RKD STUDIES

Peter Paul Rubens DPG131

... k, with heightening in white, pen in brown, 508 x 458 mm. Département des arts graphiques, Louvre, Paris, 20.194 (recto).5142c) Peter Paul Rubens, The Garden of Love, c. 1630–35, canvas, 199 x 286 cm. Prado, Madrid, P-1690 [3].5153) Peter Paul Rubens, Study of a Young Woman (Hélène Fourment?), early 1630s, black, red and white chalk, 320 x 405 mm. Albertina, Vienna, 8255.5164) Anonymous artist in the circle of Peter Paul Rubens, Allegory of Music, panel, 18.5 x 28 cm. Louvre, Paris, RF 1985–24.5175a) Peter Paul Rubens, Study for a Portrait of a Family (Peter Paul Rubens and Hélène Fourment, with Nicolas and Clara Johanna Rubens), panel, 35.5 x 38.2 cm. Philadelphia Museum of Art (John G. Johnson Collection), J622.5185b) Peter Paul Rubens, Rest on the Flight into Egypt with Saints, 1632–5, panel, 87 x 125 cm. Prado, Madrid, 1640.5195c) Peter Paul Rubens and Christoffel Jegher, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 1633–5, pen and brown ink, retouched by Rubens with brush and black ink, heightened with white and garish white bodycolour, over preliminary drawing in black chalk, on cream-coloured paper, 474 x 615 mm. Fundacja im. Raczyńskich, Museum Narodowe, Poznań, Fr. 396.5205d) Christoffel Jegher after Peter Paul Rubens, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, inscriptions, 1633–6, chiaroscuro woodcut: one line block and one tone block, 466 x 604 mm. BM, London, 1917,1208.559 [4].521Other scenes with Hagar6a) Jan Harmensz. Muller after Harmen Jansz. Muller, Hagar and the Angel, inscriptions, c. 1591, engraving, 175 x 210 mm. BM, London, 1853,0312.1.5226b) Herman van Swanevelt, The Angel consoling Hagar (from a series of four plates), H. Swanevelt Fe Rom. and other inscriptions, etching, sheet 125 (trimmed) x 202 mm. BM, London, S.2219.5236c) Peter Paul Rubens, The Expulsion of Hagar, c. 1615–18, panel, 63 x 76 cm. Hermitage, St Petersburg, GE-475.5246d) Peter Paul Rubens, The Expulsion of Hagar, 1618, panel, 71 x 102 cm. Collection of the Duke of Westminster, Eaton Hall.525Copies7a) Jeremias Wildens inventory: Op de Schilders Camer (In the painter’s room), Antwerp, 30 Dec. 1653, no. 286, Een Aga naer Rubbens (A Hagar after Rubens).5267b) Copy of DPG131: Hagar in the Wilderness, canvas, 24½ x 29¾ in. (c. 62.2 x 75.6 cm). Seena and Arnold Davis collection, Scarsdale, N.Y., in 1980.5277c) Copy: ?Thomas Gainsborough, Hélène Fourment, canvas, 50.5 x 60.9 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Bonhams sale, 28 March 1974, lot 60; Marshall 1973, pp. 6–8, lot 6).528Distant relative8) Jean-Baptiste Greuze, Le Malheur imprévu (The Broken Mirror), c. 1762–3, canvas, 56 x 45.6 cm. The Wallace Collection, London, P442.529Lent to the RA to be copied in 1902, 1922 and 1930....

... ently, not looking at us freely as here. She is not crying, nor has she a red face, as Widauer says.534 The only things that could point to her being Hagar are the vessel and the fact that she is wringing her hands. But there still is the possibility that Ishmael and/or the angel were added later, after the picture had left Rubens’s studio, and then removed again.Rubens had already painted two versions of an earlier part of the story in The Expulsion of Hagar, now in the Hermitage (c. 1615–18) and in the collection of the Duke of Westminster (1618; Related works, nos 6c, 6d), and claimed that the theme was new as a pictorial invention. In the Corpus Rubenianum volume the subject of the pregnant Hagar being dismissed from the house is characterized as a scene of ordinary life.535 It might be possible that in DPG131 Rubens depicted an unusual subject from the story of Hagar, as suggested by Elizabeth McGrath,536 namely the episode when Hagar was pregnant and in the wilderness for the first time, where she was found by an angel by a fountain. That would explain both the strange events surrounding Ishmael and the angel (added by somebody who wanted the more conventional subject from the Hagar story: the second time that Hagar was in the wilderness with her son) and Hagar’s healthy appearance as well as her beautiful dress (the pregnant Hagar herself, proudly, had chosen to flee the hostile house of Sarah and Abraham). Rubens has not depicted a mother worried about her son dying of thirst. The choice of the earlier episode with the pregnant Hagar would indeed be a new subject, and by portraying Hagar in contemporary clothing Rubens made the scene more relevant to his own time.It seems that at least two versions of this picture were present in London around 1800. If the painting did indeed come to London soon after the sale in Paris in 1782, then Thomas Gainsborough (1727–88) would have been able to copy it before his death in 1788 (Related works, no. 7c). One can appreciate how the sketchiness and especially the way of rendering the satins would have appealed to the British master. The picture that was at auction in London in 1807 must have been another, since DPG131 was already in the Desenfans collection, according to the Insurance list of 1804.537...

