Drawn by The Brush Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens

Drawn by the Brush
Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens
Peter C. Sutton and Marjorie E. Wieseman

with Nico van Hout
Oil sketches by Peter Paul Rubens—created

at speed and in the heat of invention with a
colorful loaded brush—convey all the
spontaneity of thegreat Flemish painter’s
creative process. This ravishing book
draws from both public and private
collections to present in full color more
than forty of Rubens’s oil sketches. Viewers
will find in these informal paintings an
enchanting intimacy and gain a new
appreciation of Rubens’s capacity for
invention, improvisation, and his special
genius for dramatic design and coloristic
brilliance.
The authors investigate the role of
the oil sketch in Rubens’s work, the
development of the artist’s themes and
narratives in his multiple sketches; the
history of the appreciation of his oil
sketches, and they explore some of the
unique aspects of his techniques and
materials. By revealing the oil sketches as
the most direct record of Rubens’s creative
process, the book presents Rubens as the
greatest and most fluent practitioner of this
vibrant and vital medium.
This book serves as the catalogue of the
exhibition showing at the Bruce Museum,
Greenwich, Connecticut, the Berkeley Art
Museum, and the Cincinnati Art Museum.
Drawn by the Brush: Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens
Drawn by the Brush
Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens
Peter C. Sutton
Marjorie E. Wieseman
with Nico van Hout
^gSove CoLl
S' 6£
y
LIBRARY
o.
^RO\J
Yale University Press, New Haven and London, in association with

Bruce Museum of Arts and Science, Greenwich, Connecticut
Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio
University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, Berkeley, California
This catalogue is published in conjunction with Cover:
the exhibition Drawn by the Brush: Oil Sketches by Cat. 7 (detail)
Peter Paul Rubens organized by Cincinnati Art Museum, Peter Paul Rubens
Cincinnati, Ohio, Bruce Museum of Arts and Science, Head of a Negro, c. 1618-20
Greenwich, Connecticut, and University of California, Oil on panel, 45.7 x 36.8 cm
Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, The Hyde Collection, Glens Falls, New York,
Berkeley, California inv. 1971.40
October 2, 2004-January 30, 2005, Greenwich
March 2-May 15, 2005, Berkeley Back:
June 11-September 11, 2005, Cincinnati Cat. 36 (detail)
Peter Paul Rubens
Copyright © 2004 Bruce Museum; Cincinnati Art The Abduction ofDejanira by Nessus, 1636
Museum; Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive; Oil on panel, 18.7 x 14 cm (with approximately
Nico van Hout, The Oil Sketch as a Vehicle for Rubens's 2 mm additions on right and left edges)
Creativity. All rights reserved. Ivor Foundation
ISBN 0-300-10626-2 Title page:

Cat. 15 (detail)
Library of Congress Control Number: 2004110968 Peter Paul Rubens
The Duke of Buckingham, c. 1625
Published by Yale University Press, Oil on panel, 46.6 x 51.7 cm
New Haven and London Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas,
Colormatching by Totalgraphics, Inc., no. AP 1876.08
Norwalk, Connecticut
Printed by CS Graphics, Singapore Page 7: Cat. 30 (detail)
Page 14: Cat. 11 (detail)
Catalogue design: Anne von Stuelpnagel Page 42: Cat. 23 (detail)
Copy editor: Fronia W. Simpson Page 72: Cat. 27 (detail)
Exhibition Coordination: Kathy Reichenbach (BM) Page 93: Cat. 2 (detail)
Registrars: Kathryn M. Haigh (CAM) Page 165: Cat. 19 (detail)
Rebecca Posage (CAM) Page 175: Cat. 21 (detail)
Meghan Tierney (BM) Page 267: Cat 43 (detail)
Sarah Fogel
(Independent Registrar)
Contents
Lenders 9
Preface 10
Directors’ Acknowledgments 12
Introduction
Peter C. Sutton 15
Pursuing and Possessing Passion:

"Two Hundred Years of Collecting Rubens’s
Oil Sketches
Marjorie E. Wieseman 43
The Oil Sketch as a Vehicle for

Rubens’s Creativity
Nico van Hout 73
Catalogue 83
General Bibliography 268
Photography Credits 272
6
Lenders 9
Lenders
Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York Mead Art Museum, Amherst College,
Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, Canada Amherst, Massachusetts
The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Memorial Art Gallery of the University
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England of Rochester, Rochester
Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts New York, New York
Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio Rotterdam, The Netherlands
The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts
Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, England The National Gallery, London, England
Richard L. Feigen, New York, New York National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
The Hyde Collection, Glens Falls, New York Otto Naumann, Ltd., New York, New York
Indianapolis Museum of Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art,
Indianapolis, Indiana Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Ivor Foundation Private Collections
The J. Paul Getty Museum, San Diego Museum of Art,
Los Angeles, California San Diego, California
Jack S. Blanton Museum of Art, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, Washington
The University of Texas at Austin, Texas The Speed Art Museum, Louisville, Kentucky
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas Mr. and Mrs. Michael Steinhardt
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, University of California, Berkeley Art Museum,
Antwerp, Belgium Berkeley, California
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Mr. and Mrs. Scott Wallace
Los Angeles, California Yale Center for British Art,
Stephen Mazoh, New York, New York New Haven, Connecticut
10 Drawn by the Brush: Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens
Preface
This exhibition explores the creative process as revealed in the oil sketches of Peter Paul Rubens.
Following Julius Field, who devoted much of his life to the subject, we define an oil sketch not by its
size, though many are intimately scaled, but by its function as a preparatory work. “Sketchiness,”
degree of finish, style, or technique are all insufficient as defining factors. Rather, an oil sketch is an
original composition by Rubens executed in oils, often but not exclusively in color, that is preparatory
to another work of art, not necessarily executed in the same medium. Thus the essential criterion for
an oil sketch is its function. During Rubens’s lifetime the oil sketch had not yet acquired a name of
its own; it was still regarded as a species of drawing. While it may seem surprising that Rubens had
no ready word or phrase for a technique that he used so extensively, terms emerged as the oil sketch
acquired its own identity, in no small measure through the master’s own devoted efforts. We encounter
oil sketches called dissegni, desegni ad olio, desseins, draughts, “draughts made [with] coloured oyl” (as
van Dyck’s oil sketches were called), or teekeninge, as Rubens’s oil sketches for the Jesuit Ceiling were
designated in the contract of 1618 (see Linda Bauer and George Bauer, “Artists’ Inventories and the
Language of the Oil Sketch,” The Burlington Magazine 141 [1999], p. 527; de Pauw-de Veen 1969,
p. 98). A relatively new word borrowed from the Italian was schizzo, which was associated with the
creative faculties of inventione and fantasia, and thus implied the virtues of invention, speed, and facility.
The Flemish terms schets or schetsen were derived from the Italian and initially referred mostly to
drawings but also could apply to an unfinished painting in an early stage of its development, or an oil
sketch. Only at the end of his life in 1638 (see the letter to Fayd’herbe, p. 38) would Rubens use the
term schets unmistakably as a reference to painted sketches. Even after Rubens’s death the term was
used loosely; all of the preparatory works in Cornelis de Vos’s estate, for example, are called schetsen.
It was not until about 1670 that the term became standardized. Similarly, the Italian term hozzetto,
derived from abbozo, sbozzo, and bozza, was not yet the standard term for oil sketch in Italy; it could
refer to any work of art, in stone or paint, that was in an early stage of preparation, and thus the term
became associated with ideas in the process of formation. Finally, in 1614 Rubens referred in a letter
to his patron, Archduke Albert, to an oil sketch for an altarpiece as a dissegno colorito, a unique usage
to which we shall return.
Since at least the time of Pliny, the notion was widely circulated that the idea or concept of a work
of art was more important than the completed object. The highest form of beauty could exist only on
the plane of ideas. The Renaissance in turn valued “invention”—the disegno interno (inner design) and
the concetto—more than the finished work of art, which was merely the elaboration of a divinely inspired
idea. The painter Sebastiano Ricci went so far as to tell an impatient client that his oil sketch was the
original and the final altarpiece based on it only an enlarged copy. For the Renaissance painter, art
theorist, and historian Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), disegno was the intellectual basis of all art; drawing
was the cerebral component underlying all that is beautiful and noble in painting, sculpture, and
architecture. For Vasari, the art of his teacher, Michelangelo, epitomized the intellectual purity of
disegno, while the great Venetian colorist, Titian, was the prime proponent of the emotional and
sensual components of art, colore. In conceiving the disegno interno the artist sought insights into
God’s designs, his creativity paralleling the way in which God works. Thus the work of art that
comes closest to recording the moment of conception and inspiration is the most divinely inspired.
This value system naturally promoted the appreciation of drawings and oil sketches, beginning in
the sixteenth century. It is a measure of collectors’ abiding belief in these values that so many of
Rubens’s oil sketches have survived.
The systematic study of Rubens’s oil sketches began at least sixty-five years ago. The ground
work was laid by Leo van Puyvelde, who made the first attempt to catalogue the oil sketches
in a monograph published in 1940. This was followed by a pioneering exhibition of 116 oil sketches,
organized by Egbert Haverkamp Begemann and presented at the Museum Boymans Van Beuningen,
Rotterdam, in 1953-54. Since 1968 the volumes of the Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, which
continue to appear, have added immeasurably to our knowledge of the sketches and of Rubens’s art
generally. Also in 1968 Roger-A. d’Hulst published the oil sketches by Rubens in Dutch and Belgian
public collections (Olieverfschetsen van Rubens uit Nederlands en Belgisch openbaar bezit [Amsterdam]).
Julius Held’s majestic two-volume opus on the subject, The Oil Sketches of Peter Paid Rubens, was
published in 1980 and is still the most comprehensive and invaluable resource in the field, although
new sketches have surfaced since its appearance. While it also included finished paintings, the small
show Peter Paul Rubens: Oil Paintings and Oil Sketches, organized by David Freedberg for Gagosian
Gallery in New York in 1995 offered important insights. Finally, as proof that ideas for exhibitions
reach a critical mass and suddenly spring up independently in several places, the year 2003 saw two
shows devoted to Rubens’s oil sketches after a drought of thirty years: an exhibition in Rotterdam
focused on Rubens’s tapestry series of The Life of Achilles-, and Peter Paul Rubens: A Touch of Brilliance,
shown at the Courtauld Institute of Art in London, was devoted primarily to that institution’s own
rich holdings and those of the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg. The present exhibition
casts its net more broadly, addressing the role of oil sketches in all phases of Rubens’s career and is
the first show ever devoted to the subject in the United States. It is overdue in this country, where
we harbor an abiding skepticism about art at the service of political power and spiritual authority
and have at times cultivated a special antipathy for Baroque rhetoric. Moreover, while Rubens is
virtually unique in the history of art before the present day as an artist who is granted a corporate
identity, whose name is readily attached to works that were not actually painted by him, America
is home to a disproportionately large number of workshop productions by Rubens’s studio. So the
opportunity to see originals by the master, oil sketches that seem to provide direct access to the
creative process, concentrated and undiluted evidence of his mastery, while revealing all the
vigorous power and beauty of his brushwork, is a very special event indeed.
Directors’ Acknowledgments
Among the old masters, Peter Paul Rubens has long been admired as one of the most intellectual
of artists. Yet his art is never dry or austere. Rather, it invariably expresses optimism and vitality; indeed
his very name is synonymous with abundance. To appreciate Rubens’s achievement, particularly in our
secular age, it is helpful to know something about the tumultuous times in which he lived and the life
and values of this urbane and peerlessly diplomatic Catholic gentleman. The finished works by the
master nevertheless are often more admired than loved; their oratorical grandeur may appear daunting
to modern museum audiences. But nothing reveals more clearly the ways in which his muscular and
agile mind worked than the study of his more intimately scaled drawings and oil sketches. The present
show is the first ever mounted in this country of the latter group of works and offers to American
audiences an unprecedented glimpse of his creative process. It is hoped that the show will introduce
a new generation of art lovers to the unrivaled intellect and passion of this famous master of the
Flemish Baroque.
To the many lenders who have made this exhibition possible we extend our sincere thanks; the
revealing context provided by the show we trust in part compensates you for the sacrifice involved
in lending such treasured works of art. We also wish to thank our sponsors and the many individuals
who have personally supported the show. A special debt of gratitude is owed colleagues and friends
who offered contacts, information, or contributed in so many other ways to the realization of the
project. Specifically we wish to thank Svetlana Alpers; Patricia Auboyneau; Arnout Balis; Joachim
Bechtle; Kristin Belkin; Jonathan Bober; Rita Bral; Christopher Brown; Ruth Cloudman; Erin Coe;
Christina Corsiglia; Anthony Crichton-Stuart; Cynthia Dillman; Elizabeth Dungan; Frits Duparc;
Richard Feigen; David Freedberg; Alejandro Garcia-Rivera; Alain Goldrach; George Gordon; Ann
Guite; Johnny van Haeften; Jane E. H. Hamilton (of Thos. Agnew’s & Sons, London); Elisabeth
Honig; Nico van Hout; Paul Huvenne; Chiyo Ishikawa; David Jaffe; Alison Jones; Ronda Kasl;
Directors’ Acknowledgments 13
Steven Kern; David Koetser; Friso Lammertse; Jon Landau; Walter Liedtke; Anne-Marie Logan;
Rhona Macbeth; Gregory Martin; Lucy Matzger; Elisabeth Mercante; Otto Naumann; John Nicholl;
Nadine Orenstein; Michael Plomp; Pamela Rillon; Joe Rishel; Scott Schaeffer; Desmond Shawe-
Taylor; Fronia Simpson; Johan Snapper; Stanton Thomas; Hubert d’Ursel; George Wachter; Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr.; Liz Wickersham; Martha Wolff; and Ingalls Library, Cleveland Museum of Art
(especially Louis Adrean); Frick Art Reference Library; Watson Library, The Metropolitan Museum
of Art; Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorisch Documentatie, The Hague; and Rubenianum, Antwerp.
And to the many staff members at our three museums who brought the show to fruition we
extend heartfelt thanks. We wish to especially acknowledge at the Bruce Museum York Baker;
Robin Garr; Mike Horyczun; Kathy Reichenbach; Anne von Stuelpnagel; and Meghan Tierney;
at the Berkeley Art Museum Lucinda Barnes, Associate Director for Art, Film, and Programs;
Judy Bloch; Juliet Clark; Sherry Goodman; Elisa Isaacson; Lynne Kimura; Ellen Martin; Sue
Martin; Mary Kate Murphy; Jen Pearson; Eric Saxby; Dara Solomon; Linda Steingass; and
Emily Wright; and at the Cincinnati Art Museum Carola Bell; Stephen Bonadies; Katie Haigh;
Brittany Hudak; Rebecca Posage; Marianne Quellhorst; Genevieve Richardson; Peggy Runge; Julia
Vienhage; Marjorie E. Wieseman, Curator of European Painting and Sculpture; and Lori Wight.
Peter C. Sutton Kevin E. Consey Timothy Rub

