Four Seasons (1617) , 90, 126 , 156-65, 158, 246-47
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from
the Four Seasons (1621-22), 90, 126 , 156-65, 159, 246-47
The Holy Family in a Garland of Fruit an d Flowers, 161, 162
Madonna an d Child in a Flower Garland, 12 , 152 , 154Pan
an d Syrinx, 75 , 76
The Prophesy o f Isaiah, 55 , 146-51, 147, 148
Venus and Cupid, 19 8
Venus in th e Forge of Vulcan, 55, 230, 231
Venus Preparing Mars for War, 149 , i$o
View of Antwerp, 12
The Wedding ofPeleus an d Thetis, 60, 62 , 62
Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio) , 17 7
Bassano, Jacopo, 143
The Baths of Diocletian or the Cluvius Scauri (Brueghel), 7, 8, 52
Battle ofAnghiari (Leonard o d a Vinci), 47
The Battle of Constantine against Maxentius (Raphael) , 48
267
Battle of Eighteen Nude Men (Beham) , 4 6
The Battle of Issus (Brueghel) , 48, so
Battle of Nude Men (Rubens) , 4 6
The Battle of the Amazons (Rubens) , 48-50, 50
The Battle of the Amazons (Ruben s an d Brueghel) , 2 , 3, 9, 19, 30, 44-51,
45", 4P, 169, 218, 223, 224, 229-30, 229
Battle of the Greeks and Amazons (Rubens) , 4 8
Battle of Titus Gracchus (Beham), 46
The Battle ofZama (Penn i afte r Romano) , 48 , 48
Battle Scene between the Greeks and Amazons and Studies forSamson
(Rubens), 4 8
Baudius, Dominicus , 168-69
Beert, Osias , 29
Beham, Barthe l
Battle of Eighteen Nude Men, 4 6
Battle of Titus Gracchus, 46
The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (Rubens), 168
Beuckelaer, Joachim , Th e Miraculous Draft o f Fishes, 189
Bianchi, Ercole , 12 , 17, 30, 119-20, 143-44, 152
binding media, 223 , 225-26, 23 1
Blazon for th e Rhetorician's Guild "De Violieren" (Va n Balen, Brueghel ,
Francken, an d Vrancx) , 31, 31
The Blinding o f Samson (Rembrandt) , 17 2
Borromeo, Federico, 4, 6 , 8, 12-13, i?, 30, 34~35, 69, 97, 119-20, 129,
133-34, 140, 144, 152, 162, 168, 177, 195
Boy with a Basket of Fruit (Caravaggio) , 17 7
Brant, Isabella, 23 , 30
Brant, Jan, n
Bril, Paul, 6 , 19, 29, 129, 189
Landscape with Psyche and Jupiter', 27 , 29
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt (wit h Rottenhammer) , 132,13 3
Bruegel, Pieter , the Elder , 5, 6, 30 , 96, 98 , 133,133, 186, 195, 221
Sermon of Saint John the Baptist, 188-89,188, 191
Brueghel, Jan , the Elde r
collaboration o f Rubens (Pete r Paul) and , 32-34 , 217-51 . See alsospecific
paintingert
friendship o f Rubens (Pete r Paul) and , 29-31
life of, 5-17
painting techniqu e of , 226, 227
studio of
Venus in the Smithy of Vulcan, 144, 144
underdrawings by , 55 , 67, 71, 85, 86, 87, 116-17, 223, 224, 225, 229,
230-31, 234, 23J-, 240, 242 , 245•> 24 6
works by
Allegory o f Air, 144 , 198
Allegory o f Fire, 12, 140, 142, 149
The Archdukes Albert an d Isabella before Castle Mariemont, 10 4
The Archdukes Albertand Isabella Hunting before Castle Mariemont, 104 ,
104
The Archdukes at the Chase, 88
The Baths of Diocletian or the Cluvius Scauri, 7, 8, 52
The Battle of Issus, 48, so
Calvary, 189 , 190
The Continence ofScipio,10 , 10, 48
Daniel in the Lions' Den, 195-9 6
The Entry o f the Animals into Noah's Ark, 70 , 80 , 87 , 125, 192-201,
193
The Flood with Noah's Ark ,195, 196
Flower Still Life, 80 , 81
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man, 67-68, 68, 195-96, 199
Harbor Scene with Christ Preaching ,47, 189, 190
Jonah Emerging from th e Whale, 15 1
Landscape with Ruins and a Hermit, 8, 9
Landscape with Toung Tobias, 189
Orpheus Charming the Animalswith His Music, 97
Orpheus Singing before Pluto and Proserpina, 7
Ostrich, 197, 198, 206
The Palace of Isabella Clara Eugenia at Tervuren, 104, 104
Paradise Landscape with the Creation of Adam, 136, 138, 138, 194-95, 198
Part of a Garland of Fruit an d Flowers, 163, 164
Port Scene in Venice, 189
The Sermon on the Mount, 186-91, 187
Sheet with Animals an d Garlands, 222, 223
Sketches of Ducks and Birds, 68-69, dp
Studies of Asses, Cats, and Monkeys, 202-7 , 205
Studies of Deer in Various Positions, 68,6c
Studies of Hunting Dogs ,88, 202-7, 204, 226, 244