Peter Paul Rubens DPG143

... George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, after 1625, panel, 63 x 48 cm. Palazzo Pitti, Florence, 324.3861b.IV) (pair of 1b.III?) Studio of or copy after Peter Paul Rubens, Portrait of a Lady (Katherine Manners?), panel, 64 x 46 cm. Palazzo Pitti, Florence, 1890 note 761.3872) (possible pair of DPG143) English School, 17th century, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, panel, 78 x 62 cm. Collection Earl of Jersey.388(Other) portraits of Katherine (Catherine) Manners3a) Gerard van Honthorst, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham with his Family, 1628 (?), canvas, 132.5 x 192.8 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 406553 [3].3893b) Attributed to Henri Beaubrun, Lady Katherine Manners, Widow of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, c. 1628–32, canvas, 59.7 x 48.9 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Philip Mould Ltd, London, 2010s).3903c) Anthony van Dyck, Katherine, Duchess of Buckingham with her Children, Mary, George and Francis Villiers, c. 1633, canvas, 234.6 x 182.6 cm. Rubenshuis, Antwerp, RH.S.188.3913d) Anthony van Dyck, Katherine, Duchess of Buckingham, later Countess, and ultimately Marchioness, of Antrim as Widow, c. 1633, canvas, 74 x 57.5 cm. The Duke of Rutland collection, Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire.3923e) Anthony van Dyck, Katherine, Duchess of Buckingham, later Countess, and ultimately Marchioness, of Antrim, before April 1635, canvas, 219.7 x 132.7 cm (including an early addition at the top). The Marquess of Anglesey and the National Trust collection, Plas Newydd, Anglesey.3933f) Magdalena de Passe, Katherine Manners, Duchess of Buckingham and Marchioness of Antrim, inscriptions, engraving, 123 x 83 mm. BM, London, P.1.281.3943h) Anthony van Dyck, The Continence of Scipio, canvas, 183 x 232.5 cm. Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford, JBS 245.3953i) Anthony van Dyck, Venus and Adonis, c. 1620–21, canvas, 223.5 x 160 cm. Private European collection [4].396Portraits of other ladies4a) Peter Paul Rubens, Portrait of a Woman (of the Lunden or Fourment family), c. 1625–30, panel, 84.8 x 59.3 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 400118.3974b) Frans Pourbus II, Maria de’ Medici, Queen of France (1573–1642) as a Widow, 1610–20, canvas, 65.50 x 57 cm. Musée Carnavalet, Paris, P 2338.3984c) (studio of) Peter Paul Rubens, Anne of Austria, Queen of France, c. 1625, panel, 105 x 74 cm. Van der Hoop Collection, City of Amsterdam, on loan to RM, Amsterdam, SK-C-296.3994d) Peter Paul Rubens, Madame de Vicq, 1625, panel, 73.4 x 53 cm. Tel Aviv Museum of Art, 93.54 [5].400Copies5a) Copy (without the hands): Flemish school c. 1800, canvas, 63 x 42 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Piasa sale, Paris, 25 June 2002, lot 86).4015b) Copy: in George Scharf sketchbook: top right, ‘Dulwich Gallery GS Nov 8th 1859’; left, below image of portrait, ‘No. 187: Smith’s catalogue Rubens No. 726’; right of image of portrait, ‘light, bd siena light hair’.402 National Portrait Gallery, London, NPG7/3/4/2/89, p. 21 [6]....

... Duchess for which he gave him as model a miniature he had brought with him to Paris: this would explain the supposed lack of fidelity to Katherine Manners’ features.According to Michael Jaffé, DPG143 depicts a woman in court dress, which was according to him ‘high Parisian mode’,410 but it should be noted that alternating dark and white slashed sleeves were also popular in England in the 1620s, as shown in several portraits from that period. Interestingly, the costume with its sleeves and jewellery is similar to those in two other portraits which must have been painted in France: Anne of Austria, Queen of France, to be dated c. 1625 (1601–66; Related works, no. 4c), and Madame de Vicq, dated 1625 (Tel Aviv Museum of Art; Related works, no. 4d) [5]. The subject could therefore be not Katherine Manners but a French lady-in-waiting, as some authors suggest.411 However, Bianca du Mortier has commented that the jewellery in DPG143 shows that the lady was excessively rich, which would point in the direction of Katherine Manners, who was at the time the richest woman in England.412Some scholars have assumed that the black rosette was a sign of mourning, and that the lady was a widow at the time.413 If she were Katherine Manners, that would have been after the assassination of Buckingham in 1628. However black jewels were not a sign of mourning in the 17th century (memento mori pieces and pearls would have been worn instead),414 and, although the dress in DPG143 would have been a perfect example of half-mourning in the 19th century, in the 17th century a mourning dress would have been completely black, and the hair would have been covered.415In conclusion, because of the similarity with Venus and Adonis in the Van Dyck picture, it is tempting to think that the lady in DPG143 is Katherine Manners. We would still need to explain why she looks in the same direction as her husband (in the drawings in Vienna), why the picture was left unfinished, and why Rubens seems to have kept it in his studio. The strongest counter-argument is that she looks much older than a twenty-two-year-old, if she was born around 1603, but that is also not certain.Sir George Scharf, who in 1857 became Secretary of the National Portrait Gallery, and later its Director, on one of his many tours around the British Isles sketched some of the portraits in the Dulwich Gallery. In 1859 he drew three paintings that were thought to be by Rubens, DPG285, DPG290 and DPG143. The remarks he made next to his drawing of DPG143 relate to colours, and not to the sitter [6]....