Executive Director Director Director
Bruce Museum University of California, Cincinnati Art Museum
of Arts and Science Berkeley Art Museum and
Pacific Film Archive
Introduction
Peter C. Sutton
la gran prontezza e furia del penello (the great speed and furor of [his] brush)
— Giovanni Pietro Bellori
La vite dei pittori, scultori ed architetti moderni (Rome, 1672)
Rubens would (with his arms crossed) sit musing on his work for some time, and in an instant in
the liveliness of spirit, with a nimble hand, would force out his overcharged brain into description
so as not to be contained in the compass of ordinary practice, but by a violent driving out of
passion. The commotions of the mind could not be cooled by slow peiformance.
—William Sanderson
The Use of the Pen and the Pensil (London, 1658)
II avoit une si grande habitude dans toutes les parties de son Art, qu hi avoit aussi-tost peint
que dessine; cPoii vinet que Pon voitpresqu’autant de petits Tableaux de sa main qiPil enfaits
de grands, dont ils font les premieres pensees & les Esquisses: Et de ses Esquisses il y en a fort
legers & d’autres assez finis, selon qiPilpossedoitplus ou moins ce qiPil avoir a faire, ou qu’il
estit en humeur de travailler. Ily en a mesme qui luy servoient comme d’Original, & ou il avoit
etudie d’apres Nature les objets qu 'll devoit representer dans le grand Ouvrage, oil il changeoit
seulement selon qu 'll le trouvoit a propos. Apres cela ne soyez pas etonne du nombre de presque
infini de ces Tableaux, & si je vous dis que nonobstant les grandes affaires ausquelles il estoit
oblige de vaquer, jamais Peintre n’a produit tant d’Ouvrages. (He had such great facility in
all aspects of his Art that he would just as soon paint as draw, so that one sees almost
as many little paintings by his hand as large ones, of which they are the first thoughts
and sketches. Some of his sketches are very slight and others rather finished, according
to whether he knew more or less clearly what he had to do or whether he was in the
mood to work. There are even some which served him as originals: for whenever he
had studied from nature the objects that he had to represent in the large work, he
would only make such changes as he found appropriate. As a result, one should not be
surprised by the almost infinite number of his paintings, and in light of all the many
business dealings that he was obliged to attend to, no other artist ever produced so
many works.)
—Roger de Piles
Conversation sur la connoissance de la peinture (Paris, 1667)
The facility with which he invented, the richness of his composition, the luxuriant harmony and
brilliance of his coloring, [which] so dazzle the eye, that whilst his works continue before us, we
cannot help thinking that all his deficiencies are fully supplied.
—Sir Joshua Reynolds
Discourses on An (London, 1772)
(Test parce que, dans ce travail si spontane, nous saisissons sur le vif Pacte de creation. Pane
que, en tout contemplant, nous semblons prendre pan a cet acte, que Petude de ce esquisses nous
interesse tant. (Thanks to the spontaneity of this work, we grasp the living act of creation.
The sketches interest us so because in their contemplation we take part in this act.)
—Leo van Puyvelde
Les Esquisses de Rubens (Basel, 1940)
Never in the history of an does there seem to be so infinitesimal a gap between idea and
execution. Whether large or small, the oil sketches take us into the hean and mind of the
painter, and reveal a fluency with the brush that was rightly celebrated in his own time and
has remained so ever since.
—David Freedberg
“The Hand of Rubens” (in exh. cat. New York 1995)
P Sutton: Introduction
eter Paul Rubens’s oil sketches have long been celebrated for their spontaneity, verve, and
effortless invention, drawing on the painter’s seemingly inexhaustible stock of visual imagery
and erudite understanding of his subjects, while offering a showplace for his dazzling
17
brushwork. With more than 450 surviving sketches, they not only constitute a sizable and
significant portion of the master’s production but also document many of his most creative
contributions to the history of art. The oil sketches, particularly in his mature career, were an integral
feature of Rubens’s working methods and studio practices to a degree that was unprecedented in the
history of art. They offer a glimpse of the creative process and, notwithstanding their intimate scale,
reveal a vast range of emotion and action, condensing the power of designs covering whole walls
into diminutive panels. While he immersed himself in virtually all the creative aspects of his studio’s
production, the oil sketches consistently embody the most direct and immediate account of his
personal invention. The huge decorative cycles that his workshop produced with such alacrity and
proficiency for regents, princes, archdukes, and ecclesiastical leaders throughout Europe still inspire
awe and admiration, but it is in the small oil sketches on panel and the drawings that we may best
savor the master’s personal brilliance, passion, and pictorial intellect. And in the highly secularized,
democratic era in which we live, when Flemish Baroque art’s celebration of authority, devout
spirituality, and rhetoric may seem as so much proselytizing grandiloquence, the intimacy and
immediacy of the oil sketches make the values of that age more accessible and intelligible.
Rubens often seems larger than life, a figure of seemingly boundless talents and indefatigable
energy. He was not only the leading painter of his day, producing a huge oeuvre of altarpieces and
religious subjects, classical, mythological, and allegorical themes, portraits, genre scenes, and landscapes,
but also was a prolific draftsman and designer of tapestries, prints, illustrations and frontispieces,
sculpture and architecture. In addition to his artistic endeavors he was an active player in the world of
affairs and politics, serving as a diplomat, secret emissary, and intimate of kings and princes. Fluent in
five languages, he amassed and administered a personal fortune and became a collector, connoisseur,
and expert in classical learning. While his personal letters have not survived, his extensive professional
correspondence offers a portrait of the public man. It attests to his renowned erudition and documents
his communication with both the most powerful men in Europe and the leading thinkers of his day. His
intelligence, wit, and good judgment charmed all who knew him, and his patience, tact, and discretion
secured the confidence and commissions of the mighty. Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, a lifelong
friend and correspondent, wrote, “Mr. Rubens evidently was born to please and delight in everything
he does or says.”1 Yet by all accounts, Rubens was also a man of exceptional spiritual and personal
Fig. 1.
Otto van Veen
The Last Supper
Oil on paper, 290 x 356 mm
Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. 10123
Fig. 2.
Federico Barocci
St. Dominic cle Guzmdii Receiving the Rosary
Oil on paper, 54.5 x 38.5 cm
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
discipline, who at the height of his celebrity still retained his artistic freedom and managed to guard
the joys of family and friends. In his own lifetime repeatedly hailed as the Apelles of his age, Rubens
was eulogized by Philippe Chifflet without rhetorical exaggeration as “the most learned painter in
the world.”2
Born to Flemish parents in Siegen, Westphalia, Rubens was raised in Antwerp, where he attended
the Latin school. He probably concluded his formal education by age thirteen but remained an avid
reader all his life, accumulating an extensive acquaintance with classical and humanist literature. The
philologist Gaspar Scioppius wrote as early as 1609, “I do not know what to praise most in my friend
Rubens: his mastery of painting ... or his knowledge of all aspects of belles lettres, or finally, that fine
judgment which inevitably attends such fascinating conversation.”3 He was apprenticed successively
to three local artists, the landscapist Tobias Verhaecht (1561-1631) and the history painters Adam
van Noordt (1562-1641) and Otto van Veen (Vanius) (1556-1629). In the last mentioned he found a
particularly sympathetic mentor who during his apprenticeship (1594—98) fostered his humanistic and
literary interests as well as teaching him the artistic tools of the trade and helped shape his first manner.
In addition to absorbing his master’s particular brand of weighted classicism, Rubens undoubtedly
observed the benefits of his practice of executing sketches in oil in brown or gray monochrome on
paper preparatory to his religious and allegorical paintings, engravings, or illustrations for hagiographic
and emblematic literature (fig. I).4 Although Rubens was to develop these practices to a much higher
degree of sophistication in the complexity of his compositions, resolution of figural detail, and, most
dramatically, in his introduction of glorious color, van Veen’s sketches provided important precedents
for Rubens’s own later works.
Rubens became a master in Antwerp in 1598, but as his nephew would later write, he was “seized
with a desire to see Italy and to view at first hand the most celebrated works of art, ancient and modern,
in that country, and to form his art after these models.”5 Embarking in 1600, his first stop in Italy was
Venice, where he could study his beloved Titian, an artist who attracted him throughout his life, as well
Sutton: Introduction 19
Fig. 3. Fig. 4.
Peter Paul Rubens Peter Paul Rubens
Saints Gregoiy, Domitilla, Maurus, and Papianus, 1606 The Adoration of the Shepherds, 1608
Oil on canvas, 146.5 x 120 cm Canvas transferred from panel, 63.5 x 47 cm
On loan from the Federal Republic of Germany. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin inv. GE-492
as the other great Venetian masters, Veronese, Bassano, and notably Tintoretto, who produced oil
sketches. The latter and even more dubiously, Andrea Schiavone are sometimes cited as important early
influences on Rubens’s oil sketches. However, as Julius Held, the authority on Rubens’s oil sketches,
observed, Rubens never sought the impressionistic freedom of Tintoretto, pursuing instead a legibility
of design and coherence of figural definition.6 In this regard, Held correctly suggested that Rubens’s
later oil sketch style comes closer to that of a work like Federico Barocci’s St. Dominic de Guzman
Receiving the Rosary (fig. 2). But Barocci employed oil sketches only sparingly, never to the degree or
as systematically as Rubens. Neither he nor any other Italian master ever attempted to compose whole
decorative cycles with highly complex compositions, elaborate figural motifs, and a colorful and richly
nuanced palette as the Flemish master achieved in his own oil sketches.
While in Italy Rubens found employment in the court of Vincenzo Gonzaga, duke of Mantua, who
possessed an outstanding collection of paintings, boasting works by Raphael, Titian, and Correggio.
The duke permitted the young painter to travel to Florence and Rome, where he feasted on the
achievements of antiquity and the High Renaissance. Rubens also journeyed in the duke’s employ to
the royal court in Madrid, a trip that provided not only a firsthand introduction to the sort of political
intrigue that he would encounter for the rest of his career but also welcome additional exposure to
Italian Renaissance paintings of the first rank. The oil sketches that Rubens executed in conjunction
with commissions while in Italy are often relatively large-scale works, mostly on canvas executed on a
dark “bolus” ground, in a painterly, tenebrous style with a dark overall tonality, sometimes even
depicting night scenes. These differ dramatically from the smaller works on panel painted in a lighter
key and with more color that he would execute after returning north. Examples of these early Italian
period works are the Martyrdom of St. Ursula of about 1602 (Galleria di Palazzo Ducale, Mantua),
The Circumcision of Christ of about 1605 for the altarpiece in S. Ambrogio in Genoa (Akademie der
bildenden Kiinste, Vienna), the studies for the Chiesa Nuova project in Rome, 1608-9 (see, for
example, fig. 3), and The Adoration of the Shepherds of 1608 for the Constantini chapel of the church
of S. Filippo Neri at Fermo (fig. 4).7 The last mentioned attests to the command of complex designs
with free brushwork, dramatic foreshortening, and illumination that Rubens had already achieved in
the oil sketches of his early maturity. The final altarpiece in Fermo reveals many adjustments, but the
essence of the project’s composition is already captured in the sketch.
With the possible exception of some of the sketchier works, such as the Ursula, most of Rubens’s
oil sketches from the Italian period probably functioned as presentation pieces to display the artist’s
concepts to his patrons. An example of an oil sketch of the type (albeit in grisaille and less fully
elaborated) that was used for this purpose in Rome at the time when Rubens first arrived there is
Christoforo Roncalli’s design of 1599-1603 for his altarpiece for St. Peter’s (fig. 5).8 Sketches of this
type showed how the proposed final work would look. In the case of Roncalli’s sketch there were
extensive changes in the final altarpiece, perhaps in part dictated by the patron, which suggests that a
second, presumably lost sketch intervened before the final work. They also served to assure the person
or body commissioning the work that it would conform both to their aesthetic requirements and to
religious and/or courtly standards of decorum and accepted iconography. During his Italian years,
Rubens also executed individual head studies, called tronijen (see cat. 1), that were often kept for
years in the artist’s possession as a repertoire of motifs—essentially creative capital—to be used as
models by the master and his assistants.
When Rubens returned to his native Antwerp
in 1609, it seemed to be an auspicious moment
in the history of the Spanish Netherlands. Fong
mired in a debilitating war with the rebellious
provinces in the North that had seceded to form
the Dutch Protestant Republic, the Southern
Netherlands entered into the Twelve Year Truce
in April of that year, and the economy and
commerce showed signs of recovery. Rubens
wrote, “It is believed our country will flourish
again.”9 On September 23, 1609, he was
appointed court painter to the Spanish Hapsburg
governors, the Archdukes Albert and Isabella,
who maintained a sumptuous and intellectually
vibrant court in Brussels. In addition to the
honor, Rubens was awarded the privilege to
reside in Antwerp rather than Brussels, earned
the sizable annual pension of five hundred florins,
Fig. 5.
Christoforo Roncalli, called Cavaliere delle
Pomerance (1552-1626)
Saphira Expiring before St. Peter
Grisaille oil sketch on canvas, 124.5 x 85 cm
Sale London (Sotheby’s), December 7, 1994, lot 29
and was exempt from all the regulations and duties of the local guild. This last provision was essential
for the operation of the large studio that Rubens soon gathered around himself. Although Rubens had
executed oil sketches during his years in Italy, with the creation of his burgeoning studio in Antwerp,
the oil sketch became an ever more important and central tool in his practice.
The archdukes managed to restore in part the regional economy, instill a nascent sense of
nationalism, and raise the morale of the people. The pious couple’s primary directive was to
reinvigorate the Catholic faith in the region. Unlike their predecessors, they did not attempt to
“Hispanicize” Flanders; rather, they sought to forge a new Catholic nation, a citadel or bulwark for
the religious war. Originally the center of the Protestant revolt, Antwerp proved that there are none
so zealous as the recently converted. While Brussels might function as the official seat of power,
Antwerp—with all its economic, cultural, social, and intellectual resources—became the new spiritual
capital, the Civitas Dei. Her established religious and monastic orders (Capuchins, Franciscans,
Augnstinians, Carmelites, Norbertians, etc.) as well as lay societies multiplied dramatically, with none
more powerful, dynamic, and versatile than the Jesuits. Indeed, the religious orders became so thick on
the ground that in 1632 the Catholic monarch, Philip IV, worried to his brother, the Cardinal Infante,
that “They will choke and die like too many trees in a garden.”10 The resolutions of the Council of
Trent (1545-63) were followed scrupulously, and Antwerp became an important center of religious
publishing and thought. It is also important to remember that the archdukes’ success in reconverting
Fig. 6. Fig. 7.
The Raising of the Cross, c. 1610 The Raising of the Cross, 1610-11
Oil on panel, 67 x 51 cm (center panel) Oil on panel, 460 x 340 cm (center panel)
Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. MNR 411 Onze-Lieve-Vrouwkerk, Antwerp
?2 Drawn by the Brush: Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens
Fig. 8. Fig. 9.
Man Pushing up the Cross Descent from, the Cross, 1611-12
Black chalk with white heightening, Pen and brown ink and wash over black chalk, 43.5 x 38 cm
48.8 x 31.5 cm The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, inv. OR 5496
Royal Collections, The Hague, inv. AL/29(1)
the Spanish Netherlands to Catholicism was part of a trend throughout Europe. At the moment of the
newlyweds’ entry into Antwerp in 1599, about half of Europe was Protestant; by 1650 only one-fifth
of the Continent remained so. Throughout the lands under strict Hapsburg control, for example in
Poland, there were mass conversions back to Catholicism.
Throughout the Flemish region new churches were founded and old ones refurbished, especially
those damaged by the recent iconoclasm (.Beeldenstorm, beginning in 1566), thus creating an
unprecedented demand for religious paintings. With the help of his studio, Rubens produced more
than sixty altarpieces during his career. He worked for virtually every Catholic religious order in
the Spanish Netherlands and many abroad, designing altarpieces and religious paintings, tapestries,
sculpture, architectural surrounds for altarpieces, and frontispieces for religious texts. These altarpieces
and large-scale and broadcast projects reasserted the connection between political power and spiritual
authority that had been undermined by the Protestant revolt and iconoclasm.
Among the major commissions that Rubens executed in his early years in Antwerp was the large
triptych of The Raising of the Cross for the high altarpiece of St. Walburga of 1610-11 for which he
again submitted oil sketches (fig. 6) to the church authorities for their approval.11 In the final altarpiece
(fig. 7) he increased the angle of the composition and turned Christ more frontally into the light, so
that the cross rises with more assurance and Christ, now the great spiritual athlete, is truly the focus
of the altarpiece and, in turn, of the ritual of the Mass. While refining the composition, Rubens made
Fig. 10.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Descent from the Cross, 1611-12
Oil on panel, 115.2 x 76.2 cm
Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, London,
inv. P. 1947. LF. 359
drawings for the individual figures (see, for

example, fig. 8). He also made compositional
drawings for some of these early altarpieces.
For example, a pen and ink drawing in the
Hermitage (fig. 9) is an early study for the
altarpiece The Descent from the Cross that he
executed in 1611-14 for the Guild of the
Harquebusiers (.Kloveniers glide) for the altarpiece
in their chapel in Antwerp Cathedral (Onze-
Lieve-Vrouwekerk), the final execution of which
was again preceded by an oil sketch serving as a
presentation piece for the central panel (fig. 10).12
By this point, Rubens’s oil sketches exhibit much
more color, greater translucency in the paint layers, and the brushwork flows with a new assurance.
Not all sketches for projects met with approval; some patrons required changes.13 For example,
Rubens executed a large oil sketch that he described as a dissegno colorito in 1612 for a triptych for the
high altar of the cathedral in Ghent depicting the Conversion of St. Bavo (National Gallery, London,
no. NG57.1).14 Although the design was accepted by the chapter, when the bishop who had ordered
the triptych died, his successor decided to erect instead a sculpted altarpiece, which in turn became the
victim of changes. When yet another bishop was appointed in 1622, Rubens was at last recalled to the
project. He had to abandon his original triptych design to accommodate the intervening alterations
to the project but finally produced the altarpiece that still hangs in St. Bavo’s Cathedral in Ghent. In
at least one other case, patrons were presented with options through oil sketches. On April 22, 1611,
Rubens submitted to the canons and church wardens of Antwerp Cathedral two different sketches for
the Assumption of the Virgin for the high altar. One of these has been identified with a sketch in the
Hermitage,15 while the second seems to be lost, but perhaps is recorded in a drawn copy in the print
room in Budapest.16 There is some dispute about whether the canons could not make a choice between
Rubens’s two sketches, or between Rubens and the other competitor for the commission, his teacher
Otto van Veen.17 However, it is of interest that Rubens offered two different solutions to the problem,
one depicting the Virgin’s Assumption with her Coronation by Christ, and the other, as he thereafter
would consistently depict the subject, with her soaring heavenward on a cloud surrounded by putti.
The final commission for Antwerp, after Rubens executed several intervening oil sketches for different
altarpieces on the same theme, was completed only in 1626.
Details surrounding Rubens’s receipt of the commission for the harquebusiers’ new altarpiece in
1611 are unknown, but the guild’s chairman was Nicolaas Rockox, who had been a crucial patron of
Rubens after he returned to Antwerp. Rubens’s Samson and Delilah of about 1609-10 (see cat. 2, fig. 1)
was painted for Rockox, who was also instrumental in the artist being awarded the commission for the
Fig. 11.
Frans Floris
Head of a Woman
Hannema-de Stuers Foundation, Zwolle,
The Netherlands, inv. 2071
Adoration of the Magi of 1608-9 for the town hall

of Antwerp (see the sketch for the commission
from Groningen, cat. 6, fig. 2). Rubens’s studio
practices in these years are revealed by the
Samson and Delilah, which was preceded
drawing as well as an oil sketch (see cat. 2, and
its fig. 2). The sketch is a ravishingly beautiful
little study that compacts and condenses all the
power and drama as well as the glowing color of
the large final version into the intimate confines
of a small panel. The large and impressive final
version makes only minor adjustments to the
composition and format of the scene but offers a virtuoso refinement of surface detail and texture on
the grander scale. An illustrative example of Rubens’s style during his first years back in Antwerp, the
sketch advertises his admiration for his Italian sources, with homage not only to Michelangelo but
also to Caravaggio and Tintoretto, while displaying brilliantly confident brushwork.
Most of the large projects that Rubens designed were executed with the assistance of pupils and
collaborators working under the master’s supervision guided by his designs.18 With the probable
exception of the decorations for the Torre de la Parada (which were produced at high speed under great
pressure toward the end of Rubens’s career), Rubens took an active interest and role in all stages of the
production of his large painted decorative cycles, personally applying the finishing touches. However,
in the case of his designs for illustrations, engravings and woodcuts, sculpture, architecture, decorations
for public pageants, and tapestries he naturally turned the final execution over to specialists. In most
cases, the oil sketch is the last stage at which we can consistently study the unadulterated essence of
Rubens’s personal creativity and involvement. The newly reemerged Adoration of the Magi of about
1617-18 (cat. 6) is an example of an oil sketch that served as a model for a large religious painting now
in Lyon (cat. 6, fig. 2), which was probably executed by Rubens with the assistance of his workshop.
In setting up a large studio of assistants in Antwerp, Rubens followed the precedent of Frans
Floris (c. 1519/20-1570), who had risen to international fame and wealth in the previous century.19
Like Rubens, he had traveled to Italy to study the achievements of the Renaissance and enjoyed the
patronage of kings and princes, and was celebrated for his intelligence and industry. Floris also provided
a model of an artist who had risen above the menial lot of many of his fellow painters to enjoy wealth
and social standing. Karel van Mander recounts his life in detail, noting that he had as many as 120
pupils and engaged his assistants in working from his drawings and designs. “After he had sketched with
chalk the subject he had in mind, Floris allowed the pupils to proceed, saying ‘Now put such and such
faces in here.’ He had a number of examples on panel always at hand.”20 Some of these head studies,
or tronien as they were called, by Floris have survived (fig. 11). They seem to have functioned as a
Fig. 12.
Peter Paul Rubens
Lion Hunt, c. 1615
Oil on panel, 74 x 105.7 cm
The National Gallery,
London, inv. NG853.1
repertoire of anonymous human types with fairly generic expressions of emotion that could be
conveniently inserted into the context of a larger narrative picture as need arose. Rubens’s own oil
sketches of head studies seem to have been used in a similar fashion (see cats. 1 and 4) and were kept on
hand in the studio to be used years later. Most have a generalized mood or expression, but some, such
the carefully observed and powerfully conceived Head of a Negro from the Hyde Collection (cat. 7), are
more individualized. Van Mander ultimately made his biography of Floris into a morality tale, damning
the ruinous effects of drink on painters’ careers, so the parallels with Rubens’s private life break down.
But similarities exist in some of their practices and certainly their magnetic draw for assistants (“Men
with the best-equipped minds, who had studied previously with other masters for a long time and who
had great experience, came to Floris”).21
Though in most cases deliberately unrecognizable in the final product as the work of separate
hands, the paintings that Rubens’s studio produced were executed with the help of some of the greatest
Flemish masters of the day, including Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641), Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678), and
the animal specialist Frans Snyders (1579-1657). Rubens’s foreign patrons were not only interested in
altarpieces but also clamored for hunt scenes to decorate their palaces or lodges, often involving exotic
beasts, such as lions, tigers, leopards, wolves, even crocodiles and hippopotamuses.22 Rubens’s oil sketch
of about 1615 in the National Gallery, London (fig. 12), may be an early idea for a Lion and Tiger Hunt
that Rubens executed by 1617 for Maximilian, duke of Bavaria. It is the type of wonderfully animated
sketch capturing all the action and horrific violence of the hunt that the master would then paint on a
grand scale with the aid of assistants.23 Rubens went on executing hunt scenes until the very end of his
life (see cats. 41-43).
In a few cases we know the names of Rubens’s assistants from the contract that survives for
the commission. As we have observed, the Jesuits were a relatively late arrival among the Catholic
orders but soon thrived because of their professional versatility, cosmopolitanism, and social mobility.
Regarded by the Vatican as the light cavalry in the war against the Protestants, the Jesuits moved swiftly
into communities as teachers and mentors. By 1648 there were 680 Jesuit priests in Antwerp alone.
Rubens became a member of the Jesuit Sodality in Antwerp and worked on the Jesuits’ magnificent new
church, providing designs for sculptural details, numerous paintings, and possibly even contributing
to its architecture. In addition to the two large paintings for the high altar depicting the Miracle of
St. Ignatius Loyola, the society’s founder, and the Miracles of St. Francis (which, together with the
large-scale sketches for the scenes, are in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) executed by Rubens
in about 1617, he was also commissioned in March 1620 to create thirty-nine designs for ceiling
decorations to be completed in scarcely eighteen months.24 The contract stipulated that the Father
Superior was to select the subjects and retain the right to change them as he saw fit. Rubens was to
conceive the initial designs, but the final execution could be assigned to van Dyck and his other
assistants, provided that Rubens retouched them as necessary. In addition, Rubens agreed to paint
another altarpiece for a side altar or turn over the oil sketches, as he had for the two paintings for the
high altar. It is a measure of the regard in which Rubens held his oil sketches, which had essentially
become the repository of his ideas, that he chose to paint the additional altarpiece rather than
relinquish the sketches.
The vast scale and deadline for this commission required that the artist work very quickly, which
may account for the fact that only two preparatory drawings for the series are known. Flowever, there
are seven small sketches in brunaille and grisaille connected with the project that seem to have been
the artist’s premieres pensees. These gossamer-thin and summary little works, scarcely more than
notations in paint, are called today bozzetti, a term that a recent study of the language of the oil
sketch in the seventeenth century has suggested was only just evolving in Rubens’s day.25 The little
sketch of St. Barbara from the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (fig. 13) captures in the swiftest and
most economical terms the painter’s first thoughts about the design. It depicts St. Barbara viewed like
the other scenes from below at a steep 45-degree perspective as she runs from her father toward a
tower where she is rescued by angels. The more elaborate colored sketch, today called a modello, of the
same theme from the Dulwich Picture Gallery (fig. 14) completes the design, which, when approved by
the church fathers, was carried out with assistants on the plafonds for the ceiling. The organization of
the scenes alternated New Testament scenes and Old Testament prefigurations, following a traditional
program of type and antetype. Several of these wonderfully animated modelli are exhibited here,
including the Last Supper from the Seattle Art Museum (cat. 10) and St. Gregory of Nazianus from the
Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo (cat. 9), for which one of the rare chalk drawings exists in the
Fogg Art Museum (cat. 9, fig. 1). By this point Rubens had abandoned the dark tonality of the works
of his first years back in Antwerp and favored lighter-toned works. His sketches now are keyed to the
smooth off-white gesso ground with a thin brown or gray layer of priming applied with a broad brush
that deliberately leaves a streaky surface. Held evocatively described the latter as providing an “optical
vibration” that has a unifying pictorial effect on the whole.26
An essential role of Rubens’s studio in spreading his fame and enriching his business was the
production of reproductive prints, primarily woodcuts and engravings after his paintings and designs.27
Fig. 13.
Peter Paul Rubens
St. Barbara Pursued by Her Father
(bozzetto)
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford Chambers
Hall Gift, 1855, inv. L0387.1
Opposite: Fig. 14.