Study o f Hunting Requisites, 109-12,112, 144
Study o f Monkeys, a Deer, and Other Animals,206, 206
Vase o f Flowers with Jewel,Coins and Shells, 13,14
View o f the Interior of the Colosseum, 7, 8, 52, 142
Village Landscape with Self-Portrait, 15 , 16
Wedding Banquet Presided over by the Archdukes,15, is
Wooded Landscape with Nymphs, Dogs, and Hunting Spoils, 114 ,114, 20 6
works with other artist s
Allegory o f Fire, 55, 140-45, 141•> 149, 195, 23 0
Allegory o f Hearing, 90 , 92 , 96-97, 105, 112, 244,245 "
Allegory o f Hearing, Taste, and Touch, 94-96, 95, 105
Allegory o f Sight, 90 , 92 , 94, 96 , 101 , 106, 119, 124, 197, 217, 218, 242,
243, 24 3
Allegory o f Sight and Smell, 94-96, 95
Allegory o f Smell, 80, 93, 94, 97-98 , 109, 243-44, 244
Allegory o f Spring, 80 , 80, 81, 105
Allegory o f Taste, viii, 90-99, 91, 104, 156, 161, 217, 218, 243, 244, 244 , 245
Allegory o f the Four Elements,139
Allegory o f Touch, 55, 57, 90-94, 93, 97, 219, 219, 230, 243, 24 4
The Battle of the Amazons,2 , 3, 9, 19, 30, 44-51, 4J, 49, 169, 218, 223,
224, 229-30 , 22p
Blazon for th e Rhetorician's Guild ((
De Violieren" 31 , 31
Ceres and th e Four Elements,160
The Descent into Limbo, 128-35,131
Diana a t the Hunt,87-88, 108-15, no, 124, 203, 226
Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs, 75 , 87-88, 108-15 , in,177,
203, 24 5
The Feast of Achetons, xiv, 60-63, 61, 80, 122 , 124, 126, 218, 227, 229,
239-40, 239, 240
Feast of the Gods, 149, 150
Flora and Zephyr, 42, 78-81, 79, 219, 241-42, 241, 242
Fruit Garland with Angels, 80 , 152-55 , 153
Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces, 119, 124, 126, 157,
160, 162, 219, 246-47, 247
268 INDE X
The Garden of Eden with the FM o f Man (wit h D e Clerck) , 136-39 ,
737, 194 , 198
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (wit h Rubens) , iv-v, 2 , 30,
64-71, 6$, 72, 80, 87 , 122, 124, 192 , 198-99, 203, 216, 217, 219-21,
223, 225, 226, 229, 233-39, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from
the Four Seasons (1617) , 90, 126 , 156-65, 158, 246-47
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from
the Four Seasons (1621-22) , 90, 126 , 156-65, 159, 246-47
The Holy Family in a Garland o f Fruit and Flowers (wit h Van Avont),
163, 164, 20 6
The Holy Family in a Garland o f Fruit an d Flowers (wit h Van Balen),
loi, 162
Madonna an d Child i n a Flower Garland, 12 , 152 , 154
Madonna an d Child in a Garland o f Flowers, 96, 116 , 119, 120, 24 6
Madonna an d Child in a Garland o f Fruit and Flowers, 4, 116-21 ,117,
775, 154-55 , 163 , 24 6
Madonna i n a Flower Garland, 2 , 3, 155 , 163 , 213, 228, 245-47, 247
Music-making Angels with Flowers, 13 3
Nymphs Filling th e Cornucopia, 122-27,123
Pan an d Syrinx (wit h Van Balen) , 75, 76
Pan and Syrinx (wit h Rubens) , 72-77 , 73, 74, 227
Portrait o f Archduke Albert of Austria, 100-107, 702
Portrait o f Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia, 100-107,103
The Prophesy o f Isaiah, 55 , 146-51, 747, 148
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 128-35 , 130,132
The Return from War: Mars Disarmed b y Venus, 3, 4, 29 , 30 , 35 , 50,
52-59, S3, 54, 80, 87 , 119, 144, 149, 195 , 197-99, 2/4, 218-21, 219,
226-34, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 24 4
Venus and Cupid, 19 8
Venus i n th e Forge of Vulcan, 55 , 230, 237
Venus Preparing Mars for War, 149 , 150
The Vision o f Saint Hubert, 82-89, #3, 84, 86, 109, 120, 226, 240, 241
The Wedding ofPeleus an d Thetis (with Van Balen) , 6o, 62 , 62
The Wedding ofPeleus an d Thetis (with D e Clerck) , 13 9
Winter Landscape with Angels Scattering Flowers, 133
Brueghel, Jan , the Younger , 10 , 15 , 17 , 30 , 32-33 , 75, 108, 124, 157 , 160, 163,
206, 245
The Archdukes in th e Garden of Their Palace in Brussels, 88
The Archduke Albert and the Archduchess Isabella in a Collector's Cabinet
(with Francken) , s
The Feast ofAcheloüs (wit h Van Balen) , 62, 63
Brueghel, Pieter , th e Younger, 5- 6
Calvary (Brueghel) , 189, 190