Peter Paul Rubens DPG148

... iracles of St Francis Xavier, c. 1617–18, canvas, 535 x 395 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 519.Other pictures by Rubens4) (for the high altar) Peter Paul Rubens, Circumcision, 1605, canvas, 400 x 225 cm. Il Gesú/Santi Ambrogio e Andrea, Genoa.2155) Peter Paul Rubens, Marchese Nicolò Pallavicini, 1604, canvas, 105 x 92 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (previously on loan to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge).216DetailsThe Blessed Ignatius, since 1622 St Ignatius6a) Peter Paul Rubens, ‘St. Ignatius attired in his priestly habit, in the attitude of ecstacy and inspired devotion; Rubens has treated this subject in a grand stile, the colouring truly harmonious, and painted with a spirited and flowing pencil’, present whereabouts unknown (Benjamin van der Gucht sale, Christie’s, 12 March 1796 (Lugt 5420), lot 75; bt Sir Francis Bourgeois, £39.18.2176b) Peter Paul Rubens, St Ignatius of Loyola, c. 1620–22, canvas, 223.5 x 138.4 cm. Norton Simon Art Foundation, Pasadena, M.1975.03.P.2186c) Adriaen Collaert after Juan de Mesa, Five Scenes of the Life of the Blessed Ignatius in Barcelona (part of Vita beati patris Ignatii Loyolae, Antwerp 1610, no. 7 of 15 prints), Latin inscriptions, engraving, 262 × 368 mm (sheet). RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-P-1963-287.219The washerwoman7a) Adriaen Collaert after Juan de Mesa, Three Scenes from the Life of the Blessed Ignatius in Spain (part of Vita beati patris Ignatii Loyolae, Antwerp 1610, no. 9 of 15 prints), Latin inscriptions, engraving, 266 × 368 mm (sheet). RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-P-1963-288.2207b) Cornelis Galle I, The Miracle of the Washerwoman, engraving (fig. 48 of Vita beati P. Ignatii Loiolae, Rome 1609). Biblioteca Instituti Historici S. I., Rome.221The possessed woman8a) Peter Paul Rubens, The Martyrdom of two Saints, pen and brown ink on grey paper, 348 x 324 mm. BvB, Rotterdam, MB 5002.2228b) (modello) Peter Paul Rubens, Roman Catholic Austria, attacked by its Enemies, 1620–22, panel, 51 x 66.5 cm. Musée Fabre, Montpellier, 836.4.52.2238c) (modello) Peter Paul Rubens, Miracles of St Francis of Paola, c. 1627–8, panel, 110.5 × 79.4 cm. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, 91.PB.50.2248d) Roman, Medea Sarcophagus, marble, h 65 cm. Antikenmuseum, Basel, 217.2258e) Peter Paul Rubens after an Antique cameo, A Dancing Satyr, c. 1600–1608, pen and brown ink, 54 x 37 mm. BM, London, Oo,9.20.e.2268f) Anthony van Dyck, The Arrest of a Man, part of a Study for the Road to Cavalry, black chalk, with pen and brown ink, 154 x 202 mm (sight measurement) (sheet 19 verso and 20 recto in the Italian sketchbook). BM. 1957,1214.207.19v and 20r.2278g) (attributed to) Artus Quellinus I, Frenzy, c. 1660, sandstone, 295 × 75 x 75 cm. RM, Amsterdam, BK-AM-38.228Confusion in provenance9) After Peter Paul Rubens, An Allegory showing the Effects of War (‘The Horrors of War’), paper on canvas, 47.6 x 76 cm. NG, London, NG279.229Compositions by other artists10) Giovanni Balducci, The Investiture of Carloman, fresco. San Giovanni de´ Fiorentini, Rome.23011) Caravaggio, Madonna of the Rosary, c. 1601, 364.5 x 249.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 147.231...