Peter Paul Rubens
St. Barbara Fleeing from Her Father
{modello)
Dulwich Picture Gallery, London,
inv. DPG125
An avid protector of what today might be called his “intellectual property,” Rubens went to great
lengths to patent his designs not only in the Spanish Netherlands but also in France and even in the
Dutch Republic. In choosing a printmaker, Rubens may have consulted the great Hendrick Goltzius on
his first trip to Holland in 1612. Jacob Matham made an engraving after the Samson and Deliliah (cat. 2,
fig. 3) of 1609. By 1618 Rubens had settled on a local engraver, Lucas Vorsterman (1595-1675). At first
the two worked harmoniously, but the strain of such fastidious work and the master’s high standards
seem to have driven Vorsterman to a mental breakdown, during which he even was reputed to have
threatened Rubens’s life. Thereafter Rubens employed different printmakers, including the engravers
Paulus Pontius (see cat. 29, fig. 1), Boetius a Bolswert (see under cat. 30), Hans Witdoek (cat. 39, fig. 3),
and the woodcut specialist Christoffel Jegher (c. 1590-1652). Initially Rubens would execute a very
exact drawing of the model that the engraver would follow; Bellori reports that van Dyck was employed
to do this chore when he was in Rubens’s studio.28 However in his mature career, Rubens preferred
to execute finely detailed oil sketches in grisaille with some small touches of color, as he did in the
splendid sketch The Road to Calvary in Berkeley (cat. 29) for Pontius’s engraving of 1632, or of the
sketch the Last Supper in a private collection (cat. 30), which subtly alters the design of his altarpiece
for the church of St. Rombout in Mechelen of 1631 for the print after it by Bolswert. Occasionally
many years might pass between the execution of the prototype and the oil sketch for the print after it.
Rubens’s famous altarpiece The Raising of the Cross of 1610-11 for the Antwerp church of St. Walburga
was not engraved until twenty-seven years later. In the large and highly refined sketch that Rubens
executed (cat. 39) for Hans Witdoek to follow, he unified the three scenes of the original triptych to
create a continuous landscape composed of the central scene of the Elevation of the Cross flanked by
the group of the Virgin and St. John with mourners on a rocky bluff on the left and the two thieves to
be crucified with mounted Roman solders on the right. It is unknown why Rubens or conceivably the
Fig. 15.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Arrival in Marseille, c. 1622
Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. 95
church wardens chose to issue the print at this

time, but it is dedicated to Cornelis van der
Geest, the artist’s friend and a great patron of
the arts who helped him secure the commission
so many years before.
After the early 1620s Rubens evidently
abandoned or perhaps simply painted over the
small monochrome bozzetti of the type prepared
for the Jesuit Ceiling. Compositional drawings executed in advance of oil sketches also became
scarce in the 1620s (only three, for example, exist for the entire Medicis cycle), as the increasing size
and scale of the decorative projects that Rubens undertook and the painter’s own mastery of the
technique transformed the oil sketch from one of a battery of compositional devices to the central
organizational tool of his workshop. Rubens’s oil sketches not only served as the guarantee to patrons
of the authenticity of the final corporate product of the workshop but also became the most efficient
means of organizing the efforts of a team of artists and artisans working on a grand scale and on
deadline. By 1625 Rubens could opine, “I am the busiest and most harassed man in the world,” but
of course he had brought it on himself.21’
Four years earlier, in 1621, a Danish physician, Otto Sperling, had visited Rubens’s studio and
marveled at his powers of concentration. He found “the great artist at work. While still painting he
was having Tacitus read aloud to him and at the same time was dictating a letter. When we kept silent
so as not to disturb him with our talk, he himself began to talk to us while still continuing to work,
to listen to the reading and to dictate the letter, answering our questions and thus displaying his
astonishing powers.”30 While the Dane surely exaggerated for effect Rubens’s remarkable capacity for
“multitasking,” he also confirmed the importance of studio assistants to Rubens’s productivity. Sperling
observed, “a good number of young men each occupied on a different work, for which Rubens had
provided a chalk drawing with touches of color added here and there. The young men had to work
these up fully in paint, until finally Mr. Rubens would add the last touches with the brush and colors.
All this is considered as Rubens’s work; thus he has gained a large fortune, and kings and princes have
heaped gifts and jewels upon him.”31 While the doctor refers to colored drawings rather than oil
sketches, the latter became the central compositional and organizational tool of his studio. With
oil sketches Rubens could work out ideas swiftly, especially in color, and orchestrate the efforts of his
assistants with maximum efficiency. Yet it is interesting to observe how his approach to sketching in
oil changed over time, evolving with each new project. Just as Rubens famously studied other artists’
works all his life and read assiduously every day to sharpen his mind, so too he constantly sought new
approaches to his tested techniques.
Fig. 16.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Triumph of Henry IV, 1630
The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, Rogers Fund, 1942 (42.187)
As the descendant on his mother’s side of a tapestry manufacturer and someone who would
marry the daughter of a tapestry dealer in 1630, Rubens was closely allied with the flourishing
Flemish tapestry industry and had begun designing tapestry cycles as early as 1616. The series of
eight tapestries devoted to the Roman consul Decius Mus, commissioned by a Genoese businessman
in November of that year, was the first in a group of major tapestry series that Rubens would design.32
The unprecedented subject may have been his own suggestion, since it celebrated values personally
important to the artist—heroic stoicism and faith in divine wisdom—while providing an opportunity
for Rubens to demonstrate his extensive archaeological knowledge of classical costumes and customs.
The modelli for this series (e.g., cat. 5) are on a larger format than many of his subsequent oil sketches,
and the large paintings on canvas (rather than on paper, as was his practice thereafter) that served as
cartoons (see cat. 5, fig. 2) to be followed by the weavers are exceptionally resolved and accomplished,
suggesting a greater participation by Rubens himself than became his custom.
A later tapestry series that provided Rubens with another opportunity to visualize Roman life in
heroic terms was the Life of Emperor Constantine (see cats. 11 and 12) designed in about 1622.33 As the
first emperor to convert to Christianity, Constantine was an ideal historical figure with whom to flatter
a living monarch, and it has often been assumed that Louis XIII of France commissioned the series,
although it may have been a speculative venture between the manufacturer and the artist. Once more
Rubens adapted motifs from classical art, borrowing the emperor’s pose in The Triumphant Entry of
Constantine (cat. 11), like the allocutio composition of the Decius Mus (cat. 5), from prototypes on the
Arch of Constantine in Rome. The brilliantly assured brushwork, the splendid delicacy of color, and
the subtlety of tones in the Indianapolis sketch are surrendered in the broad forms of the final tapestry.
Rubens had been called to Paris in 1622 by Marie de Medicis, widow of Henry IV of France and
mother of Louis XIII, to decorate her new home, the Luxembourg Palace, with two vast decorative
cycles, one illustrating her life and the other her late husband’s military career—potentially a project
comprising forty-eight canvases and the largest undertaking of the artist’s career.34 The former cycle
in its completed state is still preserved in all its impressive magnificence in the Musee du Louvre, while
the latter was never completed. The challenges of working for the querulous queen and celebrating
her inglorious life put all Rubens’s diplomatic skills and genius for inventive classical allegory to the
test. What to do, for example, about The Flight from Paris (a scene wisely suppressed from the final
cycle), depicting her ignoble escape from arrest by her own son’s forces? Rubens as always rose to the
challenge, depicting, for example, her arrival by sea in Marseille in 1600 following her proxy marriage
to the king as a event welcomed not only by personifications of France and the city of Marseille but
also celebrated by muscular naiads, tritons, even Neptune himself, all writhing and churning the
waters (fig. 15). The patron and her advisors retained creative oversight even after the oil sketches
were delivered, requiring changes to individual scenes and discarding and replacing others. However,
the final cycle became a splendid piece of propaganda supporting the divine right of monarchy and
praising the heroine-regent in the tradition of Renaissance poetry as a survivor of adversity who is
vindicated in triumph.
The cycle on Marie’s life was finished by the end of 1624, and Rubens traveled to Paris in March
1625 to apply the final touches. It is a measure of the delicacy of the political situation that, while Louis
XIII and his mother were temporarily reconciled, Rubens himself reported, the queen’s advisor, the
abbe de Saint-Ambroise, had to nimbly prevaricate while explaining the meanings of Rubens’s allegories
when they were shown to the king.35 The project devoted to Henry IV’s life was more ill-fated, plagued
in part by Cardinal Richelieu’s attempts to undermine Rubens, who was then secretly working toward a
diplomatic alliance between England and Spain. While Rubens reported to be hard at work on images
for the project in 1628 (see cat. 26) and later produced three sketches for The Triumph of Henry IV to
decorate the far wall of his gallery in the Luxembourg Palace (fig. 16), the entire project remained
unfinished in February 1631, when the queen mother was banished, to end her days in exile. Rubens
was never paid and the sketches and unfinished paintings remained in his possession until his death.
Although Rubens had been court painter to the archdukes in Brussels since 1609, they had awarded
him few commissions. With the conclusion of the Twelve Year Truce in 1621 and the death of Albert
two years later, Archduchess Isabella increasingly relied on Rubens not only as a personal advisor and
diplomatic emissary (especially in dealings with the Dutch) but also as her painter. Since her husband
Fig. 17.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Adoration of the Eucharist, c. 1626
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs.
Martin A. Ryerson Collection, inv. 1937.1012
died, Isabella had joined the Order of the Poor Clares and wore their black habit. The order’s convent,
the Descalzas Reales, was attached to the Franciscan church in Madrid. It had royal connections, and
the Infanta had even been educated there. Renowned for their veneration of the Eucharist, the Poor
Clares celebrated three feast days in connection with the sacrament, including Good Friday and Corpus
Christi. The latter honored the institution of the Eucharist and was celebrated in the convent with
great splendor, while the rest of the year the church was conspicuous for its unembellished austerity.
Isabella commissioned from Rubens designs for a series of twenty tapestries to be woven on the theme
of the Triumph of the Eucharist.36 The tapestries were to decorate and completely cover the interior
walls of the chapel of the convent on feast days and during its octave. Rubens began his work about
1625 with large composite oil sketches depicting the final appearance of the installed tapestries. The
sketch in Chicago (fig. 17), depicting the Universal Worship of the Eucharist, is a composite view of
how the tapestries would appear on the end altar wall, typically reversed to accommodate the weavers.
However, a set of six bozzetti, preserved in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (see, for example, cat.
19, fig. 1), also exist for the series and are unusual among Rubens’s oil sketches for being painted in the
same direction as the final tapestries. Unlike the bozzetti for the Jesuit Ceiling but similar to those
for the Medicis cycle, these works are executed with thin veils and accents of color. The individual
panels were probably cut from a larger panel that originally resembled the Chicago sketch (save for
the reversal of the designs) and seem to have been used by Rubens to work out the format, lighting,
and perspective of the final decorations.
The complex program probably was largely Rubens’s invention but may have had the input of
iconographic advisors at Isabella’s court. It was conceived, in the Renaissance tradition of Raphael and
Giulio Romano, as a series of fictive tapestries organized within an architectural framework, consistent
in appearance from ground level, with two tiers, the Tuscan order below and Solomonic columns above.
Four Old Testament prefigurations of the Eucharist were depicted, including Abraham and Melchizedek
and The Gathering of Manna (cats. 19 and 17); no New Testament scenes were included, only allegorical
triumphs in traditional processions (fig. 18) and victories, since the observance of the sacrament of the
Eucharist made the appearance of Christ redundant. The wall devoted to the universal celebration of
the Eucharist also depicted the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Adoring the Eucharist (cat. 18) and well as their
secular counterparts, and images of celestial musical accompaniment. Finally, the rich program included
allegorical celebrations of Christian Charity Enlightening the World (cat. 20) and the Succession of the
Popes as fulfillment of the apostolic succession—proof of the Catholic Church’s legitimacy (cat. 21).
To aid the workshop in transferring the designs of the modelli to the cartoons, Rubens seems to have
Fig. 18.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Triumph of Faith
Oil on panel, 63 x 89 cm
Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de
Belgique, Brussels, inv. 7442
squared the panel for transfer, as has recently been demonstrated was his practice in the later Achilles
tapestry series;37 remnants of the markings of a grid, subsequently erased on the surface, are visible
along the edges of the sketch for Abraham and Melchizedek.38 The final tapestries were woven and
delivered in 1627. The thought and effort expended on this complex program and the unprecedented
thoroughness with which Rubens executed these fully resolved, relatively thickly brushed, and highly
finished modelli suggest an exceptional personal and spiritual commitment. Few artistic programs
produced during the Counter-Reformation offer a more forceful illustration of the triumph of the
Church and the consummation of its dogma.
Throughout the twenties Rubens met a burgeoning demand for altarpieces both at home and
abroad. For example, in about 1623-24 Rubens produced for the Prince-Bishop Veit Adam of Frising
a modello (cat. 14) for the high altarpiece depicting the Virgin as the Woman of the Apocalypse that
was delivered by the beginning of the following year, despite last-minute changes in the canvas’s final
format. He seems to have won the commission over the aging German painter Hans Rottenhammer,
who could not meet the client’s accelerated deadlines. The enormous final canvas (553 x 369 cm! cat.
14, fig. 1) with its complex knot of bodies creatively met the bishop’s desire for a work “applicable to
Fig. 19.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Virgin and Child Adored by Saints,
c. 1627-28
Stadelsches Kunstinstitut und Stadtische
Galerie, Frankfurt am Main, inv. 464
all feast days of the Virgin”; the vision

of the apocalyptic woman was regarded
as a reference both to the Assumption
of the Virgin and to the Immaculate
Conception. During this period Rubens
also did not neglect his obligations to his
own local church patrons. The two large
sketches (figs. 19 and 20) of the Virgin
and Child Enthroned with Saints for the
church of the Augustinian fathers in Antwerp were executed in about 1627-28, just before Rubens’s
departure on a diplomatic mission to Spain. Like the St. Bavo altarpiece from the previous decade,
they suggest the iconographic intervention of the artist’s patrons in the design at the modello phase;
several saints, including the ever more popular St. Joseph, who now appears at the back of the throne
(fig. 20), were added after the initial design was submitted. The lovely sketch for the Glorification of the
Eucharist (cat. 33) for the high altar of the Carmelite church in Antwerp probably was executed after
1633, although the final altarpiece by Rubens’s student Gerard Seghers (1591-1651) was not completed
until 1642. It depicts Christ holding up the eucharistic chalice while trampling death. To one side are
Old Testament figures, Melchizedek and Elijah, familiar to us from the Eucharist tapestry series as
prefigurations, and to the other side, St. Paul and St. Cyril of Alexandria, who are also associated
with the Eucharist. It is painted in a much lighter and airier painting style than the modelli of the
previous decade.
While in Paris installing the Medicis cycle, Rubens had met George Villiers, the duke of
Buckingham, who was serving as an escort for Marie de Medicis’s daughter, Henrietta Maria. The
latter’s proxy marriage to King Charles I of England in the newly decorated Luxembourg Palace not
only set the deadline for Rubens’s completion of his work but also helped secure an alliance between
Britain, France, and the Dutch Republic against Spain. Buckingham proved to be an unprincipled
intriguer, but he had the king’s favor, a substantial fortune, and a connoisseur’s eye. Eventually he
became an important patron of Rubens, commissioning a ceiling for his London residence, York
House, depicting the Glorification of the Duke of Buckingham (see Wieseman essay, fig. 12),
as well as a large allegorical equestrian portrait of himself (cat. 15, fig. 1), both of which were
completed by 1627 and destroyed by fire in 1949.39 Rubens also sold Buckingham his collection
of antiquities for the princely sum of 84,000 florins, with which he bought no fewer than eight
houses in Antwerp.
By this point in his career, Rubens had attained international fame, wealth, property, and rank.
Fig. 20.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Virgin and Child Adored by Saints, c. 1627-28
Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. 780
Philip IV made him a peer in 1624 for his