Campo Weyerman, Jacob, 6 4
Caravaggio, 1 9
Basket of Fruit, 17 7
Boy with a Basket of Fruit, 177
The Medusa Head o n Minerva's Shield, 182, 7^3
Carleton, Dudley, 29, 34-35, 166 , 171-72, 177 , 184, 196-97
Centaur Tormented by Cupid (Rubens) , 16 9
Ceres and th e Four Elements (Brueghel an d Va n Balen) , 160
Ceres Garlanded by Angels (Rubens) , 16 2
Clerck, Hendric k de , 3 , 15, 60, 6 6
Concert of the Muses (wit h Van Balen) , 97
works with Brueghe l
Allegory o f the Four Elements, 13 9
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man, 136-39 , 737, 194 , 19 8
The Wedding ofPeleus an d Thetis, 13 9
Cobergher, Wenceslas , 9, 85, 104-5
collaboration, practic e of, 3-4, 32-35 , 217-18
colorants, 225
Concert of the Muses (Van Balen and D C Clerck), 97
The Continence ofScipio (Brueghel) , 10,10, 48
Cort, Cornelius, Tityus, 169, 169
Croes, J. van, 23
The Crowning of Virtue (Rubens) , 56, 57
Cupid Supplicating Jupiter (Rubens) , 17 0
Daniel i n the Lions' Den (Brueghel) , 195-96
Daniel i n the Lions' Den (Rubens) , 96, 19 6
The Death ofHippolytus (Rubens) , 168
The Delivery of the Keys t o Saint Peter (Rubens), 3 0
Departure for th e Hunt (Va n Orley), 106
The Descent into Limbo (engravin g afte r Piete r Bruege l the Elder) , 133, 73 3
The Descent into Limbo (Brueghe l and Rottenhammer) , 128-35 , 131
Diana and He r Nymphs Attacked b y Satyrs (Ruben s an d Snyders) , 17 8
Diana and Her Nymphs Hunting Fallow Deer (Rubens an d Snyders) , 178
Diana at the Hunt (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 87-88 , 108-15, 770, 124, 203, 226
Diana Returning from the Hunt (Ruben s an d Snyders) , 26, 174-79, 17$, 177
Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observed b y Satyrs (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 75, 87,
88, 108-15, ni) 177 , 203, 245
Drunken Silenus (Rubens), 96
Durer, Albrecht, 66, 203
Saint Eustace, 87, 87
Dyck, Anthony van, 58
Portrait ofFrans Snyders, 26, 26
Portrait of Jan Brueghel the Elder, 6
earth pigments , 223-25
Elsheimer, Adam, 19 , 67
The Stoning of Saint Stephen, 191
The Entry o f the Animals into NoaWs Ark (Brueghel) , 70, 80 , 87 , 125,
192-201, 103, 195
Equestrian Portrait o f the Duke ofLerma (Rubens) , 20 , 22 , 87, 197
Expulsion ofHeliodorus (Raphael) , 169
Eyck, Hubert van, 32 , 34
The Ghent Altarpiece (Adoration of the Mystic Lamb), 32 , 33, 34
Eyck, Jan van , 32 , 34
The Ghent Altarpiece (Adoration of the Mystic Lamb), 32 , 33, 34
Faber, Johann, 21 , 56
The Facade and Arch ofRubens's House (Harrewyn afte r Va n Croes) , 23
The Fall of the Rebel Angels (Floris) , 184
The Family o f Jan Brueghel the Elder ( Rubens }, frontispiece, 30
The Feast ofAcheloüs (Va n Balen and Ja n Brueghe l th e Younger) , 62, 63
I N D E X 269
The Feast of Acheküs (Rubens an d Brueghel) , xiv, 60-63 , 61, 80, 122 , 124,
126, 218, 227, 229, 239, 239-40, 240
The Feast of the Gods (Brueghe l an d Va n Balen), 149, i/o
Ferdinand (cardinal - infante of Spain), 94
Five Senses series , 2, 17, 90-99, 161, 242-45. See alsospecific paintings
The Flood with Noah's Ark (Brueghel) , 195 , 196
Flora and Zephyr (Brueghe l and Rubens), 42, 78-81, 79, 219, 241-42,
241, 242
Floris, Frans , 57, 60
Fall of the Rebel Angels,184
Flower Still Life (Brueghel) , 80 , 81
The Forge of Vulcan (Paol o Fiammingo) , 8 , 142, 143, 149
Four Female Figures (Rubens), 75, 75
Francken, Frans , the Younger , 4, 5, 17, 31, 31, 96, 98 , 108
The Archduke Albert and the ArchduchessIsabella in a Collector's Cabinet
(with workshop o f Jan Brueghel the Younger), 4, s
Frederik Hendrik (prince of Orange), 77 , 81, 182
Fruit Garland with Angels (Brueghel an d Van Balen), 8o, 152-55 , 153
Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned by the Graces (Rubens an d Brueghel) ,
119, 124, 126, 157 , 160, 162, 219, 246-47, 247
Gabron, Guilliam , 66 , 234 , 235
Galle, Cornelis, The Virgin in a Niche Adornedby Angelswith a Garland,
162, 163
Galle, Filips , Th e Art o f War (engravin g afte r Fran s Floris), 56 , s?