... tpellier and the Getty Museum (Related works, nos 8a–f). A famous statue of Frenzy was made for the Amsterdam Dolhuys (madhouse), probably by the southern Netherlandish sculptor Artus Quellinus (Related works, no. 8g), who must have known Rubens’s painting. The woman with three children, symbolizing Charity, also appears in Rubens’s work, such as the altarpiece for St Bavo in Ghent (see DPG40A–B, Related works, no. 7b).The provenance of DPG148 is uncertain between Rubens and the Desenfans Insurance list of 1804. We do not know how many studies Rubens made for the Genoa altarpiece (in general he made at least two studies, a bozzetto and a modello: see for instance under DPG125), and whether he sent all of them to the Pallavicini or kept one or more in his studio. It is certain that since 1768 at least one of the sketches was in the third room of the Palazzo Spinola di San Luca-Gentile in Genoa, probably from the Pallavicini family. Until now several authors assumed that the Rubens sketch acquired by Buchanan in 1803 in Genoa came from the Pietro Gentile collection, and that it was shortly afterwards purchased by Desenfans. However the Buchanan letters, written between 1802 and 1805, seem to show that he acquired a different Rubens sketch in 1803 (now in the National Gallery; Related works, no. 9) and that he finally succeeded in purchasing the Gentile picture of the Blessed Ignatius (Related works, no. 1b) in 1805. It appeared in a London auction in 1823, since when there is no trace. We have to look for the provenance of Desenfans’ St Ignatius in 18th-century sale catalogues where several pictures of St Ignatius by Rubens are mentioned, such as one in Brussels in 1765 and one in London in 1791. In any case DPG148 features in Desenfans’ Insurance list of 1804.A small copy in the Städtischen Kunstsammlungen Bamberg, which seems to date from around 1800, was recently brought to my attention (Related works, no. 1c) [3].243 It is not after the prime version in Genoa. The position of Ignatius looks more like the one in the Dulwich picture; the man in the foreground holding the frantic woman is dressed in green, as in the Dulwich modello, not red as in Genoa; the two standing children in the middle and the baby lying down are different. In Genoa the baby’s head is to the right, whereas in the other two pictures it is to the left. However there are also differences between the Bamberg picture and the modello in Dulwich. In general the figures and architecture there are so elaborate that it seems unlikely the copyist saw the painting in Dulwich. And while it is appealing to think that the Bamberg picture is a copy of the lost sketch from Genoa (Related works, no.1b) that does not seem likely: Rubens usually made a very general bozzetto first and then a more elaborated modello (see under DPG125). DPG148 is such an elaborated modello. Rubens did not make sketches more detailed than this. It is thus more likely that the artist of the Bamberg picture saw a painting that was a different version of Rubens’s composition, probably from Rubens’s workshop. However, nothing is known of a third large-scale Jesuit altarpiece that might have been the model for the Bamberg copyist.244...