special dedication to the Infanta Isabella. In
1629 he received a Master of Arts from
Cambridge University in England, and the
following year Charles I knighted him. The
pinnacle of his social ascendancy was reached
when he purchased the castle Het Steen in 1635
and assumed the title Lord of Steen. His rare
later self-portraits convey a sense of aristocratic
bearing. But following the death of his first wife, Isabella Brant, probably from the plague in 1626,
Rubens entered into a restless period in his life when he undertook more diplomatic assignments
and political missions. It is a measure of how remarkably well organized and efficient his studio had
become that the workshop continued to execute vast altarpieces and decorative projects. Even during
his absence for diplomatic sojourns, their production scarcely abated. The oil sketches remained a
crucial component in Rubens’s managerial and impresarial efficiency and success. When Rubens met
with Buckingham’s agent, the artist-diplomat Balthasar Gerbier, in Delft in July 1627, ostensibly to
discuss the sale of his collection, it provided a perfect pretext for secret discussions of an armistice
between Britain, France, and the United Provinces. From September 1628 to 1629 he was in Madrid
as Isabella’s ambassador and was later posted by her to London until March 1630. Initially Philip IV
thought it unseemly that Isabella should choose a mere artist as her representative (“I am displeased
at your mixing up a painter in affairs of such importance”).40 But Rubens soon so won over the Spanish
monarch that he was chosen to carry out the latter’s successful negotiations with England, remarking
that “The merit of Rubens, his great devotion during his services, justify everything one can do for
him.”41 And Charles I allowed that he, too, was pleased to know a person of such merit.
Rubens’s fourth and final venture into tapestry design is the The Life of Achilles series.42 Consisting
of eight tapestries, it was executed about 1630-35 for an unknown client, possibly Charles I of England,
Philip IV of Spain, or some other noble patron, such as Frederik Hendrik, the prince of Orange. There
is a remote possibility that they were created as a speculative venture by Rubens and his future father-
in-law, the tapestry maker Daniel Fourment, in whose possession a set of the tapestries as well as the
oil sketches (schetsen) appeared in an inventory of 1643. However, since the costs of designing and
producing a new set of tapestries were extremely high, it is unlikely that they were made on spec.
The selection of the theme may have been the patron’s choice, but the choice of the individual scenes
suggests Rubens’s learned participation. For example, in the sketch depicted here (cat. 27), the subject
of the return by Agamemnon of Achilles’ favorite slave, Briseis, is based, not on the laconic account in
Homer, but enriched by the elaborated tale of their relationship in Ovid’s love poetry. Given the
literary sources of his later paintings for the Torre de la Parada, Ovid’s writings were known in detail
to Rubens and presumably would have been especially fresh in his mind at the moment of conception
of the Achilles cycle, when he was courting the young Helene Fourment. The Detroit sketch is the
only one of the series not preserved in the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam. As last
year’s exhibition in Rotterdam and Madrid devoted to the series revealed, Rubens again revised his
system for tapestry production with this project.43 With no preparatory drawings, we again assume
that the boundlessly inventive Rubens, now the most confident of masters at the height of his powers,
worked up his first ideas in oil sketches. Rubens’s Achilles sketches are far more finished than the
bozzetti for the Jesuit Ceiling or those for the Triumph of the Eucharist tapestry series (see cat. 22),
yet they are scarcely so resolved as the modelli that Rubens personally executed for the latter series
(cat. 19, and fig. 18). In the Achilles series, he assigned the execution of the modelli (now preserved in
the Prado, see for example, cat. 27, fig. 1; the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Pau; and the Courtauld Institute
of Art, London) virtually entirely to his assistants. The modelli are two and half times larger than
Rubens’s sketches and executed in a far more opaque, less atmospheric style with a more saturated,
less subtle palette. The final cartoons on paper are lost, but they again were undoubtedly executed
by the workshop and, like the final tapestries, were four times the size of the modelli. Thus Rubens
continued to vary and refine his production technique with each new major project, apparently
seeking ever more efficient, time-saving practices.
The most beguiling of publicists, Rubens had written a famous letter to William Trumbull, the
English agent in Brussels, in 1621, when he completed the decorations for the Jesuit Ceiling in
Antwerp. Already brazenly self-promoting, he sought the commission to create the future decorations
for the Banqueting House at Whitehall in London, solicitously suggesting that “I shall always be very
much pleased to receive the honor of [His Majesty’s] commands; and regarding the hall in the new
palace, I confess that by natural instinct I am more inclined to execute very large works rather than
small curiosities. My talent is such that no undertaking, no matter how large in size, how varied in
subject, has ever exceeded my confidence.”44 In the intervening decade he certainly made good on
his boast. The most important part of Whitehall Palace was the Banqueting House, designed in a
revolutionary classical style by Inigo Jones and constructed between 1619 and 1622. It was here that
the king received foreign dignitaries, held public audiences, and entertained his guests. In winning the
commission to decorate the hall, probably in the late 1620s, Rubens was awarded the most prestigious
public commission received by any artist in Britain in his lifetime. The Whitehall Ceiling today
remains the only decorative scheme by Rubens still in its original position.
Little is known about the origins or details of the commission or its development as a theme, but
the project seems to have been sought by Rubens for at least a half dozen years and especially cultivated
during his period of diplomatic travel in the late 1620s.45 Although the documents have not been found,
the commission had certainly been awarded by the time that he executed the sketches in 1630-32. The
ceiling was divided into nine sections, consisting of three major canvases in the center, one oval and
two rectangular, depicting the allegorical glorification of the reigns of James I and his son, the ruling
monarch, Charles I. The program extols the divine right of kings and highlights James I’s devotion to
the cause of peace. Following the model of Veronese’s ceiling in S. Sebastiano, the individual canvases
are oriented in different directions from one another to enable the spectator to view the ceiling at a
45-degree angle from different positions in the hall. The system was already worked out in part in
a single large preliminary sketch in grisaille from Glynde Place (fig. 21), in which Rubens not only
depicted the central scene of The Apotheosis of James I but also made quick visual notations about six
of the other eight scenes in the ceiling. This is one of the most complex and beautiful sketches of his
career and, unlike the others for Whitehall, may have been executed in England before he returned to
Antwerp. Not unlike the Chicago sketch for The Adoration of the Eucharist, which posited the tapestries’
appearance as an ensemble (fig. 17), but executed in a much freer, more summary fashion, the Glynde
sketch works out the central plafond’s relationship to some of the other scenes in the ceiling and
also seems to document some of the artist’s first thoughts about these subsidiary scenes. This type of
multiple use of a single oil sketch was a new practice for Rubens and heralds his use in this project of
Fig. 21.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Adoration of James I and Other Studies, c. 1630
The National Gallery, London, on loan from a
private collection, inv. L79
individual sketches for more than one figural motif or viewpoint in a single panel (see cats. 32 and 31).
The first scene that a visitor viewed on entering the Banqueting Hall was The Apotheosis of James 1
for which there is a beautiful sketch in Vienna (cat. 32, fig. 1). James I is enthroned in the center of the
composition amid soaring Solomonic columns (no doubt as a tribute to the new Solomon). Deliberately
reminiscent of Christ in scenes of the Last Judgment, he dispatches the forces of revolution and
sedition while elevating the powers of good. To the right Mercury and Minerva cast down the
personifications of Rebellion and Envy, while well-upholstered figures of Peace and Plenty embrace
at the left. The sketch for the latter in the Yale Center for British Art (cat. 32) depicts in addition to
the two colorful female personifications in each other’s arms the architecture above James’s throne.
However, the latter is executed in a different scale and from a different viewpoint than the figures,
no doubt to guide Rubens’s assistants in their execution of this difficult piece of perspective. One
continually marvels at Rubens’s flexibility and inventiveness in seeking new functions and uses for
his oil sketches. The benefits of peace and prosperity were naturally much on Rubens’s mind at this
moment, as he had personally negotiated the truce between England and Spain in 1629 and had
presented Charles I with the gift of his large painting Minerva Protects Pax from. Mars (Peace and War)
(The National Gallery, London, inv. 46).
Having decorated whole churches and palaces, Rubens was justified in boasting that no project had
ever exceeded his invention or courage. So when the challenge to decorate an entire city arose he was
equal to the task. With the appointment of the Cardinal Infante Ferdinand as the incoming governor of
the Spanish Netherlands, the new ruler’s authority was officially sanctioned in Antwerp in April 1635 by
Fig. 22.
Peter Paul Rubens
Stage of Welcome, 1634
The State Hermitage Museum,
St. Petersburg, inv. GE 498
a triumphal entry (Blijde Inkomst).46 For this momentous event, vast decorations were erected that
acknowledged in traditional fashion the oath of allegiance of the governed and recognition by the ruler
of the rights and privileges of the citizens. With a complex symbolic program devised together with
his friends Jan Caspar Gevartius and Nicolaas Rockox, Rubens set about orchestrating the efforts of an
army of painters, sculptors, and carpenters to construct and decorate a series of large floats, stages, and
arches alluding to the Infante’s achievements and virtues. While most of the set pieces merely reiterated
praise of Ferdinand, Rubens did not fail to make the political point that his country was suffering under
the protracted war with the North; in his design for an arch representing the Temple of Janus, the
doors of which were traditionally shut in Rome during times of peace, the personification of the Fury
of War violently throws the doors open in his design (The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
inv. GE 500). As time was short, Rubens had to forego preparatory drawings, bozzetti, and even oil
sketches for most of the individual paintings, working instead on large panels that served as modelli
for his collaborators. The latter included virtually all the painters in Antwerp, as well as such sculptors
as Hans van Mildert and Erasmus Quellinus the Elder. As an added time-saving device, he did not
complete some parts of his sketches that were to be repeated; for example, in the sketch for the Stage
of Welcome (fig. 22) the pilasters and the sculpture at the top and on the far right were omitted. Only
in the case of the portraits of the Hapsburg emperors, which were to be sculpted in stone for the
colossal Portico of Emperors, would Rubens execute individual monochrome sketches. It is a measure
of the painter’s professionalism and devotion to his city that he expended such energy and creativity
on a project that was to stand only for six weeks before being dismantled.
But for some years Rubens had been retreating from public service to enjoy his private life. In
December 1630 he married Helene Fourment, the daughter of a local tapestry merchant. The bride
was sixteen, the groom fifty-three. He wrote to his friend Pieresc about his decision to remarry: “since
I was not yet inclined to live the abstinent life of a celibate, thinking that, if we must give the first place
to continence, we may enjoy licit pleasures with thankfulness.”47 In explaining his choice of a young
middle-class woman rather than one of the many mature ladies he met at the various courts of Europe,
he plainly wrote, “I chose one who would not blush to see me take my brushes in hand. And to tell the
truth, it would be hard for me to exchange the priceless treasure of liberty for the embraces of an old
woman.”48 On his return home from London to Antwerp, he also begged the Infanta, “as the sole
Fig. 23.
Peter Paul Rubens
Landscape with Tower of Steen,
c. 1635-37
Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin
reward for so many efforts, exemption from such assignments, and permission to serve her in my
own home. Now ... by divine grace, I have found peace of mind, having renounced every sort of
employment outside my blessed profession. Destiny and I have become acquainted . . . and I cut
through ambition’s golden knots in order to reclaim my freedom.”49 Helene and Peter Paul would
have five children, and their growing new family would serve as regular models for his works; family
portraits also recur (see cat. 28). With the acquisition in 1635 of his country estate, castle Het Steen,
situated between Mechelen and Brussels, landscape also had a renewed appeal for Rubens. Some of
these works are executed as oil sketches, which, while probably not painted en plein air, convey all the
painterly freshness and immediacy of a careful study of the land, its lighting, and atmosphere (fig. 23).
Rubens’s primary patron in his later years was Philip IV. Even before his brother, the Cardinal
Infante, arrived in Antwerp, the king owned twenty-five paintings by Rubens and over the next five
years ordered eighty-two more for the Spanish royal collection. The largest of these commissions
was for the decorations for the king’s hunting lodge outside Madrid known as the Torre de la Parada.50
About sixty paintings of animals were to be produced by Frans Snyders and slightly more were assigned
to Rubens illustrating mythological themes from Ovid’s Metamorphoses and other classical sources. He
received the commission in November 1638 and in over just a two-month period produced no fewer
than sixty modelli. The final paintings were executed almost entirely by studio assistants working at
breakneck speed for the most impatient of royal patrons, who scarcely could wait for the paint to dry
before having them shipped to Madrid. Today the final products of all this haste make a disappointing
impression in the Prado. But the brilliance of invention, the dynamism, and the passionate humanity
of the oil sketches are a true delight. Even when executed on the tiniest scale with a few deft strokes
of paint, they capture the human dimension of Ovid’s stories (stt Aurora and Cephalus, cat. 34, Clyde
Grieving, cat. 35, The Abduction ofDejanira by Nessus, cat. 36, and Nereid and Triton, cat. 37). Rubens is
known to have bought another edition of the Metamorphoses in January 1637 from his colleagues at the
Plantin Press, and one can imagine him carefully rereading Ovid’s poetry to bring it so vividly to life.
Yet another decorative scheme for Philip IV was begun in mid-1639 for the upper chambers,
Boveda del Palacio, of the royal palace in Madrid. Once again the subject was to be hunting, and the
modelli were to be produced by Rubens and Snyders, although the final canvases could be executed with
assistants.31 In addition to mythological hunt scenes, such as Diana and Her Nymphs Hunting Fallow Deer
(cat. 42) and The Death of Silvia's Stag (cat. 43), Rubens also represented modern secular hunt scenes,
such as the Bear Hunt (cat. 41). He seems to have made rapid sketches on some of the panels in black
chalk before applying the graceful outlines of pigment, accenting strokes, and his wispy veils of color.
For all their delicacy and transparency, these sketches again convey the drama and action of the hunt
while providing with inspired economy all the compositional underpinnings and artistic guidance
that his assistants required to carry out the final, grandly scaled canvases.
Rubens was still considering commissions for major decorations in the final year of his life; for
example, discussions were under way with Charles I for the decoration of Henrietta Maria’s “Cabinet”
in the Queen’s House in Greenwich, recently completed by Inigo Jones. In the end, Rubens’s time ran
out and the commission went to Jordaens. It is a measure of the painter’s fame that when he retired to
his deathbed, the kings of both England and Spain requested bulletins on his health. Rubens expired
on May 30, 1640. In his last years, the painter had lived in semi-retirement at Steen, rarely visiting
Antwerp. In a revealing letter from Steen addressed in August 1638 to his favorite pupil and assistant,
the sculptor Lucas Fayd’herbe, who was looking after the studio in his home in Antwerp, he wrote,
“I have urgent need of a panel on which there are three heads in life size, painted by my own hand,
namely: one of a furious soldier with black cap on his head, one of a man crying, and one laughing.
You will do me a great favor by sending this panel to me at once, or, if you are ready to come yourself,
by bringing it with you.”52 This evidently was a panel with three tronijen by Rubens that he wished
to consult, probably in composing a picture in which one or more of the studies would have been
appropriate to the narrative. Although it depicted three different men, it may have resembled the
studies of the head of a black man in Brussels (cat. 7, fig. 1), which depicts the same model who posed
for the sketch from the Hyde Collection (cat. 7). Be this as it may, the practice of recycling dramatic
head studies from a repertoire recorded in his oil sketches clearly remained Rubens’s practice until
the end of his life.
The postscript that he added to the letter to Fayd’herbe admonished, “Take good care when you
leave, that everything is well locked up, and that no originals remain upstairs in the studio, or any
of the sketches ... I hope you have taken good care of the gold chain, following my orders, so that,
God willing, we shall find it again.”53 The sequestered chain to which the letter alludes was probably
the courtier’s chain presented to him in gratitude by Charles I earlier that year. It is telling that he
regarded among his true valuables, along with the chain, the “originals” by his own hand and the
“sketches,” which probably refer to his oil sketches, most of which seem to have remained in his
possession until his death. The sketches were probably among those works included in his estate
sale. One unnumbered lot refers, for example, to a “tresgrande quantite des desseins des plus notables
pieces, faictes par feu Mons. Rubens.”54 These “dessins” are not drawings because Rubens requested in
his will that his drawings be held intact until all of his children reached majority; when none followed
him into an artistic career or married an artist, the drawings were finally dispersed in 1657. Mercifully
Rubens does not seem to have destroyed large parts of his preparatory work as Alichelangelo did to
disguise all the hard work that went into his creations. Rather, he appreciated the importance of his
drawings and oil sketches as visual capital for the next generation, as the primary repositories of
everything that he had learned, observed, and created in his prolific career.
Rubens followers also made oil sketches. Anthony van Dyck usually composed in ink on paper
with brush and wash but also painted some very fluid oil sketches.55 Jordaens preferred paper, working
with ink and body color, but Gaspar de Crayer, Abraham van Diepenbeeck, Cornelis Schut, Thomas
Willeboirts Bosschaert, Erasmus Quellinus, Jan Boeckhorst, and others produced competent oil
sketches on panel and canvas.56 A document of 1655 records that Frans Snyders left all of his painted
studies on paper of “Italian Fruit” to his nephew, Hendrick de Rasiers.57 Although none of these
sketches have survived, repeated motifs in his still lifes prove that they existed. Jan Breughel the
Elder regularly copied from Rubens’s stock of drawings of animal studies but also produced his own
oil sketches so as to have a repertoire of animal studies on hand that he could recycle into his pictures
as needed.However, none of these artists made the oil sketch on panel such a central feature of his
studio’s design technology.
The Rubens legacy, “Rubenism,” and the taste for Rubens’s oil sketches (see Wieseman’s essay in
this catalogue) have endured to the present day.59 Thirty years after his death, Rubens’s art epitomized
for Charles le Brun, the director of the French Academy, all that was sensual, emotional, colorful, and
painterly in art. Rubens was juxtaposed in academic debates with Nicolas Poussin, whose severe and
classical art, stressing contour and drawing, spoke to the intellect. In the tradition of Vasari, they
posited that color (colorito) appealed primarily to the eye, while design {disegno) satisfied the mind and
spirit. Joanna Woodall has astutely observed that such thinking, which long preceded the founding of
the French Academy, probably informed Rubens’s use in 1614 of the term disegno colorito to describe
his oil sketch for the triptych of St. Bavo (The National Gallery, London).60 The term implies that
oil sketches could express and unite both artistic concepts, combining the intellectual and the sensual.
The relationship between disegnoo and colorito was not a minor point of art theoretical punditry in
these years but a topical religious issue. Protestant iconoclasts had recently assaulted religious images
because of their potential for obscuring the difference between the material product of man and its
divine prototype. The Protestants argued that the inevitable tendency of humans in their weakness to
confuse matter and spirit encouraged idolatry, which appealed to the lower, animal side of humanity at
the expense of mankind’s divine potential. The Roman Catholics countered that a divine design could
be humanly reproduced in art; in honoring a devotional image one worshiped the concept of divinity
within, not the image itself. Material images did not engage base instincts but appealed through the
senses to the mind and spirit. Indeed, visual images could move the heart more powerfully than the
words of a sermon, thus serving to unite men with God. The material, humanly produced object,
associated with colorito, thus was united with the divine design and concept, which disegno sought to
reveal. By his novel coinage, Rubens implied that his spontaneous oil sketches provided the perfect
example of the efficacy of images to reveal divinely inspired ideas made tangible by the mediation
of the artist. Thus, they were uniquely suited to fulfill Counter-Reformation doctrine defending
and promoting the validity of images, and became a potent new weapon in the battle over religious
imagery that had raged only a few decades earlier and remained such a vivid memory in Rubens’s day.
Sketches and sketchiness have been valued throughout the history of art. Since the time of Pliny the
Elder unfinished works were cherished because they seemed to reveal the thoughts of the artist. In the
Renaissance, Leonardo honored the sketch as capturing the very instant of inspiration. Vasari even went
so far as to suggest that drawings and sketches were preferable to finished paintings, citing the case of
Giulio Romano, because they conveyed the fire of creativity that could wane in intensity with the labor
of final execution. For the academics, Rubens’s “errors”—his occasional lapses in drawing and lack of
finish—were evidence of the proximity of the sketch to the moment of inspiration and therefore might
be pardoned because of his infinite creativity and brilliant brushwork. As David Freedberg has recently
observed in a discussion of these values, Giovanni Pietro Bellori’s often quoted praise in 1672 of the
“furia del pinello” (the fury of [Rubens’s] brush), recalls the ancients’ celebration of inspiration as the
furor poeticus, or even the furor divinus.61 Inspiration thus was valued as something even more urgent
and vital than the conceptual planning of a work of art.
Roger de Piles’s Conversations sur la connoissance de la peinture, published in 1677, reiterated the
notion of the potential superiority of the sketch over the finished work of art and observed that an
artist making a drawing “abandons himself to his genius, and reveals himself exactly as he is,” faults
and all. De Piles further defended Rubens’s lack of finish by arguing that more fully finished works
denied the viewer the pleasure of exercising his own imagination in supplying what the artist had left
undefined. Rubens’s admirers were legion in the eighteenth century, and he even won over harsh critics
such as Sir Joshua Reynolds, who seems to have owned copies of his oil sketches, and allowed that the
artist’s sheer brilliance compensated for all his “deficiencies.” The famous Romantic era painter, Eugene
Delacroix, not only paraphrased Rubens’s art and borrowed individual motifs, especially in his own hunt
scenes, but confessed in his personal journal that his admiration for the painter was so complete that he
“cared to be Rubens.” A fervid believer in the power of the sketch, he championed its ability to ignite
the imagination of both the painter and the observer as an active participant in supplying details only
adumbrated by the artist. Recalling the praise of de Piles and many earlier and subsequent admirers,
Delacroix called Rubens “That Homer of painting, the father of warmth and enthusiasm in art, where
he puts all others in the shade, not perhaps because of his perfection in any one direction, but because
of that hidden force—that life and spirit—which he put into everything he did.”62
12. Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 355, vol. 2, pi. 321. See alsoj.
Bialostocld, “The Descent from the Cross in Works by Peter
Paul Rubens and His Studio,” The Art Bulletin 46 (1964),
pp. 511-24.
13. See Frans Baudouin, “Concept, Design and Execution:

The Intervention of the Patron,” in Vheghe et al. 2000,
pp. 1-23.
14. Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 400, vol. 2, pis. 390-92. See also
Gregory Martin, “Rubens’s ‘Disegno Colorito’ for Bishop
Maes Reconsidered,” The Burlington Magazine 110 (1968),
pp. 434-37.
Notes 15. Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 374, vol. 2, pi. 365.
16. Baudouin, in Vlieghe et al. 2000, fig. 25.
17. Baudouin, in Vheghe et al. 2000, p. 21, and Held 1980,

vol. 1, p. 509.
1. Letter dated August 1, 1627, to Pierre Dupuy, in Rooses 18. On the development of workshop design practices and
and Ruelens 1887--1909, vol. 4 (1904), p. 290. Rubens’s place as the epitome of a master in charge of a
large workshop, see Arnout Balis, “Working It Out: Design
2. Letter dated June 6, 1640, in Rooses and Ruelens Tools and Practices in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century
1887-1909, vol. 4 (1904), p. 3. Flemish Art,” in Vleighe et al. 2000, pp. 129-51; and Balis,
“‘Fatto da un mio discepolo’: Rubens’s Studio Practices
3. Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 2 (1898), p. 4. Revealed,” in T. Nakamura, Rubens and His Workshop: The
Flight of Lot and His Family from Sodom (Tokyo, 1994),
4. On Otto van Veen, see J. Muller Hofstede, “Zum Werke pp.97-127.
des Otto van Veen,” Bulletin Muse'es Royaux des Beaux-Arts
de Belgique 6 (Brussels, 1957), pp. 127-73; Muller Hofstede, 19. On Frans Floris, see C. van de Velde, Frans Floris
“Zur Antwerper Friihzeit von P. P. Rubens,” Miinchener (1519/20-1570): levm en werken, Verhandelighen van de
Jahrbuch derBildenden Kunst 13 (1962), pp. 79-215. Van Veen Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Scheme
depicted the Last Supper several times, notably in a similar Kunsten van Belgie 37, no. 30 (Brussels, 1957), pp. 127-75.
composition engraved by Hieronymus Wierix and recorded
in van Veen’s canvas in die abbey of Soleilmont, near 20. Karel van Mander, Het Schilder-Boeck (Haarlem, 1603),
Charleroi (respectively, Muller Hofstede 1957, figs. 14, 15). fob 239r, translated by Constant van de Waal as Carel van
To appreciate his working methods, see the sketch, modello, Mander, Dutch and Flemish Painters (New York, 1936), p. 189.
and final painted altarpiece for the Crucifixion of St. Andrew
of 1594 for the high altar of St. Andreas Church in Antwerp 21. Van Mander 1603, fob 240r.
(ibid., pp. 144ff, figs. 10 and 11).
22. On Rubens’s hunt scenes, see Adler 1982; and Balis 1986.
5. L. R. Lind, “The Latin Life of Peter Paul Rubens by His
Nephew, Philip, a Translation,” Art Quarterly 9 (1946), p. 38. 23. Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 398, vol. 2, pi. 388; Balis 1986,
no. 3, pi. 39.
6. Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 7.
24. On the Jesuit Ceiling, see J. R. Martin, The Ceiling
7. See, respectively, Held 1980, vol. 1, nos. 428, 331, 396, Paintings for the Jesuit Church in Antwerp, Corpus
397, and 321, vol. 2, pis. 415, 326, 386, 387, and 318. Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, pt. 1 (Brussels, 1958).
8. See David Jaffe and Amanda Bradley, Rubens’s Massacre of 25. See Linda Bauer and George Bauer, “Artists’ Inventories
the Innocents, published by Apollo Magazine, in association and the Language of the Oil Sketch,” The Burlington
with the National Gallery Company (London, 2003), p. 12 Magazine 141 (1999), pp. 520-30.
n. 26. On Roncalli’s sketch, see Philip Potmcey, “New
Salesroom Discoveries: A Bozzetto by Roncalli for His 26. Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 10.
Altarpiece in St. Peter’s,” The Burlington Magazine
(March 1977), p. 225. 27. On Rubens and his engravers, see F. van den Wijngaert,
Inventaris der Rubeniaansche Prentkunst (Antwerp, 1941); and
9. Letter dated April 10, 1609, to Jan Faber, in Rooses and exh. cat. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Maler mit dem
Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 6 (1909), p. 324. Grabstichel: Rubens und die Druckgraphik, cat. by Hella Robels,
Julian Heynen, and Wolfgang Voman, 1977.
10. Quoted in F. van Kalken, Histoire de la Belgique (Brussels,
1954), p. 400. 28. Pietro Bellori, Le vite depittori, scultori e architetti modeme
(1672), ed. E. Borea (Turin, 1976), p. 254.
11. See Held 1980, vol. 1, nos. 349-50, vol. 2, pis. 343M-5.
On the Antwerp altarpieces, see J. R. Martin 1969; and on 29. Letter to Valavez, January 10, 1625; Magum 1955,
The Raising of the Cross, S. Heiland, “Two Rubens Paintings p. 101.
Rehabilitated,” The Burlington Magazine 111 (1969),
pp. 421-26.
Sutton: Notes 41
30. Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 2 (1898), p. 156. 47. Letter dated December 18, 1634, in Rooses and Ruelens
1887-1909, vol. 6 (1909), p. 82; Magum 1955, p. 393.
31. Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 2 (1898), p. 156.
48. Ibid.
32. On the Decius Mus tapestry series, see Held 1980, vol. 1,
pp. 21-30, nos. 1-4; and R. Baumstark, in exh. cat. New 49. Letter to Pieresc, dated December 18, 1634, in Rooses
York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Liechtenstein: The and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 6 (1909), p. 81, Magum 1955,
Princely Collections, 1985, pp. 338-55. p. 392.
33. On the Constantine tapestry series, see Held 1980, 50. On the Torre de la Parada, see Alpers 1971; Held 1980,
vol. 1, pp. 65-85, nos. 39-51; Pieter Kruger, Rubens vol. 1, pp. 251-301, nos. 167-220.
Konstantinszyklus, Europaische Hochschulschriften,
series 28, vol. 92 (Frankfurt, 1989); and McGrath 1997. 51. See Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 305-12; Balis 1986, pp.
218-64, nos. 20-27.
34. See Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 89-136, cats. 52-89; J. Thullier
and J. Foucart, Rubens' Life of Maria de Medici (New York, 52. Letter to Fayd’herbe, dated August 17, 1638, in Magum
1967); D. Marrow, The Art Patronage of Maria de' Medici 1955, pp.410-11.
(Ann Arbor, 1982); R. F. Millen and R. E. Wolf, Heroic Deeds
and Mystic Figures: A New Reading of Rubens' Life of Maria de 53. Ibid.
Medici (Princeton, 1989).
54. See essay by Wieseman, in this volume, p. 46.
35. Fetter to Pierre Dupuy, dated January 20, 1628, in
Magum 1955, p. 231: Saint Ambroise served as “interpreter 55. On van Dyck’s oil sketches, see Horst Vey, “Anton van
of the subjects [to the king], changing or concealing the true Dycks Olskizzen,” Bulletin des Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts 5
meaning with great skill.” (1956), pp. 167-208; J. S. Held, “Van Dyck’s Oil Sketches, in
exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Anthony
36. See Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 139-66, nos. 90-119; Scribner van Dyck, 1991, pp. 327-66.
1977/82; and de Poorter 1978.
56. See Hans Vlieghe, Caspar de Crayer. Sa vie et ses oeuvres,
37. See Fammertse, in exit. cat. Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1972), nos. A39, A52, A62, A65, A100,
pp. 27-30. A112, A169, A189; G. Wilmers, Cornells Schut (1591-1655),
Flemish Painter of the High Baroque, Pictura Nova, 1
38. First observed by Alexander Vergara of the Museo (Tumhout, 1996), pp. 40-41; D. W Steadman, Abraham, van
del Prado, Madrid. Information kindly provided (privately, Diepenbeeck: Seventeenth Century Flemish Painter (Ann Arbor,
2004) by Arthur Wheelock Jr., National Gallery of Art, 1982); Axel Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert
Washington, D.C. (1613/14-1654). Ein Fldmischer Nachfolger Van Dycks, Pictura
Nova, 9 (Tumhout, 2003), nos. Ala, A5b, 42a, A44, A74c,
39. See VHeghe 1987, nos. 81 and 81a. A78a, and AP20a; Jean-Pierre de Bruyn, Erasmus II Quellinus
(1601-1618). De schilderijen met catalogue raisonne Freren,
40. Letter of June 15, 1617, in Rooses and Ruelens 1988), nos. 9, 40, 86, 192, 218, 219; and exh. cat. Antwerp,
1887-1909, vol. 4 (1904), pp. 82-83. Rubenshuis, Jan Boeckhorst (1604-1668), medewerker van
Rubens, 1990, nos. 25 and 28.
41. Letter from Philip IV to Infanta Isabella, September 22,
1630, in Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 5 (1907), 57. Duverger 1984-2002, p. 188, cited by Balis, in Vlieghe
p. 260. et al. 2000, pp. 137-38. For Snyders’s oil sketches, see Hella
Robels, Frans Snyders. Stilleben- und Tiermaler, 1519-1651
42. Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 169-84, nos. 120-29; Haverkamp (Munich, 1989), nos. SK1-SK9.
Begemann 1975; exit. cat. Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4.
58. Klaus Ertz,Jan Brueghel d. A. (1568-1625). Die Gemalde
43. Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, pp. 11-41. (Cologne, 1979), nos. 311 and 312.
44. Letter to William Trumbull, dated September 13, 1621, 59. See Peter C. Sutton, “Rubens’s Critical Fortune, Artistic
in Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 2 (1898), p. 286; Patrimony and Rubenism,” in Boston/Toledo 1993-94,
Magnm 1955, p. 77. pp. 87-105.
45. On the Whitehall Ceiling, see O. Millar, Rubens: The 60. Joanna Woodall, “Drawing in Color,” in London
Whitehall Ceiling (London, 1958); J. S. Held, “Rubens’ 2003-4, pp. 9-21.
Glynde Sketch and the Installation of the Whitehall
Ceiling,” The Burlington Magazine 112 (1970), pp. 274-50; 61. Davd Freedberg, in New York 1995, p. 17.
Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 187-218, nos. 130—44; J. Charlton,
The Banqueting House Whitehall (London, 1983); and Gregory 62. H. Wellington, ed., The Journal of Eugene Delacroix, trans.
Martin, The Whitehall Ceiling, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig L. Norton (New York, 1860), p. 199, dated October 20,
Burchard, pt. 15 (in press). 1853.
46. J. R. Martin, The Decorations for the Pompa Introitus

Ferdinandi, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard,
pt. 16 (Brussels, 1972).
Pursuing and
Possessing Passion:
Two Hundred Years
of Collecting Rubens's
Oil Sketches
Marjorie E. Wieseman
44
A
week after Peter Paul Rubens’s death on May 30, 1640, a detailed inventory was made of
the more than one thousand works of art found in the artist’s home on the Wapper. From
this inventory (now lost), a selective list of approximately three hundred items—known as
the Specification—was drawn up and printed by the bookseller Jan van Meurs to advertise
the forthcoming sale of paintings and sculptures from Rubens’s collection.1 The works of
art were sold at auction between March and June 1642, although some private sales had evidently
been arranged prior to this date.2 While by no means a complete description of Rubens’s collection,
the quality and variety of artworks listed in the Specification give insight into Rubens’s artistic taste,
aristocratic ambitions, and far-ranging intellectual pursuits.3
Unfortunately, the Specification provides almost no information about the contents of the artist’s
studio or the eventual fate of the countless drawings, oil sketches, and other visual resources employed
in the realization of commissioned paintings and other, more diverse enterprises. Various other
contemporary sources yield limited information about the dispersal of the studio contents. For
example, Rubens’s last will and testament specified that his vast collection of drawings—both his
own and those by other artists he had collected—was to be retained for use by any son or son-in-law
who might practice the art of painting, or until his youngest child reached the age of eighteen.4 The
drawings were finally sold by the family in 1657, after Rubens’s youngest child, Constantia Albertina,
entered a convent.5 They found a ready buyer in Johannes Philippus Happaert (d. 1686), a canon of
the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk (and an art dealer as well), who seems to have purchased the bulk of the
lots at the sale.6 Happaert in turn sold the drawings to noted connoisseurs such as the French-German
collector Everard Jabach (1618-1695) and the English artist and collector Prosper Henricus Lankrink
(1628-1692); from these and other collections the drawings were eventually dispersed throughout
England, Europe, and the rest of the world.7
The early history of Rubens’s oil sketches is more difficult to trace, in part because the objects
themselves are somewhat harder to define. Although oil sketches had been a viable and highly
regarded part of artistic practice in both Italy and the North since the sixteenth century, there was—
and is—considerable uncertainty about how properly to categorize these small preparatory paintings
on panel (or, more rarely, on paper or canvas) that encompassed everything from fleeting bozzetti to
fully developed modelli. The varied terminology used to describe oil sketches in contemporary
documents in the Netherlands reflects their ambiguous standing: dessein, disegno, teekeninge, dissegno
colorito, and schets (schits, scheyts) are all terms regularly encountered in this context.8 Nor can we be
sure that all works thus described would fit our current definition of an oil sketch. Many of these same
terms were simultaneously used to describe drawings on paper; similarly, small unfinished paintings,
replicas, or copies might also have been grouped among the desseins, teekeningen, and schetsen mentioned
in seventeenth-century documents.9 What information we can now glean about the collecting and
appreciation of oil sketches (particularly those by Rubens) in the seventeenth century undoubtedly
gives a rather blurred impression of the actual situation. Yet it is clear that by at least the middle of the
seventeenth century there was an effort to distinguish oil sketches from either drawings or finished
paintings in art treatises, collection inventories, and other documents; and that this corresponded to
a growing appreciation of the oil sketches—if not as completely autonomous works of art, then as
valuable records of the artist’s original and eigenhdndig design for a work.
This essay focuses rather narrowly on the appreciation and collecting of Rubens’s oil sketches in
the two hundred years following his death and, to a lesser degree, on the influence these sketches
had on later artists. Most of the examples discussed here are from Northern Europe. An equally
vibrant tradition of painting oil sketches existed in Italy, from the works of Tintoretto in the sixteenth
century to Tiepolo’s brilliant example in the eighteenth century and beyond, but that development
flourished independently of Rubens’s achievement and is thus tangential to our discussion here.
Many of the points raised in this essay were first set out in Julius Held’s admirably succinct survey
of the appreciation of Rubens’s oil sketches, contained in the introduction to his 1980 catalogue.10
Although direct evidence of critical attitudes toward Rubens’s oil sketches during the artist’s lifetime
and immediately after is limited,11 a few writers made an effort to describe the importance of the oil
sketch in Rubens’s working process and its visceral visual appeal. The Danish physician Otto Sperling,
WlESEMAN: PURSUING AND POSSESSING PASSION 45
then a student at Leiden University, visited Rubens’s studio in 1621 and described the use of sketches in
the workings of the atelier (see also Sutton, “Introduction,” p. 28).12 Later in the century Rubens’s great
champion, the French critic Roger de Piles, who received much of his information from the artist’s
nephew Philips Rubens, spoke eloquently of the oil sketch’s function in the preparation of a finished
painting and distinguished different categories of sketches and life studies:
. . . one sees almost as many little paintings by his hand as large ones, of which they are
the first thoughts and sketches. Some of his sketches are very slight and others rather
finished, according to whether he knew more or less clearly what he had to do or
whether he was in the mood to work. There are even some which served him as
originals: for whenever he had studied from nature the objects that he had to represent
in the large work, he would only make such changes as he found appropriate.13
Even more important and influential were de Piles’s perceptive remarks on the pleasurable appeal of
the oil sketches to the sophisticated viewer.14 He observed that while in a finished painting everything
was clearly defined, leaving little to the imagination, a sketch encouraged, even required, an active
imagination to supply what was not described or defined by the artist. This more active viewing
resulted in an intimate engagement with the work of art and a closer communion with the creative
impulse of the artist, a factor that (as will be discussed below) had considerable impact on the
eighteenth century’s admiration for the oil sketch.
Rubens himself clearly placed great value on these spontaneous and highly personal manifestations
of his own fertile imagination. He guarded the oil sketches as the practical and creative core of his
artistic practice and was fiercely protective of them. We know, of course, of his disinclination to
surrender the thirty-nine sketches made for the plafonds of the Jesuit church in Antwerp, preferring
to paint an additional altarpiece to fulfill the terms of his contract with the Jesuit fathers.15 This
proprietary, even secretive, attitude toward the sketches remained constant throughout his career: in
1638 Rubens wrote a letter from his country house at Steen to his young assistant, Lucas Fayd’herbe,
who was looking after the Antwerp studio during his absence. Rubens urgently requested Fayd’herbe to
send him “a panel on which there are three heads in life size, painted by my own hand, namely: one of a
furious soldier with a black cap on his head, one of a man crying, and one laughing.” It would be a good
idea, he added, “to cover it with one or two panels, so it may not suffer in any way, or be seen.” He
expressed similar concern for works left in the studio: “Take good care, when you leave, that everything
is well locked up, and that no originals remain upstairs in the studio, or any of the sketches.”16
Despite Rubens’s determined conservation, not all the oil sketches remained in the artist’s studio
during his lifetime. By 1627 sketches for the Life of Constantine series (see cats. 11 and 12) had become
the property of the tapestry manufactory of Marc Comans and Frangois de la Planche in the Faubourg
Saint-Marcel in Paris; they were probably retained by the manufactory for the continued production
of additional sets of tapestries.17 At least one sketch—a design for a printed title page—has been the
property of the Plan tin Press in Antwerp since the artist’s lifetime.18 A few fortunate patrons seem to
have managed to retain the modelli connected with commissioned works: the inventory made in 1639 of
Charles I’s collection describes a sketch for the ceiling of the Banqueting House at Whitehall, “. . . don
in oyle Cullors the—Moddle or first paterne of the paintinge—wch was sent by Sr Peter Paul Rubin to yor
Ma17 to know yor Mats approveing therof painted upon Cloth in a wooden gilded frame upon the right
light” (fig. I).19 Rubens’s modelli for the stages and ceremonial arches erected for Archduke Ferdinand’s
triumphal entry into Antwerp in 1635 were retained by the city of Antwerp and subsequently engraved
by Theodoor van Thulden for a sumptuous volume that also included lengthy descriptions of the
decorations by Caspar Gevartius.20 In France, the noted collector (and amateur artist) Claude Maugis,
abbe de Saint-Ambroise (1600-1658), who had played a key role in negotiating the commission for the
Marie de Medicis cycle, had managed to acquire a set of original oil sketches for the series by 1630.21
Other of Rubens’s oil sketches may have been retained by pupils or collaborators, or given as gifts by
the artist.22 Four sketches by Rubens (and four copies after sketches by him) are listed in the 1657
inventory of Elizabeth Waeyens (d. 1657), widow of the sculptor Hans van Mildert (1588-1638).23 Van
Mildert was a close friend, neighbor, and frequent collaborator of Rubens; many of his sculptures
were based on Rubens’s designs (see cat. 13). One of the sketches, described in the Waeyens inventory
as “Een schets van Rubens van de aultaer van de Vrouwenbroeders,” has been identified as Rubens’s
design for the high altar of the Calced Carmelite church in Antwerp (probably the oil sketch for the
Glorification of the Eucharist now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, cat. 33). Van Mildert died in
the middle of the project, and work on the tabernacle was completed by his son, Cornelis; the sketch
remained in the family’s possession and at a certain point was transferred from the workplace to the
living area of the home.24 Even these isolated instances suggest that during Rubens’s lifetime his oil
sketches were coveted not only for their utility in the production of works of art based on his designs
or as handy mementos or documents of less accessible projects, but for their aesthetic properties as
well. Their primary appeal surely lay in the fact that they represented the artist’s original design, a
direct and spontaneous record of his intellect and imagination.
With few exceptions, the bulk of Rubens’s oil sketches remained in the studio and was probably sold
at auction in 1642 along with the other paintings from his estate. Unlike the finished works of art they
are not listed individually in the Specification but are instead grouped together in an unnumbered lot at
the end of the catalogue under the heading “Vne tresgrande quantite des desseins des plus notables
pieces, faictes par feu Mons. Rubens” (A great parcell of draughts, of many fayre notable peeices made
by Afflymghen [sic\).25 The lot immediately preceding, described as “Vne quantite des visages au vif, &
fonds de bois, tant de Mons. Rubens, que de Mons. van Dyck” (A parcell of Faces made after the life,
vppon bord and Cloth as well by sr Peter Rubens as van Dyke), undoubtedly refers to the numerous
expressive head studies (tronies) done from life and kept on hand to aid in composing larger works (see
cats. 1, 4, and 7). There is some evidence that the oil sketches and tronies were individually catalogued
in the more detailed inventory made of the artist’s
estate in 1640. In a list of purchases made from
Rubens’s estate, the art dealer Matthijs Musson
noted several items with numbers higher than
the 314 numbered lots listed in the Specification.26
Items numbered 352 and 362 are described as
“tronijen,” presumably corresponding to works
included in the “parcell of Faces made after
the life.” Musson’s list also includes “De vier
Evangelisten van Rubens” (no. 1072), “St.
Thomas van Aquinen van Rubens” (no. 1067),
and “Hemelvart van Mariae. Schets” (no. 1083).
Although only one of these is explicitly described
as a sketch, it is reasonable to assume that all
three were among the “tresgrande quantite des
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Apotheosis of James I, c. 1632-33
Oil on canvas, 89.7 x 55.3 cm
The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
inv. GE 507
desseins” that in all likelihood encompassed the oil sketches found in Rubens’s studio.
Once again, there is little direct evidence about the buyers of the oil sketches at the sale in 1642,
but details drawn from Antwerp probate inventories and other contemporary documents permit us to
make some general observations about collectors of Rubens’s oil sketches in the seventeenth century.
In the years immediately following the sale, groups of sketches turn up in the collections of a number
of Antwerp artists and art dealers, as well as friends of the artist and members of his extended family.
Of buyers at the sale, we know that Rubens’s brother-in-law, Arnold Lunden (d. 1656), purchased a
number of paintings from the estate; an inventory of his collection made in the mid-1640s includes
several sketches (esquisse) by Rubens, and it seems likely that he purchased those from the estate as
well.2 A painted sketch mounted on panel (“op panned geplackt”) depicting the Circumcision was
given by Rubens’s heirs to the printer Anthonis Vrancx “for services rendered to the deceased.”28
The painter Abraham Matthijs (d. 1649) owned an oil sketch and a tronie by Rubens;29 Jan van Balen
(1611-1654), son of the painter Hendrick van Balen (1574/75-1632), a friend and occasional
collaborator of Rubens, owned five oil sketches by the master.30
Although Rubens’s pupil and collaborator Erasmus II Quellinus (1607-1678) owned at least one oil
sketch by the master, he appears to have focused his attention instead on amassing a vast collection of
drawings by Rubens and other artists. In the artist’s workroom (Contoir) at the time of his death were
nearly two hundred crabellinghen (scribbles), tronieken, and schetsen by and after Rubens.31 The glass
engraver (glasschrijver) Jacques Horremans (d. 1678) owned ten schetsen by Rubens, although once again,
we cannot be certain that these were painted oil sketches and not drawings.32 Horremans’s collection
also included hundreds of prints by and after Rubens and other artists, possibly used as inspiration
for his engraved designs.
Large groups of oil sketches are found in the estate inventories of several artist-dealers active in
Antwerp in the mid-seventeenth century. Herman de Neyt (c. 1605-1642) was a minor painter of
landscapes (possibly a pupil of Rubens) and, at the time of his death, one of the most important art
dealers in Antwerp.33 He owned twelve original paintings by Rubens, including four oil sketches for
the plafonds of the Jesuit church. De Neyt’s inventory also lists thirty-seven copies after the master,
including five copies after sketches.34 De Neyt is known to have purchased a painting by Correggio
at the Rubens sale and probably acquired the oil sketches at the same time, although he may have
acquired the other paintings by Rubens at an earlier date.35 Like de Neyt, Victor Wolfvoet (1612-1652)
was a painter, art dealer, and former pupil of Rubens. The inventory of his sizable estate—running to
more than seven hundred items—lists twenty sketches by Rubens, including several designs for the
ceilings of the Jesuit church and six bozzetti for the Triumph of the Eucharist tapestry series.36 There are
also sketches by other artists, many unattributed sketches and framed grisailles (“van wit ende swert
in lystken”), and a number of sketches after Rubens. The collection belonging to the painter and art
dealer Jeremias Wildens (1621-1653) was no less rich in works by Rubens. Jeremias was the son of the
landscape painter and art dealer Jan Wildens (1585/86-1653), who frequently collaborated with Rubens
and was one of the executors of his estate. In 1624 Jan opened a picture gallery, which was subsequently
operated by Jeremias. Among the more than seven hundred paintings inherited from the elder Wildens
and included in the inventory of 1653 are twenty oil sketches both large and small (“schetsen” and
“schetsken”) by Rubens, and fourteen sketches after Rubens.
The de Neyt, Wolfvoet, and Wildens inventories all include a substantial number of copies after
sketches by Rubens, denoting a lively market for such works.37 Some of the copies reprise themes
depicted in autograph works by Rubens within the same collection, suggesting that at least a portion
were produced by the artist-dealers themselves;38 others may have been created in Rubens’s studio by
pupils or assistants. Trafficking in copies was an accepted practice in the seventeenth century, provided
it was conducted honestly and openly. Yet there was always a fear on the part of a novice collector
that she or he might be duped—no less so, apparently, with Rubens’s oil sketches than with his larger,
finished paintings. In 1644 Ignatius de Meulenaere traveled to Antwerp from his native Bruges
specifically to purchase paintings from the dealer Matthijs Musson and bought from him a hunt
scene by Lrans Snyders and an oil sketch by Rubens. After showing the paintings to various experts,
de Meulenaere determined that the two paintings were copies and wrote a scathing letter to Musson,
Fig. 2.
David II Teniers
Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in His
Picture Gallery in Brussels, 1651
Oil on copper, 106 x 129 cm
Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1813
accusing him of “open thievery”: it was “not the action of an honorable man, to sell [copies] to one
who knows little about painting.”39 In fact, Musson had worked for a time in Rubens’s studio and was
surely well acquainted with the master’s work. Musson’s reply has not been preserved, but in 1671,
some twenty-five years after the initial accusation, de Meulenaere wrote again to the dealer, stating
more generously that the pictures had now been proven to be originals by Snyders and Rubens.40
In the latter half of the seventeenth century many Antwerp collections large and small, from
Archduke Leopold Wilhelm’s celebrated gallery (fig. 2) to more modest collections, held one or
two examples of oil sketches or tronies by Rubens.41 No doubt others are hidden among the countless
unattributed schetsen or cleijne schilderijkens (small paintings) cited in less loquacious inventories. Larger
groups of oil sketches by Rubens are encountered as well; some significant holdings are found in the
rich collections formed by several canons of the Catholic Church. Canons were regular priests who
lived together in community; many were noted scholars, and as a group they often took a leading
role in the intellectual life of the Church. The large collection of paintings formed by Guilielmus
(Guillaume) van Hamme (before 1600-1668), a law graduate, chaplain of the Antwerp St. Luke’s guild,
and a canon of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk in Antwerp, included a sketch by Rubens of St. Francesco
de Paula, “Derthien Tronien . . . soo Rubbens als van Van Dyck,” and several unattributed sketches,
including “Seven schetskens van tappijten.”42 The more modest collection of van Hamme’s colleague
Hendrik van Halmale, canon of the diocese of Antwerp, included a grisaille by Rubens of the Five
Wise Virgins and another of St. Cecelia; the paintings were listed as missing after the home of the
canon’s relation Hendrik van Halmale was plundered and pillaged (“geplundert ende ghespolieert”)
on September 30, 1659.43 Five oil sketches by Rubens (in addition to eight other paintings by his
hand) are found in the estate inventory of Joannes Philippus Happaert (d. 1686), a canon of the
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk in Antwerp and a former schepen (city alderman) who was also active as
an art dealer.44 Happaert, it will be recalled, was the main buyer at the sale of Rubens’s drawings in
1657—more than three hundred lots of drawings (teeckeningen) by Rubens and other artists are listed
in the inventory—and he surely appreciated the spontaneous draftsmanship of the oil sketches as well.
Happaert also owned several sketches by the animal and still-life painter Johannes Fyt. Jean-Henry
Gobelinus (d. 1681), a canon of the church of St. Goedele (Saint-Gudule) in Brussels and a habitue
of Spanish court circles, assembled an impressive collection of paintings that included at least five
paintings by Rubens (among which three sketches), nine sketches by Anthony van Dyck, and “Huict
pieces de l’histoire d’Achilles.”45 Although no artist’s name is given for this last entry, the citation is
Fig. 3.
Charles Emmanuel Biset,
Wilhelm Schubert von
Ehrenberg, and other artists
Painting Gallery, 1666
Oil on canvas, 141 x 236 cm
Bayerische Staatsgemalde-
sammlungen, Alte Pinakothek,
Munich, inv. 896.
The painting shows Rubens’s
sketches for the Jesuit church
fancifully installed in the gallery’s
ceiling.
traditionally thought to refer to Rubens’s eight oil sketches for the series of tapestries devoted to
the Life of Achilles, now divided between the Detroit Institute of Art (see cat. 27) and the Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam. It is presumably these same sketches that later appear in the
collection of the Antwerp postmaster Joan Baptista I Anthoine (d. 1691), where they are described as
“De Historie van Achilles bestaende in acht stucxkens van Rubens” and valued at the substantial sum
of 1,200 florins.46 Anthoine owned several other paintings and possibly sketches by Rubens as well;
the Swedish architect Nicodemus Tessin visited his collection in 1687 and admiringly noted “viele
Schilderyen und schitzen” by Rubens.47
In the absence of written testimony, it is difficult to estimate in concrete terms the contemporary
regard for Rubens’s oil sketches in his native land. Only occasionally do probate inventories or other
documents inform us about the monetary values placed on the oil sketches, and only in rare instances
can we connect the information with known paintings. The limited size of the available sample
therefore permits only very general observations. A survey of priced probate inventories and other
documents (published by Denuce, Duverger, and others48) suggests that seventeenth-century prices for
Rubens’s oil sketches generally ranged between 20 and 80 florins. Unattributed schetsen fetched just a
fraction of these prices, as did copies after sketches by Rubens. To cite one well-known example, in
the 1627 inventory of the Saint-Marcel tapestry shop in Paris the twelve large painted cartoons for the
Constantine series tapestries (executed by Rubens’s studio) were appraised at 500 livres (about 42 florins
each), less than half the value assigned the twelve small panels painted by Rubens himself (1,200 livres,
or about 100 florins each).49 At the other end of the scale, the values placed on finished paintings by
Rubens in these same inventories varied greatly, depending on the size, complexity, and Eigenhdndigkeit
of the work, and could run anywhere from 100 to 2,000 florins. The handful of documents from the
1690s that mention oil sketches by Rubens record a startling jump in prices, although the sample is
far too small to allow any definitive conclusions to be drawn: eight modelli for the Achilles series were
valued at 1,200 (150 florins each) in the Anthoine inventory of 1691; the equivalent of about 1,800
florins (£180, about 300 florins each) was paid for six oil sketches for the Triumphal Entry of
Cardinal Infante Ferdinand at the Lankrink sale in London in 1693; and another sketch of an
“Arcke Triumphalis” by Rubens was valued at 250 florins in Utrecht in the same year.50
An examination of the placement of Rubens’s oil sketches within a domestic setting may offer
another indicator of the relative esteem accorded these works (fig. 3). Although seventeenth-century
probate inventories are reticent in divulging monetary valuations, they are a bit more forthcoming in
describing, room by room, the locations of paintings and other movable goods within the home.51 By
far the vast majority of oil sketches by Rubens described in seventeenth-century Antwerp inventories
were kept in the most important public rooms of the home: the (groote) neercamer ([large] downstairs
room), often located at the front of the house (designated as “aen de straet” [facing the street] or
voorneercamer [downstairs front room]), or the (groote) Bovencamer ([large] upstairs room).'’2 Even in
the case of oil sketches by Rubens owned by fellow artists or artist-dealers, the sketches are generally
recorded as being in the public rooms together with other, finished paintings (the neercamer, voorcamer,
bovencamer,; or constcam,er). Only rarely are they found in rooms designated as the artist’s studio or
workplace: the werckcamer, schilderscamer, or com,ptoir (office or workroom), although these rooms
did often house quantities of undescribed and/or unattributed (and therefore inferior?) schetsenV (It
will be recalled that Rubens’s oil sketch for the altar in the Calced Carmelite church, listed in the
posthumous inventory of Hans van Mildert’s widow, was—some fifteen years after the completion of
the commission—moved to the domestic space of the home [“de Bovencamer boven de Salette”].’4)
The evidence seems to suggest that even among practicing artists, oil sketches by Rubens were soon
prized as works of art rather than as utilitarian objects necessary to the execution of the painter’s craft.
Beyond the Border