Ganymede (Rubens) , 17 0
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (Brueghel) , 67-68 , 68., 195-96, 199
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (Brueghe l an d D e Clerck) , 136-39,
137) 194 , 198
The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (Brueghe l an d Rubens) , iv~v, 2, 30,
64-71, 65, 72, 80, 87 , 122, 124, 192, 198-99, 203, 216, 217, 219-21,
223, 22S, 226, 229 , 233-39 , 234, 235, 236, 237, 238
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from the Four
Seasons (Brueghel and Van Balen) (1617) , 90, 126 , 156-65, 158,
246-47
Garland of Fruit around a Depiction of Ceres Receiving Gifts from the Four
Seasons (Brueghel and Van Balen) (1621-22), 90, 126 , 156-65, 159,
246-47
Gesner, Conrad , 68, 198
The Ghent Altarpiece(Adoration o f the Mystic Lamb) (Huber t an d Ja n
van Eyck) , 32, 33, 34
gilding, 228-2 9
Giulio Romano, 19, 48
Goltzius, Hendrick, 62, 75
The Wedding o f Cupid an d Psyche., 6 0
Govaerts, Abraham , Wooded Landscape with Gypsy Women^ 12 4
Great Last Judgment(Rubens) , 18 3
Grimmer, Abel , View o f Antwerp (wit h Va n Balen) , 12, 12
ground layers, 220-21
Guild of Saint Luke, 9 , 15 , 19, 31, 218, 241
Haecht, Willem van , 108
Apelles Painting Campaspe, 18
Harbor Scene with Christ Preaching (Brueghel), 47 , 189, 190
Harrewyn, Jacob, The Facade and Arch ofRubens}
s House (engravin g
after J . van Croes) , 23
The Head of Medusa (Ruben s an d Snyders) , 26, 35 , 180-85, 181, 183
Herodotus, 138
Hoefnagel, Joris , 116 , 198
Antverpia, n
Hollar, Wenceslas, 203
Study o f Hunting Dogs, 112, 113
The Holy Family i n a Garland of Fruit and Flowers (Brueghe l an d
Van Avont), 163 , 164, 206
The Holy Family i n a Garland of Fruit and Flowers (Brueghe l an d
Van Balen) , 161, 162
The Horrors of War (Rubens) , 29
Houbraken, Arnold , 6 4
Huygens, Constantijn, 77 , 126, 172, 182-83
imprimatura, 221, 226, 234, 242, 244, 24 6
infrared reflectograms , 55 , 86, 224-25, 229-33, 235,242-43, 245
The Interior of the Colosseum (Toeput), 8 , 9
Isabella, Infanta o f Spain (Mulle r afte r Rubens) , 105 , 105
Isabella Clara Eugenia (archduches s of Austria), 2, 4, 5, s, 9, 15 , 17—18 , 29,
46, 56 , 70, 80-82, 85, 88, 94, 96-98 , 100-107, 103, 104, ios, 109, 114,
120, 154, 161, 197-98, 20 6
Janssens, Abraham, 33
Peace and Plenty Binding the Arrowsof War, 57
The Union of the Scheldt River and th e City o f Antwerp, 56
Jode, Isabell a de, 1 0
Johann Erns t (duk e of Saxony), 2, 198
Jonah Emerging from the Whale (Brueghel),151
Judith Killing Holofernes (Rubens) , 16 8
Juno and Argus (Rubens) , 168-69
Kempeneer, Jan de , 194
Landscape with Psyche and Jupiter (Bri l and Rubens) , 27, 29
Landscape with Ruins and a Hermit (Brueghel) , 8, 9
Landscape with Young Tobias (Brueghel) , 189
Laocoôn, 19, 47, 16 8
Leonardo d a Vinci, 18 2
Battle ofAnghiari, 4 7
The Leopards (afte r Rubens) , 171 , 196, 237, 238
Limbourg brothers , Tres Riches Heures, 106
Lioness, Seen from the Rear, Turning Left (Rubens) , 196 , 197
Lucan, 18 3
Madonna an d Child i n a Flower Garland (Brueghel and Van Balen), 12,
152, IS4
Madonna an d Child i n a Garland of Flowers (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 96 ,
116, 119, 120, 24 6
Madonna an d Child in a Garland of Fruit and Flowers (Brueghe l an d
Rubens), 4 , 116-21 , 117, 118, 154-55, 163, 24 6
270 I N D E X
Madonna della Vallicella, Adored b y Angels (Rubens) , 208-13,2
09->2I
°-> 211, 212
Madonna della Vallicella, Borne Aloftb y Putti (Rubens) , 212, 21 3
Madonna i n a Flower Garland (Ruben s an d Brueghel) , 2 , 3, 155, 163 , 213,
228, 245-47 , 247
Mander, Karel van, 6 , 9, 33-34, 69, 129 , 182
Marienberghe, Catharina van , 10, 30
Marino, Giambattista , 182
A Market an d Bleaching Fields (D e Momper) , 16, 17
Mars a u Retour de la Guerre (Avril after Rubens) , 57-58 , 58
The Martyrdom o f Saint Andrew (Va n Veen), 18, 19
Maximilian I (electo r o f Bavaria), 149-51
The Medusa Head on Minerva's Shield (Caravaggio) , 182 , 183
Meeting of King Ferdinand of Hungary and the Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand
of Spain atNbrdlingen (Rubens) , 221 , 222