Peter Paul Rubens DPG40AB

... d ?DPG40B) (Attributed to) Jan de Bisschop, after Rubens, The Real Presence in the Holy Sacrament, black chalk, brush in brown, with brown wash, 365 x 497 mm. Albertina, Vienna, 15103 [7].677a) (modello for 7b) Peter Paul Rubens, Scenes from the Life of Count Allowin (later St Bavo) or The Conversion of St Bavo, 1611–12, oak panel, 107 x 82 cm (central panel), 107 x 41 cm (each wing). NG, London, NG57.1–3.687b) Peter Paul Rubens, The Conversion of St Bavo, 1624, canvas, 475 x 280 cm (arched at the top). St Bavo, Ghent.69Female saints8a) (study for 4a.I) Peter Paul Rubens, Bust of St Domitilla, 1606–7, paper mounted on panel, 88.5 x 67.5 cm (originally 88.5 x 61 cm). Accademia Carrara di Belle Arti, Bergamo, 447.708) . (attributed to) Peter Paul Rubens, St Catherine in the Clouds, c. 1620–30, signed P. Paul Rubens fecit, etching and engraving, 293 x 198 mm. BM, London, R,4.45.718c) Schelte Adamsz. Bolswert after Rubens, Sancta Catharina Virgo et Martyr, inscriptions, engraving, 382 (trimmed) x 240 mm. BM, London, R,4.44.728d.I) Roman, The Townley Caryatid, c. 140–160, Pentelic marble, h. 220 cm. BM, London, 1805,0703.44.738d.II) After Peter Paul Rubens (original drawing lost), Caryatid, Latin inscriptions, black chalk on white paper, 330 x 227 mm (larger Talman album, fol. 187, no. 76). Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.748d.III) (grisaille) Peter Paul Rubens, Two Guardian Angels on the outer wings of the Resurrection Triptych (Triptych for Jan Moretus I and Martina Plantijn), 1611–12, panel, 185 x 47.7 cm (each). Antwerp Cathedral.75Male saints9a) Style of Peter Paul Rubens, St Augustine (?), panel, 38 x 17 cm. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, A 154.769b) After Peter Paul Rubens, Head of St Amand, after c. 1610, black, red and white chalk, washed with brown ink, white heightening on violet paper, 326 x 202 mm. Ecclesiastical collection, Austria.779c) Peter Paul Rubens, St Thomas (part of a series of twelve Apostles: Apostelada Lerma), 1610–12, panel, 108 x 83 cm. Prado, Madrid, 1654.78Older masters10a) Polidoro da Caravaggio or Peter de Kempeneer, retouched by Rubens, St Paul the Apostle, inscriptions, pen and ink with some white heightening and squared for transfer in black chalk, retouched with brown wash and cream and white bodycolour, on blue paper, 208 x 138 mm. Louvre, Paris, 20.244.7910b) Anonymous 16th century (Dierick Vellert), retouched by Rubens (?), Interment of a Monk at Night, attended by a Bishop, pen and black ink with brush and brown wash and white heightening on dark brown prepared paper, d 285 mm. Devonshire Collection, Chatsworth, 353.8010c) Paolo Veronese, The Consecration of St Nicholas, 1562, canvas, 286.5 x 175.3 cm. NG, London, NG26.8110d) .Albrecht Dürer, The Apostles John and Peter and The Apostle Paul and the Evangelist Mark, monogrammed AD and dated 1526, panel, 212.8 x 76.2 cm (left panel), 212.4 x 76.3 cm (right panel). Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, 545 and 540.8210e.I) Antonello da Messina, fragments of the San Cassiano Altarpiece, c. 1475–6, panel, 115 x 63 cm (centre panel), 55.5 x 35 cm (left panel), 56.8 x 35.6 cm (right panel). Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, GG_2574.8310e.II ) Copy by David Teniers II after part of Antonello’s San Cassiano Altarpiece (10e.I), St George and St Cecilia, c. 1650–56, panel, 23.5 x 17.3 cm. Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, London, Princes Gate Bequest, P.1978.PG.439.8410f) Paolo Veronese, SS. Geminianus and Severus, c. 1560 (painted for San Geminiano, Venice), canvas, 341 x 240 cm. Galleria Estense, Modena, 4187.8510g) Titian, Madonna with Child and Saints (Madonna dei Frari), 1533–5, oil on panel transferred to canvas, 388 x 270 cm. Vatican Museum, Rome, 40351.8610h) Hendrick Goltzius, St Andrew, 1589, inscriptions, engraving, 15 x 10.5 cm (no. 2 of Twelve Apostles). BM, London, 1853,0709.5.87Other pictures by Rubens11a) Peter Paul Rubens, St Joachim (or Moses?) and St Anne (or St John the Baptist?) on the back of Three and Four Music-Making angels, c. 1615–20, panel, 212 x 98 cm each. Liechtenstein. The Princely Collections, Vaduz-Vienna, GE 136 and GE 139.8811b) Peter Paul Rubens, Sketch for the crowning section of an altar frame, c. 1616–17, panel, 46.3 x 64.1 cm. Rubenshuis, Antwerp, RH.S.194.89Interior of the Burcht Church/St Walburga’s, Antwerp12a) Ambrosius Francken I or Frans Francken I, Triptych of the altar of the Guild of the Smiths made for the Church of Our Lady, Antwerp, St Eligius of Noyon preaching in the Church of St Walburga, Antwerp (centre panel), St Eligius visits the Prisoners (inner side of left wing), St Eligius helps the Crippled and Buries the Dead (inner side of right wing), (grisaille) St Eligius in his Smithy (outer side of left wing), (grisaille) Episcopal Ordination of St Eligius (outer side of right wing), dated 1588, panel, 250 x 188 cm (centre panel), 260 x 89 cm (each wing). KMSK, Antwerp, 576–80 [8].9012b) Antoon Gheringh, View of the Interior of St Walburga, Antwerp, c. 1661–9, canvas, 115 x 141 cm. St Paul, Antwerp [9].91Copy13) 19th-century English after DPG40A–B, SS. Amandus and Walburga and SS. Eligius and Catherine of Alexandria, graphite underdrawing, brush and watercolour on ivory wove paper, 169 x 121 mm. Private collection.92...