The presence of Rubens’s oil sketches in prestigious collections across Europe during the latter part
of the seventeenth century is a testament not only to Rubens’s lofty reputation but also to Antwerp’s
leading role in the lively international commerce in works of art. In Le meraviglia delVarte (1648), the
Italian writer and painter Carlo Ridolfi described a small painting of Mars and Bellona by Rubens in
the possession of Nicolo Renieri (Nicolas Regnier, 1590-1667), a Flemish painter and art dealer
resident in Venice. By 1659 the sketch had apparently entered the collection of Archduke Leopold
Wilhelm; the painting mentioned by Ridolfi is now tentatively identified with Rubens’s The Crowning
of the Victor in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (inv. 659).5S In 1671 Francesco Airoldi, papal
nuncio in Brussels, sent a grisaille oil sketch of the Three Graces as a gift to Cardinal Leopold de’
Medici (1617-1675) in Florence (fig. 4).56 A generous patron of the arts and natural sciences and a
discerning collector and connoisseur, Leopold systematically assembled an encyclopedic collection
with particular attention to classical antiquities, drawings, and artist’s self-portraits. Airoldi may
have specifically selected the Three Graces for
Leopold because its limited palette and superb
draftsmanship, as well as its classical subject
matter and sculptural presence, were in harmony
with the cardinal’s specific collecting interests.
In Spain, eight modelli for the Triumph of the
Eucharist tapestry series were in the collection of
one of the greatest collectors of the seventeenth
century, Gaspar de Haro y Guzman, marques
de Carpio (1629-1687). Haro owned as many
as sixteen other paintings by Rubens, as well as
drawings and—possibly—six of the cartoons for
the Eucharist tapestries produced by Rubens’s
atelier.57 It is possible (but not certain) that
Gaspar inherited the modelli from his father, Luis
de Haro (1598-1661), who had played a key role
in acquiring paintings for Philip IV in England
and elsewhere, managing in the process to retain
Fig. 4.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Three Graces, c. 1621-23
Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence, inv. 1165
many important pieces for his own collection. On a more modest scale was the collection of the Madrid
painter Felipe Diricksen (1590-1679, grandson of the Flemish painter Anton van den Wijngaerde),
which featured three vorrones, or sketches, by Rubens.58 As in the Southern Netherlands, copies after
Rubens’s sketches proliferated in Spanish collections: as just one example, the inventory of the Spanish
painter Claudio Coello (1642-1693) lists copies (painted by Coello himself?) after eight of Rubens’s
modelli for the Triumph of the Eucharist, and one after a sketch of the Adoration of the Magi.59
To the north, only isolated examples of oil sketches by Rubens can be traced in the United
Provinces during the seventeenth century and then only late in the century. Indeed, apart from the
collection formed by the stadholders Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms at The Hague from
the 1620s through the 1640s, there were remarkably few collectors of Rubens’s work in the North.60
Cornelis Dusart (1660-1704) owned a grisaille by Rubens in addition to some drawings and prints by
the artist;61 more intriguing is a reference to a painting of “de Arcke Triumphalis, geschildert door P.
Ribbens” (very likely a sketch for the Triumphal Entry of Cardinal Infante Ferdinand), sold in Utrecht
by one Maria Hulshout to the merchant Floris de Reder. Apparently Hulshout had second thoughts
about the transaction and in a document of 1693 desired to buy back the painting for the 250 florins
de Reder had given her for it.62 Dutch collections formed in the early years of the eighteenth century
begin to reflect the more cosmopolitan, international taste of the era. Jaques Meyers (c. 1660-1722),
an enormously wealthy shipowner and wine merchant, was one of the most important collectors and
art dealers in Rotterdam in the first decades of the eighteenth century.63 He maintained contacts in
artistic circles in Paris, London, Brussels, Prague, and other cities, where he both bought and sold art.
Among the ten works by or after Rubens listed in the posthumous sale of Meyers’s collection was the
highly finished modello of Christ Carrying the Cross now in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. A344;
see cat. 29).
In England, the collection formed by the Flemish-born painter Prosper Henricus Lankrink
(1628-1692) contained numerous works by Rubens: about 120 drawings, a dozen paintings, and “Six
Triumphs by Sir Paul Rubens.”64 These “Triumphs,” identified as six oil sketches for the Triumphal
Entry of Cardinal Infante Ferdinand (see Sutton, “Introduction,” fig. 22), were sold for £180 at
Lankrink’s posthumous sale in 1693; they later entered the collection of Sir Robert Walpole and
were eventually sold to Catherine the Great of Russia. Lankrink probably acquired most if not all
of the Flemish works in his collection prior to his move to England in the mid-1660s.
By the standards of the great collections formed in Madrid or London, the collection assembled
by Armand-Jean du Plessis, due de Richelieu (1629-1715) was comparatively modest. Richelieu was
the great-nephew of Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642), who had served as artistic advisor to Marie de
Medicis and Louis XIII. The duke’s early acquisitions reflected prevailing classicist taste, but in the
1670s, with the advice of Roger de Piles, he avidly pursued works by Rubens, continually buying and
selling paintings to create a veritable anthology of the artist’s oeuvre.6- Richelieu acquired a number
of paintings from the artist’s nephew, Philips Rubens, via the Parisian art dealer Michel Picart. Among
the works in his collection was a sketch for the Descent from the Cross (probably the modello now in the
Courtauld Institute of Art, London; see Sutton, “Introduction,” fig. 10), which was described in great
detail by de Piles. De Piles’s account makes it clear that the sketch was prized for its high degree of
finish as well as its affective power: “the painter has entered so fully into the expression of his subject
that the sight of this work has the power to touch a hardened soul and to cause it to experience the
sufferings that Jesus Christ endured. . . .”66
Several of the paintings by Rubens in Richelieu’s gallery found their way into the collection of
Maximilan II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria (1662-1762). Governor of the Spanish Netherlands from
1692 to 1706, Max Emanuel amassed an impressive collection of Rubens’s work during these years.
He purchased more than a hundred Flemish paintings from the Antwerp dealer-speculator Gisbert
van Colen (who was related by marriage to the family of Rubens’s second wife, Helene Fourment)
and acquired sixteen modelli for the Marie de Medicis cycle (formerly in the collection of the abbe
de Saint-Ambroise[?] and now in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich) probably in Paris during the early
years of the eighteenth century (see Sutton, “Introduction,” fig. 15).67
Appreciating Oil Sketches in the Eighteenth Century: Theory and Practice

The sensitive appreciation of the oil sketch evidenced in de Piles’s biography of Rubens and his
description of Richelieu’s collection are often cited as inaugurating a greater critical regard for the
painterly and spontaneous oil sketch, which subsequently spread throughout eighteenth-century
Europe. The circulation of treatises by de Piles and other critics that defined and validated the
aesthetic of the informal and/or unfinished work of art profoundly influenced not only contemporary
art but also the study and pursuit of the art of the past. While direct references to oil sketches by
Rubens (or by any other individual artist, for that matter) are encountered only sporadically in art
literature and criticism of the period, the debate eventually played a key role in the collecting and
appreciation of oil sketches by the Flemish master.
Recognition of the singular appeal of the oil sketch was not entirely new, of course, as Peter
Sutton also notes in his introduction to this catalogue (see p. 39). Ultimately it can be traced to
the writings of Pliny the Elder, who wrote that unfinished paintings were “more admired than [an
artist’s] finished works, since they are beheld as the surviving documents and the very thoughts of the
artist. . . .”68 Although Pliny was primarily referring to works left unfinished at an artist’s death, his
admiration for art that laid bare the artist’s creative process was paralleled in the sixteenth century by
Giorgio Vasari’s predilection for the unfettered nature of an artist’s preparatory works: “Many painters
. . . achieve in the first sketch of their work, as though guided by a sort of fire of inspiration ... a certain
measure of boldness: but afterwards, in finishing it, the boldness vanishes.”69The appeal of the sketch
(whether drawn or painted) was twofold: not only did it offer an intimate glimpse of the artist’s creative
process, but the swiftness and sureness of his stroke betrayed the divine spark of inspiration, which
endowed the sketch with something more passionate and spontaneous than was evident in a finished
work of art. A century and a half after Vasari, de Piles was one of the first to characterize paintings that
possessed this elusive but infinitely desirable quality of chaleur (passion, ardor) or feu (fire). As de Piles
defined it, chaleur or feu was essentially the visible manifestation of the painting’s “soul,” the pure
expression of the artist’s imagination that spoke directly to the emotions and imagination of the viewer.
The fire demonstrated in the oil sketch provided life to the skilled and thoughtful execution (the
“body”) of the finished painting. This distinction is, of course, directly linked to de Piles’s equation
of color (colore, colons) with the more sensual, visual aspects of painting; and of draftsmanship {disegno,
dessiri) with its more rational, intellectual aspects.70
Also during this period, artists began to paint oil sketches not just in preparation for larger works
of art but also as autonomous demonstrations of improvisatory power and bravura technique, never
intended to be followed up with a larger or more finished piece. From early in the century, oil sketches
of both sorts were regularly exhibited at the biennial Paris Salons and scrutinized as evidence of the
artist’s capacities of invention.71 In his reviews of the Salons of 1765 and 1767, Denis Diderot reflected
eloquently on the appeal of the oil sketch:
Why does a beautiful sketch accord greater pleasure than a beautiful painting? Because it
has more life and fewer forms. The more forms one introduces, the more life disappears.
Sketches frequently have a fire that the finished paintings lack; they’re the moment of
the artist’s zeal, his pure verve, undiluted by any carefully considered preparation, they’re
the painter’s soul freely transferred to canvas. The poet’s pen, the skilled draftsman’s
pencil seem to frolic and amuse themselves. Rapid sketches characterize everything with
a few strokes. The more ambiguity there is in artistic expression, the more comfortable
the imagination. ... [I]n a painting I see something that’s fully articulated, while in a
sketch there are so many things I imagine to be there that in fact are scarcely indicated!72
For Diderot and other eighteenth-century amateurs, much of the appeal of the spontaneous oil sketch
or unfinished work of art was this perceived communion with the imagination of the artist. As de Piles
had noted a half century earlier, sketches required sophisticated knowledge and imagination on the part
of the viewer to “complete” the artist’s design. The ability to do so distinguished the connoisseur: “The
man of genius and the true connoisseur get the most pleasure out of sketches. . . . [T]hey animate the
poetic and reproductive faculties of the soul, which finish and complete in an instant what has only
been sketchily rendered; in this respect they are very similar to the arts of oratory and poetry. . . .”73
This same impulse was simultaneously manifested in the realm of print collecting, as the avid scrutiny,
collecting, and cataloguing of preliminary etching states took hold in the eighteenth century (the
relative spontaneity of the etched medium also had strong parallels with the oil sketch),74 and in the
rising taste for sculpted terracotta models.75
The sophisticated intellectual charm of the oil sketch ensured that significant groups of sketches
by Rubens (and by other artists as well) found their way into the carefully assembled cabinets of some
of the most discerning amateurs of the eighteenth century. Others can be traced to the more modest
but no less revealing collections of artists whose own work was inspired by the formal inventions and
bravura technique of Rubens’s oil sketches. The sheer volume of material documenting the presence of
sketches in collections of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries requires, in the present context,
singling out just a few cases to indicate broader trends in the collecting and appreciation of Rubens’s
oil sketches during the period.
Rubens’s Oil Sketches in the Collections of Artists ...