Metsys, Quinten, 20, 32 , 34-35
The Temptation of Saint Anthony (wit h Patinir) , 20, 21, 34-35
Miracles of Saint Ignatius (Rubens) , 18 3
Miraculous Draft o f Fishes (Beuckelaer), 189
Moniper, Jóos de, th e Younger , 15 , 1 7
A Market an d Bleaching Fields^ 16, 17
Muller, Jan
Albert) Archduke o f Austria (engravin g afte r Rubens) , 105 ,105
Isabella, Infanta o f Spain (engravin g afte r Rubens) , 105 ,105
Music-making Angels with Flowers (Brueghe l and Rottenhammer) , 133 ;
Noort, Adam van , 18 , 46
Nymphs Filling the Cornucopia (Brueghe l and worksho p o f Rubens) ,
122-27, 123
Orley, Bernard van, Departure for th e Hunt,, 106
Orpheus Charming th e Animalswith His Music (Brueghel) , 97
Orpheus Singing before Pluto and Proserpina (Brueghel) , 7
Ostrich (Brueghel) , 107, 198, 20 6
Ovid, 29, 60-62, 78, 169, 174, 180, 182-83
paint media , 223-2 6
The Painter in His Studio (Rembrandt) , 220 , 220
The Palace of Isabella Eugenia a t Tervuren (Brueghel) , 104 , 104
Pan and Syrinx (Brueghe l an d Va n Balen), 75, 76
Pan and Syrinx (Ruben s an d Brueghel) , 72-77, 73, 74, 227
Pan Resting (Rubens) , 75 , 76
Paneels, Willem , Studies of Horses after Jost Amman (drawin g after Rubens) ,
46,47
panels, oak, 218-2 0
Paolo Fiammingo, 55, 142-43
The Forge of Vulcan^ 8 , 142, 143, 149
Paradise Landscape with the Creation of Adam (Brueghel) , 136 , 138, 138^
194-95, 198
Part of a Garland o f Fruit an d Flowers (Brueghel) , 163 , 164
Patinir, Joachim, 6 , 20, 32 , 34-35
The Temptation of Saint Anthony (wit h Metsys), 20 , 21 , 34, 35
Peace and Plenty Binding th e Arrows of War (Janssens) , 57
Penni, Giovann i Francesco , The Battle ofZama (engravin g after Giuli o
Romano), 48 , 48
Philip I I (kin g of Spain), 5, 20, 97 , 101
Philip III (kin g of Spain), 19 , 70
pigments, 223-25
Piles, Roger de, 108-9
Pliny the Elder , 68 , 184
Plutarch, 4 4
Port Scene in Venice (Brueghel) , 189
Portrait of a Man (Rubens) , 19 , 19
Portrait of Albert and Isabella Clara Eugenia (Va n Veen), 4, s
Portrait of Archduke Albert o f Austria (Ruben s an d Brueghel) , 100-107, 102
Portrait ofFrans Snyders (Va n Dyck), 26, 26
Portrait of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (Ruben s an d Brueghel) , 100-107,
103
Portrait of Jan Brueghel the Elder (Van Dyck), 6
preparatory layers , 220-221
Procession in the Place du Grand Sablón at Brussels (Sallaert) , 106
Prometheus Bound (Ruben s an d Snyders) , 26, 35 , 166-73, 167, 184, 196
The Prophesy o f Isaiah (Brueghe l an d Va n Balen), 55, 146-51, 147, 148
Putti with a Garland of Fruit (Rubens , Snyders , an d Wildcns) , 124, 125
The Raising of the Cross (Rubens) , 24, 25
Raphael
The Battle o f Constantine against Maxentius, 4 8
Expulsion ofHeliodorus, 16 9
Saint Cecilia ,96
Reclining Male (Rubens) , 170 , 770
The Recognition of Philopoemen (Rubens) , 25 , 26, 168, 171, 17 7
The Recognition of Philopoemen (Ruben s an d Snyders) , 25-26, 25, 168, 184
Rembrandt va n Rijn
Blinding o f Samson, 172
The Painter in His Studio, 220, 220
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Bn l an d Rottenhammer) , 132 , 133
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Brueghe l and Rottenhammer) , 128-35 ,
130, 132
The Return from War Mars Disarmed by Venus (Ruben s an d Brueghel) , 3,
4, 29 , 30 , 35 , 50, 52-59, S3, S4, 80, 87 , 119, 144, 149, 195 , 197, 198-99,
274, 218-21 , 210, 226-34, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 244
The Riding School (Rubens) , 19 7
Romanists, Confraternity of , 9, 29
Rottenhammer, Hans , 3, 6, 19, 46, 6 0
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt (wit h Bnl), 132 ,133
works with Brueghe l
The Descent into Limbo, 128-35 ,137
Music-making Angels with Flowers, 13 3
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 128-35 , Í30, 132
Winter Landscape with Angels Scattering Flowers, 1 33
Rubens, Jan , 17-18
Rubens, Pete r Pau l
collaboration o f Brueghel (Jan , the Elder) and , 32-34 , 217-5 1
See also specific paintings
friendship o f Brueghel (Jan , the Elder ) and, 29-3 1
life of , 17-2 9
painting technique of , 226-2 7