... female saints – the patron saints of the church – in the modelli to the male saints still needs some explanation. It might be suggested that this emphasis on the militant St Amandus and St Eligius, who had brought Christianity to Flanders, was better suited to the Counter Reformation views of Rubens’s patrons than honouring the female patron saints of St Walburga’s.Rubens evidently first considered placing the figures in niches, in imitation of marble sculptures, as he had done in pictures now in Vienna (Related works, no. 11a): these are roughly sketched in the modelli, but not present in the final altarpiece. The figures are depicted both realistically and as statues.115 Martin also noted in 1969 that it was significant that the sketches are about the same size as an oil sketch by Rubens of the altarpiece’s central scene and inner wings in the Louvre (Related works, no. 1a), making it likely that they were made at the same time, presumably to display the design to his patrons. In the modello in the Louvre the two thieves are depicted twice, on the central panel and again on the right wing, a sign that Rubens had changed his mind. According to Martin the Dulwich modelli must have been designed as the inner wings of the altarpiece. Held does not agree in his entry on the Louvre sketch.116 Lawrence in 1999 however, does: according to her at this stage Rubens was planning a scene of Moses and the Brazen Serpent on the outer wings of the St Walburga altarpiece, and the Dulwich modelli on the inner wings.117The saints in both the modelli and the outer wings are related to the figures in Rubens’s St Gregory surrounded by other Saints painted for the church of the Oratorians, the Chiesa Nuova or Santa Maria in Vallicella, in Rome, in 1606–7, and now in Grenoble (Related works, no. 4a.IV) [4]. During a trial hanging the clergy were not satisfied, and Rubens himself found his picture literally too shiny: the older miraculous Vallicella Madonna that had to be included in Rubens’s picture would hardly be visible. So Rubens kept the picture, painted his own Madonna and Child, and placed it by his mother’s grave in St Michael’s, Antwerp. The main characters of this picture – the voluminous figure of St Gregory and the princess-like female martyr, St Domitilla – were motifs that Rubens later developed, and eventually used for St Amandus and St Catherine in DPG40A–B.Between February and October 1608 Rubens painted a new central composition on slate panels, and also two side panels with three standing saints each (Related works, nos 5c.I–IV).118 Those saints look like the ones in the foreground of DPG40A–B (St Amandus and St Catherine), especially in their voluminous forms. However St Gregory is reaching out with his right hand into the space of the viewer and holding a book in his left hand, whereas in DPG40A (and on the outer wings of the altarpiece) St Amandus holds the book with both hands. In the Grenoble painting St Domitilla is depicted in profile, looking over her shoulder at the viewer. Rubens changed that in the second Vallicella picture (Related works, no. 5c.II): there she is shown almost completely frontally, in contrapposto, similar to one of the guardian angels in the outer wings of the Resurrection triptych in Antwerp Cathedral (1611–12; Related works, no. 8d.III), which is in turn based on a Roman caryatid now in the British Museum (Related works, no. 8d.I–II). A drawing in the Courtauld Institute made by Rubens after DPG40A (Related works, no. 3) [3] shows St Amandus bare-headed, as he would be in the St Walburga altarpiece. Urbach suggested that the bareheaded St Thomas in the Prado, who looks very much like the St Amandus in Antwerp, was inspired by a print by Hendrick Goltzius of St Andrew, dated 1589 (Related works, no. 10h), which in turn goes back to figures painted by Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528; such as Related works, no. 10d).119In general one can say that the composition of DPG40A–B and the outer wings of the Raising of the Cross is derived from Italian sacra conversaziones where we see a Madonnna and Child in the middle, often on a throne, flanked by standing saints. An example is the San Cassiano Altarpiece by Antonello da Messina, now in Vienna, that was in Venice until 1620 (Related works, no. 10e.I–II). Rubens however depicts only the standing saints. Several sources have been proposed for Rubens’s bishops in their voluminous clothes, such as 16th-century drawings retouched by Rubens – bishops by Polidoro da Caravaggio (?) (1499–1543) and by Dirck Vellert (1480/85–c. 1547), if that indeed was worked on by Rubens (Related works, nos 10a, b). For the stately figures Rubens also could have looked at the Four Apostles by Albrecht Dürer (1526), now in Munich (Related works, no. 10d). However they are not wearing decorated robes. For those Rubens could have looked at 16th-century Northern Italian pictures such as Titian’s Madonna dei Frari, now in the Vatican Museums, and especially the spectacular picture by Paolo Veronese, SS. Geminianus and Severus, at the time in San Geminiano in Venice (Related works, nos 10f, g);120 the latter picture is however much lighter that the outer wings of the Raising of the Cross, with their dark background. Martin suggested that the figures of St Catherine and St Amandus were the basis for Rubens’s later images of St Catherine and St Ambrose painted for the Jesuit Church in Antwerp, which was dedicated in 1621 (the paintings were destroyed by fire in 1718; see under DPG125).121 Earlier, in 1611–12, in the sketch for the later altarpiece for St Bavo in Ghent (now in the National Gallery, London) the St Catherine of DPG40B is St Gertrude in white on the left hand side of the picture (Related works, no. 7a).122...

Balthasar Paul OMMEGANCK

... 26South Netherlandish painter...

... anck was a member of the committee sent to Paris to repatriate the Antwerp paintings that the French armies had taken to the Louvre in 1794. In 1816 he was appointed a member of the Royal Institute of Arts and Sciences of the Netherlands in Amsterdam, for which he wrote two treatises.1 In 1830, four years after his death, the Southern Netherlands became independent as Belgium.LITERATUREMichiels 1868; Coekelberghs & Loze 1985, pp. 301–3; Vautier 1996; Saur, xciii, 2017, pp. 358–9 (U. Heise); RKDartists&, no. 60553: https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/60553 (Dec. 6, 2019)....