Although countless eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists flirted with “Rubenism” at some point
in their careers,76 a specific debt to the oil sketches—whether formal, stylistic, or procedural—is more
difficult to establish. In some instances it can be confirmed by the presence of sketches by Rubens in
the collection of the artist; in others we must rely on the artist’s writings or on the visual evidence of his
or her works. Dubbed “the Rubens of the eighteenth century,” Jacob de Wit (1695-1754), a decorative
painter active in Antwerp and Amsterdam, exemplifies the vibrant and immediate link that existed
between Rubens’s oil sketches and eighteenth-century taste and artistic practice. 8 As a youth (between
1709 and 1715), de Wit resided in Antwerp under the protection of his uncle, the international art
dealer, wine merchant, and collector Jacomo de
Wit (c. 1650-1721). Jacomo de Wit’s impressive
personal collection, sold in Antwerp on May 15,
1741, featured grisaille oil sketches by Rubens
for The Last Supper (cat. 30) and its pair, The
Raising of Lazarus (now lost). The younger de
Wit’s artistic training was grounded in the
assiduous study of paintings by Rubens and his
contemporaries so abundant in the churches and
public buildings of Antwerp. Without question, it
was Rubens’s cycle of thirty-nine paintings for the
plafonds of the Jesuit church that had the most
profound and lasting impact on the young painter
(cats. 9 and 10). In 1711-12 de Wit made quick
Fig. 5.
Jacob de Wit
The Resurrection, c. 1736
Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, inv. RMCC s00007
Fig. 6.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Daughters of Cecrops Discovering
Erichthonius, 1632-33
Oil on panel, 31x33 cm
Nationalmuseum, Stockholm,
inv. NM607
drawings after the compositions, presumably to master Rubens’s adroit handling of perspective and
foreshortening; after the original paintings were destroyed by fire in 1718, de Wit created a set of
more finished drawings intended for reproduction in print.
Much of de Wit’s own prolific career was given over to decorative paintings for ecclesiastic and
secular patrons that reveal his many-layered debt to Rubens. He created preliminary oil sketches on
both canvas and panel, fresh and impressionistic in style, for many of these projects (fig. 5). Like
Rubens, he retained nearly all his oil sketches in the studio for future use, although unlike Rubens
he does not seem to have employed a fleet of assistants to work up finished paintings from these
modelliV De Wit also acquired works by Rubens for his personal collection: sixteen paintings by
Rubens, including at least three oil sketches (two for his beloved Jesuit Ceiling) were featured in
the posthumous sale of de Wit’s collection held in Amsterdam on March 10, 1755. The sale catalogue
also notes “Een groote Partij Modellen of Schetsen door Rubbens, Van Dyk, de Wit en andere beroemde
Meesters,” which probably refers to a group of drawings rather than additional painted oil sketches by
these artists.80
The decorative work of de Wit’s senior colleague, the peripatetic Venetian Giovanni Antonio
Pellegrini (1675-1741), was also grounded in his study of Rubens’s oil sketches and paintings.81 As
early as 1706 Pellegrini was painting spirited modelli that reveal a close knowledge of Rubens’s work in
this medium; he continued the practice of painting oil sketches—on canvas, or on paper mounted on
canvas or panel—throughout his career. In 1713-14, while in the employ of the Elector Palatine Johan
Wilhelm at Diisseldorf, Pellegrini painted a series of large wall canvases depicting scenes from the
Elector’s life for the audience room of his palace at Bensburg. From overall conception to specific
detail, the cycle is dependent on Rubens’s projects for Marie de Medicis at the Luxembourg Palace,
which Pellegrini probably knew through engravings.82 Pellegrini would also have been familiar with
the several fine oil sketches by Rubens in the Elector’s collection. He himself owned one oil sketch by
Rubens, Romulus Carrying the Trophy ofAcron, part of an important collection of Netherlandish art that
was purchased at his death by Joseph Smith, the British consul in Venice. The Rubens sketch was sold
to George III and eventually entered the collection of the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London.
The decorative paintings of Jacob de Roore (1686-1747) are less specifically influenced by Rubens’s
Fig. 7.
Francois Boucher
Mercury Entrusting the Infant
Bacchus to the Nymphs ofNysa, 1734
Cincinnati Art Museum, Museum
Purchase: Lawrence Archer Wachs
Trust and the John J. Emery
Endowment, acc. no. 1989.24
oil sketches, although he avidly pursued examples of the artist’s work in this medium. Active in
Antwerp and The Hague, de Roore painted imitations and copies of Rubens and other seventeenth-
century masters, as well as ceiling paintings and tapestry designs, often in collaboration with his Dutch
colleague Gerard Hoet (1698-1760). Hoet and de Roore also formed a successful partnership to deal
in works of art, many of which they imported from the Southern Netherlands. The posthumous sale of
paintings in de Roore’s posession, held in The Hague on September 4, 1747, lists forty-seven paintings
by Rubens. This included seven sketches for the ceiling of the Jesuit church (among them cat. 10) and
at least four additional oil sketches (see cat. 29). The sketches for the Jesuit Ceiling were purchased at
the de Roore sale by the Hague publishers Anthoni and Stephanus de Groot. By 1771 the de Groots
owned a total of nine sketches for the Jesuit series and three other small paintings by Rubens, possibly
sketches as well, although not explicitly described as such in the catalogue of the sale of their collection
in that year.
French artists also sought out Rubens’s oil sketches for inspiration, emulation, and acquisition.
Author of sparkling, quintessentially Rococo confections, Franqois Boucher (1703-1770) owned two oil
sketches by Rubens. Both, appropriately, reveal the Flemish painter’s lighter, more decorative touch in
approach and subject matter: The Daughters of Cecrops Discovering Erichthonius (fig. 6); and Charity, for
the Triumph of the Eucharist tapestry series (cat. 20), the latter attributed to Jordaens in the 1771 sale of
Boucher’s collection.83 Inspired at least in part by Rubens’s example, Boucher painted swift and fluent
oil sketches throughout his career, working with a liquid, loaded brush in brilliant color (fig. 7) or more
frequently in monochrome, both en grisaille and en camai'eu brunf Like Rubens, he painted sketches for
paintings, engravings, and the many tapestries he designed for the Gobelins tapestry manufactory over
the course of thirty years’ association. Despite a lifelong debt to Rubens’s work, however, only late in
life (1766) did Boucher visit the Low Countries—a trip the Goncourt brothers described as “a la patrie
de Rubens”—in the company of the collector Pierre-Louis-Paul Randon de Boisset (1708-1776).
Boucher acted as advisor to Randon de Boisset, whose collection included Rubens’s oil sketch for
Decius Mus Relating his Dream (cat. 5).
Boucher’s talented pupil, Jean-Honore Fragonard (1732-1806), understood well the impassioned,
sensual appeal of the oil sketch. We do not know that Fragonard owned works by Rubens—indeed, his
financial situation during and after the Revolution probably precluded it—but his admiration for and
emulation of the Flemish painter are well documented, and appropriately noted here.85 Fragonard made
Fig 8.
Jean-Honore Fragonard
La Feint Resistance, c. 1770
Oil on canvas, 45 x 60.5 cm
Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, inv. NM5415
numerous drawn and painted copies after Rubens throughout his career and in 1767 was granted
special permission to make copies (none of which has survived) after the Marie de Medicis cycle
in the Palais de Luxembourg. He copied Rubens’s sketch for an Adoration of the Shepherds
(Rubenshuis, Antwerp) in a small oil sketch now in the the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lille. More
significantly, Fragonard’s own spirited sketches demonstrate a seemingly effortless mastery of the
essential vitality and elan that distinguished his Flemish model. The economy and elegance of
Fragonard’s quick brushwork and the luminosity of his palette caused the Goncourts to remark that
“Fragonard recalls Rubens by way of the brilliance of Boucher” (fig. 8 and Sutton, “Introduction,”
fig. 14). Despite his bow to the past, Fragonard thoroughly modernized the idea of the oil sketch by
obliterating the distinction between sketch and finished painting. In small, light-hearted paintings
executed with chaleur and breathless bravura, he paired the tactile appeal of the painter’s touch with
sensual, often deliberately titillating subject matter: provocative in both aspect and content, deliberately
gauged to entice the sort of close, knowledgeable examination and private delectation central to the
concept of a refined amateur’s cabinet.86
Painter, writer, collector, and first president of Britain’s Royal Academy, Sir Joshua Reynolds
(1723-1792) was a ubiquitous player in the eighteenth-century reception of Rubens’s oil sketches.
Reynolds’s relationship with the art of Rubens was complex and often seemingly contradictory. He
routinely disparaged the artist’s work in formal Discourses given annually at the academy, reserving
his praise for the theoretical ideals of the Italian schools and ceding only that the best works by
Rubens, as titular head of the (inferior) Flemish school, deserved to be “valued higher than the second-
rate performances of those above them: for every picture has value when it has a decided character, and
is excellent of its kind.”8 Yet Reynolds’s personal taste was rather more catholic: almost a third of the
pictures in his collection were Dutch or Flemish, and the thirty-four paintings by or attributed to
Rubens were the most by any single artist.88
As a practicing artist, Reynolds had great admiration for Rubens’s technique and was determined
to learn all he could from the physical evidence of the paintings themselves. He famously wrecked a
portrait by the master to discover its secrets,89 and in 1785 ruefully wrote to an Irish collector, “tho I
have offered so great a sum [300 livres] for the Pictures [by Rubens] they are by no means worth half
that sum to anybody else. . . . [T]hey are worth nothing . . . but to a Painter.”90 His fascination with
Rubens as an artist and his professed interest in the didactic value of his art engendered a specific
regard for the oil sketches; he recommended that (based on Rubens’s example) the initial plan for
a picture be sketched in color and not merely drawn on paper, and at least occasionally made
preliminary oil sketches for his own compositions.91 Although Reynolds maintained that it was
“only in large compositions that his [Rubens’s] powers seem to have room to expand themselves,”
his consistent praise for the “eccentrick, bold, and daring” genius, which “pervades and illuminates
the whole,” and the seemingly effortless “freedom and prodigality” of Rubens’s invention, echoes the
essential attributes of chaleur and feu imputed to the rapidly painted oil sketch.92 In a similar vein, he
admired finely finished works yet was quick to acknowledge the compelling power of unfinished or
sketchily rendered paintings.93
In travels to the Continent, Reynolds viewed Rubens’s paintings and oil sketches with greater
appreciation and a more open mind than his Discourses would indicate. He visited the collection of
the late Louis-Antoine Crozat, baron de Thiers, in Paris in 1771 and—unaware that negotiations were
already under way to sell the paintings to Catherine II of Russia—expressed interest in acquiring five
Rubens oil sketches from the collection (of about a hundred desiderata).94 In his account of a journey
to Flanders and Holland undertaken in 1781, he noted three sketches in the collection of J. B. Horion
in Brussels (cat. 18, and two others which he subsequently purchased), but reserved highest praise for
sketches of The Rape of the Sabines and The Reconciliation of the Romans and the Sabines (figs. 9 and 10)
then in the Danoot collection in Brussels: “Both these pictures are admirably composed, and in every
respect excellent; few pictures of Rubens, even of his most finished works, give a higher idea of his
genius.”95 Reynolds owned at least one oil sketch by Rubens, a design for the Whitehall Ceiling (The
Fig. 9. Fig. 10.

The Rape of the Sabines, c. 1634-36 The Reconciliation of the Romans and- the Sabines, c. 1634-36
Oil on panel, 56 x 87 cm Oil on panel, 55 x 86.5 cm
Dexia Bank, Brussels, inv. 11387 Dexia Bank, Brussels, inv. 11388
Fig. 11.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Bounty of James I Triumphing over Avarice,
c. 1632-33 '
The Samuel Courtauld Trust, Courtauld Institute of Art
Gallery, London, inv. P.1978.PG.377
of James I Triumphing over Avarice, fig. 11),

as well as two copies after designs for the project
from the Horion collection, which he believed
to be autograph.96
Although most of his career falls outside
the chronological parameters of this study,
Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863) was deeply and
volubly inspired by Rubens’s oil sketches. On
one occasion he recounted in his Journal his
reaction to viewing two sketches by Rubens
at the museum in Nancy: “I went from one to
the other but without being able to leave them.
There is enough to write twenty volumes on the
particular effect of these works.”97 Like many of his colleagues, Delacroix was stimulated by the
suggestive properties of the premiere pense'e: “I see Mars or Bellona in their fury in the first stroke of
Rubens’s brush upon his sketch. ... In these brief outlines my mind seems to run ahead of my eye
and to seize the artist’s thought almost before he gives it shape.”98 But he also made a very specific and
intent study of Rubens’s oil sketch technique, particularly his use of middle tones, and observed their
relationship to Rubens’s finished works: “How strange that I never noticed until now the extent to
which Rubens proceeds by means of half-tone, especially in his finest works! His sketches ought to
have put me on the track.”99 Following Rubens’s example (“The sketch must have been very good to
have allowed him to proceed with the picture itself. . . with such perfect assurance”100), Delacroix made
vigorous oil sketches in preparation for his larger paintings. He owned one oil sketch by Rubens, a
Crucifixion now in the Rococxhuis, Antwerp (Held no. 353). He also painted a copy after Rubens’s
oil sketch for the Allegory with the Duke of Buckingham, a painting then (1825) in the collection of the
Scottish painter Sir David Wilkie (figs. 12 and 13). Although Delacroix made dozens of small copies
after paintings by the Flemish master, the copy after the sketch is almost exactly the same size as the
original and, quite unusually for Delacroix, closely imitates its style.101
. . . AND IN THE CABINETS AND GRAND GALLERIES OF THE AMATEUR

Eighteenth-century collectors of Rubens’s oil sketches were a diverse lot. While some pursued the
sketches in a drive to amass a representative body of Rubens’s work in all forms, others built their
collections modestly, perhaps seeking out the oil sketches as the most accessible and affordable
examples of paintings by the master. Still others were primarily drawings collectors, no doubt
attracted to the spontaneous graphic qualities of the oil sketch. Many collectors appreciated the
inherently didactic function of the oil sketch as it exposed Rubens’s creative process, a consideration
that often bore fruit in the eventual dispersal of their collections.
Fig. 12. Fig. 13.

Peter Paul Rubens Eugene Delacroix after Peter Paul Rubens
Minerva and Mercury Conduct the Duke of Buckingham to Apotheosis of the Duke of Buckingham, 1825
the Temple of Virtue, before 1625 Oil on canvas, 63.5 cm diameter
Oil on panel, 64 x 63.7 cm Sale New York (Sotheby’s), November 1, 1978, lot 5
The National Gallery, London, inv. NG 187
One of the largest gatherings of Rubens’s oil sketches in the Southern Netherlands in the
eighteenth century was to be found in the collection formed by M. van Schorel, lord of Wilrijk and
onetime burgemeester of Antwerp. Van Schorel was actively involved in the artistic life of Antwerp
and in the early 1740s played an important role in the reorganization and financial support of the
city’s Academie voor Schoone Kunsten. His splendid art collection featured twenty-eight paintings by
Rubens; the seventeen sketches included a grisaille of Christ Carrying the Cross (see cat. 29) and two
sketches for the Life of Henry IV cycle commissioned by Marie de Medicis (sale Antwerp, June 7, 1774).
Other prominent collectors of oil sketches included Joseph Sansot, “Licentie des Loix” and steward of
the prince of Issinghien (nine sketches; sale Brussels, July 20, 1739); the Antwerp canon Pierre Andre
Joseph Knijff (nine sketches; sale Antwerp, July 18, 1785); Frangois Pauwels, a wealthy brewer in
Brussels (seven sketches; sale Brussels, July 22, 1803); and Frangois-Corneille-Gislain de Cuypers de
Reymenam (twenty-eight sketches; sale Brussels, April 27, 1802). Cuypers’s seventeen sketches for the
Jesuit Ceiling—undescribed in the 1802 sale catalogue—were purchased by the Ghent painter and art
dealer Philippe Lambert Joseph Spruyt (1727-1801). Most of these sketches passed, together with the
rest of Spruyt’s collection or stock, to his son Charles (1769-1851), like his father a painter and one of
the most important art dealers in the Netherlands in the first half of the nineteenth century. “Quatorze
Esquisses en grisaille premiere pensees [vzV] . . . pour les plafonds de 1’eglise des Jesuites a Anvers,” as
well as a number of other oil sketches by Rubens were dispersed in sales of Spruyt’s collection held
between 1803 and 1815.
The French treasurer and financier Pierre Crozat (1665-1740) was the epitome of the sensitive
connoisseur. Crozat was a noted patron of the arts and one of the most important collectors of his age,
primarily of drawings—at his death, his collection numbered nearly 19,000 sheets—but also, if to a
lesser degree, of paintings.102 Although his collection was heavily weighted toward the Italian schools, he
gathered an impressive group of more than a dozen paintings by Rubens, including five oil sketches by
the master. Crozat’s taste for the light, fluid brushwork and improvisatory chaleur characteristic of the
Fig. 14.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Meeting at Lyons, 1622
Oil on canvas, transferred from panel,
33.5 x 24.2 cm
The State Hermitage Museum,
St. Petersburg, inv. GE-505
sketches was undoubtedly colored by his penchant for Rubens’s drawings, of which he owned some
320 examples.103
Crozat’s collection of drawings was sold at auction in 1741, but the paintings eventually passed to
his nephew Louis-Antoine Crozat, baron de Thiers (1699-1770).104 Louis-Antoine continued to refine
and add to the collection, particularly in the areas of Dutch and Flemish painting. Among the several
works by Rubens that he acquired were three hozzetti for the Marie de Medicis cycle (fig. 14). In
1751, the Mercure de France announced that the Crozat collection, housed in the family hotel in the
place Vendome, would be open on request to visits from “tous ceux qui vaudraient etudier les grands
modeles pour former leur gout et pour perfectionner leurs talents.”105 A catalogue of the collection
published in 1755 guided the visitor through the various galleries and appartements of the hotel;
although the catalogue does not explicitly describe the oil sketches in qualitative terms, it is clear
from the hanging (paired, in symmetrical ensembles, with finished pieces by other artists) that the
sketches were regarded as small paintings by the master rather than as informal working documents.106
After the death of baron de Thiers, the collection was sold en bloc to Catherine the Great of Russia,
whose unparalleled gathering of Rubens’s oil sketches will be discussed below.
Other noted French drawings collectors also possessed oil sketches by Rubens. Jean de Julienne
(1686-1766), for example, a publisher and art collector perhaps best known as the friend and patron
of Antoine Watteau, owned nine oil sketches and several larger paintings by Rubens. The print dealer,
publisher, collector, and writer Pierre-Jean Mariette (1694-1774) may have lacked the great wealth of
many of his colleagues, but he built a collection of drawings and some paintings distinguished by its
consistently high quality and careful connoisseurship. Mariette owned just one, singularly appropriate,
sketch by Rubens, a design for a printed title page.
In England, Sir Robert Walpole (1676-1745), first prime minister of Britain, amassed one of that
country’s finest art collections in the brief span of a mere twenty-five years.107 Walpole’s collection of
about four hundred paintings was the epitome of Grand Tour taste, a calculated assertion of wealth
and political stature. Although Walpole tended to favor large canvases, he also owned fine cabinet
pieces and some outstanding oil sketches by Rubens, including the six designs for the Triumphal Entry
of Ferdinand sold from P. H. Lankrink’s collection in 1693, and a sketch of The Apotheosis of James 1
for the Whitehall Ceiling (fig. 1). The latter had a prestigious provenance, having come from the
collections of Charles I and Sir Godfrey Kneller. Horace Walpole took pains to emphasize this history
in the Aedes Walpolianae (1752), noting that Kneller had “studied it much, as is plain from his Sketch
for King William's Picture in the Parlor.”108 The Apotheosis initially hung in the upstairs Great Room
in Walpole’s house at 10 Downing Street in London. Located just a stone’s throw from Rubens’s
finished version installed at the Banqueting House, it was a powerful statement of royal dynastic
links and political might.109
Incidentally, Robert Walpole’s close friend and attending physician, Dr. Richard Mead (1673-1754),
was also a collector of considerable renown, as well as a patron of the arts, an accomplished classicist,
and physician to King George II. Mead assembled an outstanding collection of rare books, coins, gems,
antique sculpture, and contemporary and old master paintings, including Rubens’s eight sketches for
the Life of Achilles tapestry series. Quite unusual for the age (but entirely in keeping with his generous
philanthropic instincts), Mead’s collection was housed in a purpose-built gallery beside his London
home and opened to the public for study.
However grand the display of Walpole’s collection at Downing Street and at his country house,
Houghton Hall, at his death the estate was shackled by immense debt. In 1779 Walpole’s grandson,
the eccentric George Walpole, Lord Orford, sold more than two hundred pictures from the collection
(including eight oil sketches by Rubens) to Catherine the Great of Russia (1729-1796). The transaction
was roundly regarded as an irreparable loss to the British nation, as great a national misfortune as the
sale of the Crozat collection from Lrance some seven years earlier.
As part of a calculated bid for recognition and prestige among the courts of Western Europe, from
the outset of her reign Catherine systematically assembled a most impressive collection of European
art.110 Most of her acquisitions came by means of purchasing entire collections, but this omnivorous
roster nonetheless included some of the most prestigious cabinets in Europe and England—among
them the collections of Cobenzl (acquired 1768), Briihl (1769), Crozat (1772), and Walpole (1779)—
an indication (despite her “bulk buying” approach) of her concern for the artistic quality of individual
works. Catherine had a decided taste for Dutch and Flemish paintings, and a particular interest in
works by Rubens,111 perhaps seeing in him a striving ambition and search for aristocratic glory that
matched her own. Her purchases brought more than twenty oil sketches by Rubens to the Hermitage
(for example, figs. 1 and 14, and Sutton, “Introduction,” figs. 4 and 22), along with dozens of finished
paintings and drawings.112
At the other end of the spectrum from Catherine’s spectacular and imperious collection building
were a number of more focused private collections of Rubens’s oil sketches, which, though smaller,
still generated considerable impact through their astute disposition. Throughout the early 1790s the
French dealer and collector Noel Desenfans (1744-1807) and his protege Peter Francis Bourgeois
(1756-1811) devoted much of their energies to assembling a collection of old master paintings for the
Polish king Stanislas Augustus Poniatowski (1732-1798).113 The collection’s great strength was in Dutch
and Flemish painting and included twenty works by Rubens. Stanislas, however, was deposed in 1795
and the paintings remained with the dealers in London. Over the next decade they made several public
attempts to sell the “royal collection” in its entirety, while quietly selling off individual works from the
stock and replacing them with others. Desenfans bequeathed his share of the collection jointly to his
wife and Bourgeois, with instructions to locate an appropriate institution to exhibit and preserve the
collection in its entirety. In 1811 the collection went to Dulwich College; six oil sketches by Rubens
(including cats. 23 and 24, and Sutton, “Introduction,” fig. 14) thus became a treasured part of
England’s first public art gallery.
On the Continent, Count Anton Lamberg-Spritzenstein (1740-1822) spent much of his career as
ambassador of the Austrian empire at the courts of Naples and Turin.114 He amassed formidable and
internationally respected collections of antiquities and old master paintings, the latter all scaled to fit
the intimate spaces of his Viennese apartment. Though small, the paintings in Lamberg’s collection
demonstrate his preference for virtuoso exhibitions of brushwork, completely counter to prevailing
taste at the turn of the nineteenth century. Eleven of the sixteen original paintings by Rubens in his
collection were oil sketches (fig. 15). In 1822 Lamberg bequeathed his collection to the Akademie
der bildenden Kiinste in Vienna (of which he had been president since 1818) to secure the proper
conservation of the objects in his collection and to ensure that it be preserved together in its entirety
and available to young artists for study. In a similar spirit, the German banker Johann Friedrich Stadel
(1728-1816) bequeathed his home and art collection to the city of Frankfurt, to be maintained (thanks
to an additional monetary bequest) as a public art collection and school to promote the free education
Fig. 15.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Circumcision, c. 1605
Oil on canvas, mounted on panel,
105 x 74 cm
Gemaldegalerie der Akademie der
bildenden Kiinste Wien, inv. 897
Opposite: Fig. 16.