I N D E X 271
paint medi a use d by, 225-26
underdrawings by, 47 , 223 , 224, 225, 228, 229
works afte r
The Leopards ,171, 196, 237, 238
works b y
Adam and Eve, 46
The Adoration of the Magi, 23 , 56-57
Battle o f Nude Men, 4 6
The Battle of the Amazons, 48-50, .so
Battle of the Greeks .andAmazons, 48
Battle Scene between the Greeks and Amazons an d Studies for Samson, 48
•The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, 16 8
'Centaur Tormented b y Cupid, 16 9
Ceres Garlanded by Angels,16 2
The Crowning of Virtue, 56, $7
Cupid Supplicating Jupiter, 17 0
Daniel in the Lions' Den, 96 , 196
The Death o f Hippo ly 'tus,168
The Delivery o f the Keys t o Saint Peter, 30
Drunken Silenus, 96
Equestrian Portrait of the Duke ofLerma, 20,22, 87-, 197
The Family of Jan Brueghel the Elder, frontispiece,3 0
Four Female Figures,75, TÍ
Ganymede, 170
Great Last judgment,18 3
The Horrors of 'War, 2 9
Judith Killing Holofernes, 16 8
Juno an d Argus, 168, 169
Lionessj Seen fromthe Rear, Turning Left, 196,197
Madonna della Vallicella, Adored by Angels,208-13 , 209, 210, 211, 212
Madonna della Vallicella, Borne Aloftb y Putti,212, 213
Meeting of King Ferdinand of Hungary and the Cardinal-Infante
Ferdinand o f Spain atNordlingen, 221 , 222
Miracles of Saint Ignatius, 18 3
Pan Resting, 75 , 76
Portrait of a Man, 19,19
The Raising of the Cross, 24, 25
Reclining Male, 170, 170
The Recognition ofPhilopoemen, 25 , 26, 168, 171, 177
The Riding School, 197
Saint George, 1 68, 171
The Saint Ildefonso Altarpiece, 28, 29
Samson and Delilah, 23 , 23
Self-Portrait with Friends, 20
Studies of a Female Nude,124, 124
Two Satyrs, 176 , 176
Two Views of an Eagle, 170
workshop of Rubens
Nymphs Filling the Cornucopia (wit h Brueghel) , 122-27 , 123
works wit h other artist s
Allegory o f Hearing, 90 , 92, 96-97, 105, 112, 244, 245
Allegory o f Sight, 90 , 92 , 94, 96 , 101 , 106, 119, 124, 197, 217, 218, 242, 243,
243
Allegory o f Smell, 80, 93, 94, 97-98 , 109, 243-44, 244
Allegory o f Taste, viii, 90-99, 91, 104, 156, 161, 217, 218, 243-44, 244, 245
Allegory o f Touch, 55, 57, 90-94, 93, 97, 219, 219, 230, 243-44
The Battle of the Amazons, 2, 3, 9, 19, 30, 44-51, 45, 49, 169, 218, 223,
224, 229, 229-30
Diana and Her Nymphs Attacked b y Satyrs, 17 8
Diana and Her Nymphs Hunting Fallow Deer, 178
Diana at the Hunt,87-88, ,108-15, no, 124 , 203, 226
Diana Returning fro m th e Hunt, 26, 174-79,175,177
Diana's Sleeping Nymphs Observed by Satyrs, 75 , 87-88, 108-15, in,177,
203, 245
The Feast ofAchelous,xiv, 60-6.3 , <fr , 80 , 122 , 124, 126, 218, 227, 229, 239,
239-40, 240
Flora and Zephyr, 42^ .78-8.1^ 7^*219, 241-42, 241, 242
Fruit Garland with Nature Adorned b y the Graces, 119, 124, 126, 157, 160,
162, 219, 246-47, 247
The Garden of Eden with the Fall o f Man, iv-v, 2 , 30, 64-71 , 65, 72, 80 ,
87, 122, 124, 192, 198-99, 203, 216, 217, 219-21, 223, 225, 226, 229,
233-39,234, 23J-,23¿,237,. 23S
The Head o f Medusa, 26 , 35 , 180-85, i8i>> 183
Landscape with Psyche and Jupiter, 27 , 29i
Madonna an d Child in a Garland of Flowers, 96, 116 , 119, 120, 24 6
Madonna an d Child in a Garland o f Fruit an d Flowers, 4, 116-21 ,117, 118,
154-55, 163, 246
Madonna i n a Flower Garland, 2, 3, 155, 163, 213, 228, 245-47, 247
Pan and Syrinx, 72-77 , 73, 74,227
Portrait of Archduke Albert 'of Austria (an d workshop), 100-107 , 102
Portrait of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (an d workshop), 100-107,103
Prometheus Bound, 26, 35 , 166-73, ^7, 184, 196
Putti with a Garland of Fruit, 124, 125 •
The Recognition ofPhilopoemen, 25-26 , 25, 1 68, 184
The Return fromWar: Mars Disarmed by Venus, 3, 4, 29-30 , 35 , 50,
52-59, 53, 54, 80, 87 , 119, 144, 149, 195, 197-99, 2/4, 218-21, 219,
226-34, 227, 230, 231, -232, 233, 24 4
The Vision o f Saint Hubert, 82-89 , #3, 84, 86, 109, 120, 226, 240, 241
Rudolf II (Hol y Roman- emperor), 13, 69, 116 , 139, 198
Saint Cecilia (Raphael) , 96
Saint Eustace (Durer), 87 , 87
Saint George (Rubens) , 168, 171
The Saint Ildefonso Altarpiece (Rubens) , 28 , 29
Saint John the Baptist Preaching (Van Balen), 149