... Tethart Philip Christian Haag, The Bull, 1773, etching and engraving, 181 x 285 mm. RKD, The Hague, BD/0676 - ONS/Original Prints (by inventor) [3] .61c) Anonymous printmaker after Paulus Potter, Ox standing, to the right, etching, 107 x 144 mm (edge of the plate), (Bullenboekje (Various oxen and cows), no. 4). RPK, RM, Amsterdam, RP-P-OB-65.719 [4].72a) Aelbert Cuyp, Two Resting Shepherds, black chalk with grey wash, brushed with gum arabic in the foreground, 109 x 168 mm. Fondation Custodia, Paris, 4369 [5].82b) Aelbert Cuyp, Study of Dock and other Leaves and Grasses, signed ACuyp, c. 1639–40, black chalk with grey wash and watercolour, 146 x 195 mm. BM, London, 1865,0114.828 [6].93) Balthasar-Paul Ommeganck, Landscape with Cows, Goats and Sheep in a Meadow and a Herdsman near a River, signed and dated B.P. OMMEGANCK F 1781, canvas, 100 x 124 cm. Louvre, Paris, 1670 (from the collection of the Dutch Stadholder) [7].104) Jacob van Strij (1756–1815), Cattle with Shepherds, black chalk, 232 x 338 mm. Städel Museum, Frankfurt, 980 [8].115) Dutch, The Prize Ox, c. 1650, canvas, 171 x 200 cm. Present whereabouts unknown (Bijl-van Urk Gallery, Alkmaar, c. 2010).12...

... opean landscape (albeit that at the time landscape was regarded as one of the lowest genres in the hierarchy of art).Peter Murray thought An Ox was one of ‘Two Small Cattle Pieces’ by Ommeganck offered for sale by Desenfans in May 1785.13 That is not very likely, however, as it is first recorded in London in the European Museum in 1801. It seems to have attracted little attention, featuring in subsequent sales in 1803. It was probably acquired there by Desenfans and Bourgeois. Why it was purchased is not clear. Did they realize that the picture was painted by a contemporary artist? That would have opened the door to a much wider range of modern Dutch and Flemish artists working in the style of the 17th century. Or did they think it was a 17th-century painting? Or could Bourgeois simply not resist another picture with cattle?...

5.3 Palaces : Berlin, Oranienburg, Potsdam

... where for the first time in Brandenburg potatoes were grown, in 1652 an orangery was built. It had been a brick building, ‘quo aedificando modo Batavi delectantur’, as court gardener Elsholz said.21 Also a summer house, or grotto, was designed by Johann Gregor Memhardt (1607-1678). It was two storeys high, had a multi angled ground plan, colossal pilasters and a gallery [6]. The façades enclosed four eight angled spaces and at the front of the building, two towers were realised. The ground floor contained the grotto with shell decorations and a water organ. On the first floor, a banquet hall was situated. The façade on the Spree side contained niches with statues of antique gods.22...

... n the years 1621-1647 by Frederik Hendrik of Orange. The idea of a broad main building, galleries and pavilions was applied both in Huis ter Nieuburg and in Oranienburg. A striking resemblance with the Huis ten Bosch in The Hague is the main hall in the palace of Potsdam. It was 13 to wide, with an altitude of not less than 20 metres. The vault stretched out into the roof construction, where windows in the tower that was put on top of it, provided light. Beneath the great hall in the basement a cellar was situated, that was used as a dining room during the summer.35Like in Berlin and Oranienburg, Potsdam had a large garden. It contained an orangery, statues and a fountain.36 Michael Hanff, who also worked in the Berlin garden, was the responsible gardener in Potsdam. In 1668 another gardener from the Netherlands, Dirck van Langelaer (1640-1713), realised avenues, like Johan Maurits had done in Kleve. These axes lead to a striking point in the landscape; a hill or a summer mansion, like Bornim, Caputh [10] or Glienicke.37 Other projects on a smaller scale followed. In Bornim Van Langelaer realised a garden of 700 x 220 metres, surrounded by canals and hedges, with ponds, fountains, trees, statues of river gods, nymphs, sea dragons and a water organ. 1,595 fruit trees were planted, under which apricots, peaches and almonds, hundreds of lime trees, chestnut trees and a vineyard.38...

6.3 Interest from Leipzig

... ch even considered the commission worth mentioning to her biographer Johan van Gool in 1750, about 40 years after the commission by De la Court was delivered.19 That could mean that this was one of the very few, or perhaps the most well-known large art collections in the Netherlands she received a commission from....