Sallaert, Antoine, Procession in the Place du Grand Sablón at Brussels, 106
Samson and Delilah (Rubens) , 23 , 23
Savery, Roelandt, 13, 203
Seghers, Daniel , 15 , 217
Self-Portrait with Friends (Rubens) , 20
Sermon of Saint John the Baptist (Piete r Bruege l th e Elder) , 188 , 188, 189, 191
The Sermon on the Mount (Brueghel) , 186-91, 187
Sheet with Animals and Garlands (Brueghel), 222, 223
signatures, 64 , 66 , 70, 94, 134 , 192, 199, 233-34
Sketches of Ducks and Birds (Brueghel), 68-69 , 69
Snyders, Frans , 3, 17, 25-26, 29-30 , 35, 198
Studies of Four Heads o f Dogs, 178, 178
Study for a n Eagle, 170, 171
272 INDE X
works wit h Ruben s
Diana and Her Nymphs Attacked b y Satyrs, 17 8
Diana and Her Nymphs Hunting Fallow Deer, 178
Diana Returning from the Hunt, 26, 174-79, 17^, 777
The Head o f Medusa, 26 , 35 , 180-85, 181, 183
Prometheus Bound, 26 , 35 , 166-73,1(
^7-> 184 , 196
Putti with a Garland of Fruit (an d Wildens), 124 ,125
The Recognition ofPhilopoemen, 25-26 , 25, 168, 184
Sohier, Nicolaas , 182-8 3
Spranger, Bartholomeus, 129
Stoning o f Saint Stephen (Elsheimer) , 19 1
Studies of a Female Nude (Rubens) , 124 ,124
Studies of Asses, Cats, and Monkeys (Brueghel) , 202-7, 205
Studies of Deer in Various Positions (Brueghel), 68, 69
Studies of Four Heads of Dogs (Snyders) , 178, 178
Studies of Horses after Jost Amman (Paneels after Rubens) , 46 , 4 7
Studies of Hunting Dogs (Brueghel) , 88, 202-7, 204, 226, 24 4
Study for a n Eagle (Snyders), 170,171
Study o f Hunting Dogs (Hollar), 112 , 113
Study o f Hunting Requisites (Brueghel), 109-12,112, 144
Study o f Monkeys, a Deer, and Other Animals (Brueghel), 206, 206
Suerius, Samuel, 12 6
supports, 218-20
The Temptation of Saint Anthony (Patini r and Metsys) , 20 , 21, 34-35
Tieghem, Jan van , 194.
Titian, 19, 20, 96-97
Tityus, 16 9
Tityus (Cort) , 169, 169
Tityus (Titian) , 16 9
Toeput, Lodewijk, 8
The Interior o f the Colosseum, 8, 9
Torso Belvedere, 19 , 62, 67 , 75, 168
Tres Riches Heures (Limbourg brothers) , 10 6
The Trêves (Va n de Venne), 57
Two Satyrs (Rubens) , 176 , 176
Two Views of an Eagle (Rubens), 170
underdrawing, 221-23 , 228-30, 243 , 248. See also under Brueghel
and Rubens
The Union of the Scheldt River and th e City of Antwerp (Janssens) , 56
varnish, 227-2 8
Vase o f Flowers with Jewel, Coins and Shells (Brueghel) , 13 , 14
Veen, Otto van, 9, 18-19, 46-47, 105, 229
Amorum Emblemata, 56 , $6
The Martyrdom o f Saint Andrew,18, 19
Portrait of Albert and Isabella Clara Eugenia, 4 , s
Venne, Adriaen van de , Th e Trêves, 57
Venus and Cupid (Brueghe l an d Va n Balen) , 19 8
Venus i n th e Forge o f Vulcan (Brueghel and Van Balen) , 55, 230, 231
Venus in the Smithy o f Vulcan (studio of Brueghel) , 144, 744
Venus Preparing Mars for Wa r (Brueghe l an d Va n Balen) , 149 , iso
Verhaecht, Tobias, 18 , 4 6
View o f Antique Ruins, 142, 143
View o f Antwerp (Va n Balen and Grimmer) , 12
View of the Interior o f the Colosseum (Brueghel) , 7, 8, 52, 142
Village Landscape with Self-Portrait (Brueghel) , 15, 16
Vincenzo I Gonzaga (duk e of Mantua), 19-2 0
Virgil, 140 , 174
The Virgin in a Niche Adorned b y Angelswith a Garland (Galle) , 162, 163
The Vision o f Saint Hubert (Brueghe l and Rubens) , 82-89, 83, 84, 86, 109,
I2O, 226 , 240 , 24 1
Vrancx, Sebastian, 31 , 31, 163
Wedding Banquet Presided over by the Archdukes (Brueghel), 15, is
The Wedding of Cupid an d Psyche (Goltzius) , 6 0
The Wedding ofPeleus an d Thetis (Brueghel an d Va n Balen) , 6o, 62 , 62
The Wedding ofPeleus an d Thetis (Brueghel an d D e Clerck) , 139
Wildens, Jan , 29 , 124 , 125
Willem V (prince of Orange), 6 4
Winter Landscape with Angels Scattering flowers (Brueghe l and
Rottenhammer), 13 3
Wolfgang Wilhel m (duk e of Pfalz-Ncuburg), 9 4
Wooded Landscape with Gypsy Women (Govaerts), 124
Wooded Landscape with Nymphs., Dogs, and Hunting Spoils (Brueghel) , 114,
114, 206
X-radiographs, 55, 183, 219, 231, 232, 234, 236, 236
P H O T O G R A P H Y C R E D I T S
Alinari/Art Resource, Ne w York : figs. 5, 99; Artothek: cat . no. 16 , figs. 49, 68 ; Art Resource , Ne w York : figs. 7, 15, 23, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 69, 89 , 96
(photo: Józsa Denes), 104 ; Bildarchiv Preufiischer Kulturbesitz/Ar t Resource, New York : figs. 33 (photo: Christop h Irrgang) , 5 1 (photo: Jôr g P . Anders),
64 (photo : Christoph Irrgang), 9 3 (photo: Jôrg P. Anders); Kunsthistorische s Museum , Vienna : fig. 95; Museo Naciona l del Prado: figs. 52, 140, 14 1
(right), 144 (top right)—infrare d image s courtes y of Ana González Mozo , camera property of Laboratorio de Metrologia Ottica per la Diagnostica de i
Beni Culturali, Universit a degle Studi, Milan, an d INOA; Peter Maes (photographer) : figs, n, 24, 87; Photo Collections Rijksburea u voo r
Kunsthistorische Documentatie (RKD) , The Hague: figs. 45, 73, 101; Photographic Survey , Courtauld Institut e o f Art, London : fig . 3 ; Sotheby's, London :
fig. 78; Wen Hwa Ts'ao (photographer): fig. 84
273
A b o u o u t t h e A u t h o r s
T I A R N A DOHERT Y i s associate conservator of paintings a t
the J. Paul Getty Museum. She joined the Getty Museum
in 20 01, after postgraduat e internship s at the Opifici o delle
Piètre Dure, Florence; th e Hamilton Kerr Institute,
Cambridge; an d the scientific department of the National
Gallery, London. She has an M.S. in art conservation fro m
the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art
Conservation. Sh e has lectured and published on Rubens and
on seventeenth-century collaboration s betwee n painter s
as well as between painters and cabinetmakers. She is an assistant
coordinator o f the ICOM Committee fo r Conservation
Paintings Specialty Group.
MARK L E O N A R D earne d his undergraduate degree in art
conservation at Oberlin College an d continued hi s studies in
both art history and conservation at the Institute o f Fine
Arts at New York University. He worked in the Paintings
Conservation Department at the Metropolitan Museu m of
Art in New York for five years before joining the staf f
of the J. Paul Getty Museum, where he is now head of the
Department of Paintings Conservation. In addition to his
study and treatment of paintings a t the Getty Museum ,
he has worked on a number of important pictures from an
international arra y of other collections . He has published
on a number of different topics , ranging from studie s of
artists5
techniques to the introduction of new materials for
use in conservation.
A R I A N E VA N S U C H T E L EN has been curator at the Royal
Picture Gallery Mauritshuis since 1995, after having been
assistant curator at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam from
1990 to 1995 . She has co-organized divers e exhibitions ,
including Dawn of the Golden Age (Rijksmuseum) , Johannes
Vermeer^ an d Rembrandt by Himself. He r recen t publications
include Holland Frozen in Time—The Dutch Winter Landscape
in the Golden Age; Portraits in the Mauritshuis(with Ben
Broos); and contributions to Hans Holbein 1497/98-1543 an d
Carel Fabritius 1622-1654.
J 0 R G E N WADU M i s a paintings conservator and a n art
historian and is currently chief conservator at the Statens
Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen. Sinc e 1984 he has specialized
in the painting techniques of sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury
Dutch and Flemish artists. He has published and
lectured internationally on a multitude o f subjects related to
this and other issues of importance for the understanding
and conservation of our cultural heritage. He served as chair
of the ICOM Committee for Conservation from 200 2 to 2005.
A N N E T . WOOLLETT i s associate curator in the Departmen t
of Paintings at the J. Paul Getty Museum, specializing in
Northern painting before 1700. She received her Ph.D. fro m
Columbia University, with a dissertation on the altarpieces
of the Antwerp militia guilds, 1554-1615. She has lectured and
published on Rubens, late-sixteenth-century Flemish painting,
and Rembrandt. She co-organized the Getty Museum
exhibition Making a Renaissance Painting and contributed t o
the exhibition catalogue Rembrandt's Late Religious Portraits.
274