... the death of Gottfried Winckler in 1795 his three sons split up the collection and sold most of it in batches over time. Thanks to the collection catalogue published by curator Kreuchauff in 1768, we still know the content of Winckler’s original collection. The 218 paintings at the private Gartenhaus were painted on eight aquarelles by the artist Christian Friedrich Wiegand (1748-1824) [25]. The two paintings by Ruysch were not included, which means that they must have been publicly exhibited in the Katharinenstrasse. Both pendants were sold separately by Winckler’s heirs, and have been own by different private collectors ever since.21 The whereabouts of the still life with fruits have been known for a long time [26], whereas the flower still life has quite recently been rediscovered and sold by Sotheby’s London in 2013 [27]....

... lections does not seem to be a coincidence: Johann Thomas Richter had made a ‘Grand Tour’ in his younger years, together with Gottfried Winckler. This journey through the Netherlands, England, France, Southern Germany and Italy, must have been the inspiration for the both of them to start collecting art themselves, taking over their fathers’ interests. Unfortunately, details of their activities in the Netherlands are unknown, but they must have seen Rachel Ruysch’s work during this trip – and they might even have visited her....

... ollection was sold by auction in 1827, when these paintings were sold to Wilhelm II (1777-1847), Elector of Hessen-Kassel.29 In 1831 he moved from Leipzig to his new residence in Hanau. From there, the two paintings became part of the Hessische Hausstiftung, which formed part of the Museum Schloss Fasanerie in Eichenzell, in the district of Fulda.30 Both paintings are still on display there now, together with another painting by Ruysch. This third work by Ruysch was bought by collector Heinrich Wilhelm Campe in Munich, and ever since this purchase the three paintings have been together.31...

4.1 Imported Netherlandish Artworks

... n Rostock [1-11].1 Most probably they were originally imported from Antwerp in the early 15th century and have been taken as rare examples of a cheap, export-oriented production that is otherwise almost completely lost to us.2...

... ist child [12],3 a small sculpture from Mechelen from around 1500 for which the nuns have made clothes and a beautifu...

... n the end, have been the reason that it survived the reformation which was introduced in Mecklenburg in 1549 by Duke Johann Albrecht I. The altarpiece is also interesting for the fact that some of its parts were sculpted and the whole of its sculptures painted only after it arrived in Güstrow. This makes a temporary presence of capable artisans from Borman's workshop in Mecklenburg most likely.7...

14.3 Heimbach’s Handicap

... themes [22]. Instead of mocking the ill person or the caregiver, provoking laughter from the spectator, Heimbach shows a more compassionate view of the patient, eliciting to empathize with him. If we compare his Patient to the famous Operation by Adriaen Brouwer (1603/5-1638) today in Frankfurt the different meaning comes clear [23]. Heimbach’s painting also plays with the well-known theme of the doctor’s visit – a symbol for the unfaithful wife as can be seen in Frans van Mieris’ (1635-1681) painting in Los Angeles [24]. Heimbach limits himself to show just an ill man and others taking care of him....

... is still much left to eat. The look through the bars evokes a desire to be part of the meal or at least to eat the rest. As no other person is present in the painting, the spectator is slipping into the role of the departed diners. Looking closer, however, the spectator discovers that the glass is broken and the social separation between master and servant, between maid and meal is somehow volatile. This fragility is maybe the most striking feature of Heimbach’s painting....

... showing washerwomen in Denmark (see § 14.2). Does this detail mean anything in particular? Is it a symbol of social exclusion? Does Heimbach refer to his handicap in such a detail?...

... uardianship order and spent his whole life in a protected family environment.22 We do not have such detailed information about Maerten Boelema de Stomme. In contrast, both Jan Jansz. de Stomme and Wolfgang Heimbach are said to have been able to discuss complex theological problems with hands and signs. Furthermore, they both had a servant at their disposal.23...

... dating from Heimbach’s Italian sojourn might be a less mysterious image than previously thought [28].24 A noble man is counting money while several servants are working in a kitchen. But would a noble man wearing the habit and the cross of the order of Santo Stefano enter a kitchen simply to buy goods? Could this again be a close observation of social differences? Maybe we have to see a kind of allegory of social disparities in the painting instead of a simple description of a kitchen scene. But I would like to leave this question open to further research....

13.5 A Self-Portrait in Assistenza

... several parts of Europe to find artists’ self-portraits incorporated into their compositions, this formula had probably not been applied in Schleswig-Holstein before.64 Flinck, with whom Ovens was well acquainted, could have pointed out to him that his militia piece Civic Guardsmen of the Company of District 1 under the Command of Captain Joan Huydecoper and Lieutenant Frans van Waveren [27] from 1648 contains a self-portrait in the upper left, immediately above his client Huydecoper (1599-1661).65 Flinck positioned himself behind two guardsmen and thus only depicted his face, just like Ovens did. Together with the fact that both artists stand somewhat isolated from the central scene this makes them minor, non-acting figures in the overall composition....

... ance is often hard to draw. Köster obviously does not recognize different types of self-representation. De Jongh, on the other hand, distinguishes six categories of self-portraits.68 He would classify the two above-mentioned men on Justice and on Dithmarschen under his fourth category: the representation of a figure that partly bears the facial features of the artist....