Peter Paul Rubens
The Recognition of Philopoemen, c. 1609
Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. M.I. 967
of artists regardless of social class.11- Between about 1770 and 1805 Stadel assembled a collection of
mostly German and Netherlandish paintings, drawings, prints, and important publications on the arts.
Taken as a whole, the collection—which included two oil sketches by Rubens—reflected Stadel’s twin
concerns of instilling proper artistic training and documenting the history of the arts.
Louis La Gaze (1798-1869) was a Parisian physician and amateur painter of comparatively modest
means, whose taste for small, freely painted works that emphasized colons over dessin was also—like that
of Lamberg in Vienna—in opposition to the dominant aesthetic.116 La Caze was one of the first French
collectors to appreciate the vigorous brushwork of paintings by Frans Hals, for example. He acquired
paintings for small sums at auction and from dealers in secondhand goods, and at his death bequeathed
more than five hundred paintings to the Musee du Louvre and the provincial museums of France. The
collection was particularly strong in paintings and oil sketches by eighteenth-century French artists and
in seventeenth-century Netherlandish works. A half dozen fine oil sketches by Rubens included four
sketches for the ceiling of the Jesuit church in Antwerp, one for the Whitehall Ceiling, and The
Recognition of Philopoemen (fig. 16).
The Reverend Thomas Kerrich (1748-1828) was an accomplished amateur draftsman, painter,
and lithographer, antiquarian, collector, and librarian of Cambridge University. He formed a large
collection of prints, drawings, and some (mostly Netherlandish) paintings that were bequeathed by his
son, the Reverend R. E. Kerrich, to the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge in 1872. The gift included
eight oil sketches by Rubens, seven bozzetti for the Triumph of the Eucharist tapestry series (an eighth,
the Triumph of Hope [cat. 22], was retained by the family) and Rubens’s grisaille sketch for the engraved
frontispiece to Caspar Gevartius’s publication of the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi (Held 1980, no. 306).
The forward-thinking philanthropy of these and many other collectors of the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries brought attention to the unique power, energy, and inventive genius of
Rubens’s oil sketches by placing them in the public collections of museums and academic institutions.
The most exemplary manifestation of this trend in the twentieth century is the collection of Rubens’s
oil sketches formed by Count Antoine Seilern (1901-1978).11 In the 1930s in Vienna, Seilern embarked
on a study of Rubens that culminated in a dissertation on the Venetian sources of Rubens’s ceiling
paintings. His interest in artistic sources, as well as in the artist’s technique and creative process (not
to mention his close study of Rubens’s works in Viennese collections), led him to build a collection of
127 old master paintings and some 350 drawings especially rich in preparatory works. Among these
were over thirty paintings (mostly oil sketches) and two dozen drawings by Rubens. In contrast to the
eighteenth century’s poetic quest for the chaleur and feu of the oil sketch, Seilern’s approach was more
scholarly, seeking to understand Rubens’s technique and the evolution of his pictorial ideas through
paintings in the finest possible state of preservation. During Seilern’s lifetime the collection was readily
available to scholars and connoisseurs for study; at his death the collection was bequeathed to the
Courtauld Institute of Art in London to ensure access for future generations.
A Footnote on Value
Sales of oil sketches (and paintings) by Rubens increased exponentially in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, making a thorough and reasoned analysis of prices paid for the sketches during
the period an unwieldy enterprise best left for future study by a scholar with greater expertise in the
intricacies of economic history. A few remarks on the commercial “values” placed on the oil sketches
at the time would, however, give some additional perspective to the history of collecting of these
works. Running parallel to the intellectual and idealized discourses on the delights of the oil sketch
were the more pragmatic (and often quite insightful) commentaries on individual works presented in
sale catalogues and published handbooks specifically geared to the collector and rising connoisseur.
Despite—or perhaps because of—the fact that these commentaries are often thinly disguised articles
of salesmanship, they are quite revealing of current taste. Descriptions of oil sketches by Rubens
frequently touted the fine finish of a modello (“esquisse bien terminee”) or marveled at the light and
swift execution of a preliminary bozzetto. Rubens’s palette/coloration was also consistently praised,
whether as “frais” or “eclatante”; so too was the inspired freedom of his brushwork: “peint avec ce feu
et cette heureuse facilite si naturelle a ce peintre,” rhapsodized a typical comment in a 1806 sale. The
description of The Recognition ofPhilopoemen (fig. 16), sold from the Knijff collection in 1785, notes the
powerful effect of Rubens’s judicious if perhaps unorthodox use of color and brushwork: “This colored
sketch posesses astonishingly vigorous and bold brushwork; the whole presents an array of pure colors
spontaneously placed, but which blend, depending on one’s distance from the picture; objects become
three dimensional, they charm and ravish the viewer.”118
A proven relationship to a finished work of art—painting, tapestry, sculpture, or print—obviously
lent stature to even the slightest oil sketch. In describing two sketches for plafonds of the Jesuit church
at Antwerp, the catalogue of the Julienne sale (Paris, March 30-May 22, 1767, lot 100) stressed that
these were “the only originals in existence,” the large paintings having been destroyed by fire in 1718.
Similarly, the discussion of Christ Carrying the Cross (cat. 29) in the van Schorel sale catalogue of
1774 notes that the grisaille sketch served as the modello for the print by Paulus Pontius, made under
Rubens’s watchful eye: “thus, as one can well understand, everything is correct, expressed, finished,
and with the most beautiful result.”119 From time to time the description of a particular lot directs the
reader’s attention to the sketch’s role in the creative process and its relationship to the finished work,
as in the comments on a sketch of St. Theresa Interceding for the Souls in Purgatory, sold at Ghent in
1840: “One notices the changes that Rubens introduced in the [finished] painting, especially in the
lower part, where figures representing the souls in purgatory and several angels are no more perfect
than in the sketch. It is a joy to come across compositions like this, in which one can sense the pure
inspiration of the painter’s genius in the bold strokes of his brush.”120
The writings of some of the most prominent art dealers of the early nineteenth century—
guidebooks, personal memoirs, and exhaustive catalogues raisonnes—also offer an interesting mix
of commercial savvy and finely honed aesthetics. For Frangois Xavier de Burtin (1743-1819), unlike
many of his contemporaries, authenticity was a key determinant in assessing the value of a picture.121
For this reason, in his popular vade mecum for the amateur, published in 1808, Burtin consistently
praises Rubens’s oil sketches as the truest expressions of the artist’s intent. He especially admired
Rubens’s highly finished modelli and on more than one occasion noted that such finely painted works
could carry the same impact as a finished painting. The catalogue raisonne of Rubens’s works, published
by the art dealer John Smith in 1829, indicates that he, too, tended to value Rubens’s sketches based on
their degree of finish. While Smith’s comments on the aesthetic appeal of a given painting were often
remarkably astute, they by no means eclipsed his sharp commercial eye. He kept a fascinating running
commentary on the current market value of paintings sold in the past or then hanging in public
collections:
The finished study . . . entirely by the hand of Rubens, of the rarest excellence and
beauty. ... If it remains in the same pure state it was in when it first sold [in 1814,
for 410 gr.], 600 gr. would be a reasonable estimate of its worth.
The original study for the preceding picture. Sold in the collection of A. de la
Hante, Esq., 1814, for 100 gs.; worth double that sum.
An excellently finished sketch for the large picture now in the Munich Gallery. In
the latter sale [1822, sold for 32 livres] it was exceedingly disguised with dirt; the
writer has since given 100 /. for it, and sold it for 130 l.m
Whether a detailed and highly finished presentation piece or the most ethereal whisper of a nascent
idea, Rubens’s oil sketches were (and continue to be) most admired and coveted for their ardent, fluent
display of the artist’s genius. As much as they embody the elusive, instantaneous spark of invention, they
also show evidence of the artist’s carefully calculated approach to formal design and narrative. Visually,
technically, and functionally challenging, they are also, and most importantly, transcendently beautiful
works of art. Across the centuries the richly seductive and suggestive properties of Rubens’s oil sketches
continue to work their transformative charm over the eye and intellect of the viewer.
Burlington Magazine 141 (1999), pp. 525-529; Jeffrey

M. Muller, “Oil Sketches in Rubens’ Collection,” The
Burlington Magazine 117 (1975), pp. 371 ff.; and de
Pauw-van Veen 1969, pp. 97, 99, and 248-49.
9. As noted by Zirka Zaremba Filipczak, Picturing An

in Antwerp, 1550-1100 (Princeton, 1987), p. 59.
10. Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 11-14.
11. Observed also by Ronni Baer with reference to

Rembrandt’s oil sketches; see “Rembrandt’s Oil
Notes Sketches,” in exh. cat. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts,
Rembrandt's Journey: Painter, Draftsman, Etcher, 2003, p. 38.
12. See Max Rooses, “De vreemde reizigers Rubens of

zijn huis bezoekende,” Rubens-Bulletijn 5 (1897), p. 222.
Joachim von Sandrart also describes the use of oil
sketches in Rubens’s studio; set Joachim von Sandrans
Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlery-Kiinste von 1615,
ed. with a commentary by A. R. Peltzer (Munich, 1925),
p. 157.
1. See P. Genard, “De nalatenschap van P. P. Rubens,”
Antwerpsch Archievenblad 2 (n.d. [1865-66]), pp. 69ff.; 13. "... on voit presqu’autant des petits Tableaux de sa
a transcription and detailed analysis of the Specification main qu’il en a fait de grands, dont ils sont les premieres
is provided in Jeffrey M. Muller, Rubens: The Artist as pensees & les Esquisses: Et de ces Esquisses il y en a de
Collector (Princeton, 1989), pp. 91-146. fort legers & d’autres assez finis, selon qu’il possedoit
plus ou moins ce qu’il avoit a faire, ou qu’il estoit en
2. Twenty-nine paintings were purchased privately by humeur de travailler. II y en a esme qui luy servoient
Philip IV of Spain; other private sales were negotiated comme d’Original, & ou il a voit etudie d’apres nature
by the prince of Orange, Justus Sustermans, Peter van les objet qu’il devoit representer dans le grand ouvrage,
Hecke, and the art dealer Matthijs Musson (see below). ou il changeoit settlement selon qu’il le trouvait a
See Genard [1865-66], pp. 81-85; and Muller 1989, p. 79. propos.” Roger de Piles, La Vie de Rubens, 2nd ed. (Paris,
1681), pp. 38-39 (translation from J. R. Martin 1969,
3. On Rubens as a collector, and the contents of his p. 62). De Piles’s description of the oil sketches was the
home, see Muller 1989; and Kristin Lohse Belkin and primary model for later publications such as J. F. M.
Fiona Healy, exh. cat. Antwerp, Rubenshuis, A House Michel’s widely read Histoire de la vie de P. P Rubens
of Art: Rubens as Collector, 2004. (Brussels, 1771).
4. P. Genard, “Het laatste testament van P. P. Rubens,” 14. Conversations sur la Connoissance de la peinture et sur le
Rubens-Bulletijn 4 (1896), p. 139. jugem,ent qu'on doit faire des tableaux (Paris, 1677; reprint,
Geneva, 1970), pp. 220-21.
5. Max Rooses, “Staet ende inventaris van den sterffhuyse
van Mynheer Albertus Rubens ende Vrouwe Clara del 15. J. R. Martin 1968, pp. 213-19; and Held 1980,
Monte,” Rubens-Bulletijn 5 (1897), pp. 56ff. vol. 1, p. 33.
6. See Jeremy Wood, “Rubens’s Collection of Drawings: 16. Rubens to Lucas Fayd’herbe, dated August 17,
His Attributions and Inscriptions,” Wallraf-Richartz 1638; Magurn 1955, pp. 410-11, no. 244. See also
Jahrbuch 55 (1994), p. 333. Sutton, “Introduction,” p. 38. Max Rooses (in Rooses
and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 6 [1909], pp. 223-24)
7. On the collecting of Rubens’s drawings, see Michiel connected this sketch with the “DryTronien op panned
Plomp, “Collecting Drawings by Peter Paul Rubens,” in van mijnheer Rubbens” mentioned in the inventory of
exh. cat. Vienna, Albertina, and New York, Metropolitan Jeremias Wildens in 1653; for the painting in Wildens’s
Museum of Art, Peter Paul Rubens (1511-1640): The inventory, see Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 6 (1992),
Drawings, 2004-5. I am enormously grateful to Michiel doc. 1902, p. 476, no. 19.
Plomp for making his essay available to me prior to
publication. 17. Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 11. In addition, a set of eight
sketches depicting the history of Achilles—unattributed
8. See Linda Bauer and George Bauer, “Artists’ but almost certainly by Rubens—are mentioned in the
Inventories and the Language of the Oil Sketch,” The estate inventory of Rubens’s father-in-law, the tapestry
WlESEMAN: NOTES 67
merchant Daniel Fourment, in 1643; see Denuce 1932, 29. Denuce 1932, pp. 120ff.; Duverger 1984-2002,
pp. 112-115, and Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 5 (1991), vol. 6 (1992), doc. 1581, pp. 44-55.
pp. 102-7. The sketches in Fourment’s posession were
probably the large modelli for the series by Rubens and 30. Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 7 (1993), doc. 1920,
his studio; see, most recently, Friso Lammertse, in exh. pp. 27-32.
cat. Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 61.
31. See Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 10 (1999), doc. 3333,
18. Field 1980, vol. 1, p. 418, no. 304 (title page for pp. 347-76; and Plomp, “Collecting Drawings,” in
Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius, Lyricorum Libri IV Vienna/New York 2004-5 (forthcoming).
[Antwerp, 1632]).
32. Denuce 1932, pp. 270-72; Duverger 1984—2002,
19. Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 135. See Arthur MacGregor, vol. 10 (1999), doc. 3253, pp. 244-48.
ed., The Late King’s Goods: Collections, Possessions and
Patronage of Charles I in the Light of the Commonwealth 33. Erik Duverger, “Rubens op de kunstmarkt van zijn
Sale Inventories (London, 1989). tijd,” Spiegel Historiael 12 (1977), p. 369; and Duverger,
“Aantekeningen betreffende de Antwerpse schilder en
20. J. R. Martin, The Decorations for the Pompa Introitus kunsthandelaar Herman de Neyt (1588-1642),” De
Ferdinandi, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, zeventiende eeuw 6, no. 1 (1990), pp. 69-75.
pt. 16 (London, 1972), p. 227.
34. Denuce 1932, doc. 27, pp. 94—112; Duverger
21. Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 93; mentioned in a letter from 1984-2002, vol. 5 (1991), pp. lOff. De Neyt also received
Nicolas Claude Fabri de Pieresc to Pierre Dupuy, dated two copies after Rubens paintings from the artist’s estate;
January 17, 1630 (Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 5 see Genard [1865-66], p. 86.
[1907], p. 266).
35. Duverger 1990, p. 73, has pointed out that the
22. De Piles noted (in La Vie de Rubens [ed. 1681], p. 9) Rubens paintings owned by de Neyt are not among
that Rubens had given his oil sketches for the Chiesa the works by the artist listed in the inventory of
Nuovo altarpiece to the abbey of St. Michael in Antwerp Rubens’s estate.
on his return to the city.
36. Denuce 1932, doc. 38, pp. 136-52; Duverger
23. Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 7 (1993), doc. 2140, 1984-2002, vol. 6 (1992), doc. 1813, pp. 343-61. Held
pp. 319-20; and Duverger, “Inventaris van het stierfhuis (1980, vol. 1, p. 143) identified the works in Wolfvoet’s
van Elizabeth Waeyens (f 1657), weduwe van Hans van collection as the bozzetti for the series because they are
Mildert,” Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone specifically described in the inventory as schetskens, or
Kunsten Antwerpen (1989), pp. 387-414. small sketches.
24. See Duverger 1989, pp. 406-7, and Frans Baudouin, 37. See Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 12. In addition to the
“Het door Rubens ontwerpen hoogaltaar in de kerk der examples cited in the text, the 1643 inventory of the
geschoeide Karmelieten te Antwerpen,” Academdae estate of Rubens’s father-in-law, Daniel Fourment, listed
Analecta. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor “Vyffentdertich soo schilderyen als schetsen soo groote
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgi'e als cleyne nae wylen heer Ruebens van copyen geschildert
(Klasse der Schone Kunsten) 51, no. 1 (1991), esp. pp. 46ff. ende somige schetsen von syn eygen hant”; see Denuce
1932, doc. 28, pp. 112-15; and Duverger 1986-2002,
25. See Muller 1975. vol. 5 (1991), pp. 102-7.
26. Denuce 1949, p. 3, doc. 7; and Muller 1989, 38. Copies by Wolfvoet on copper after two bozzetti
pp. 91-92. from the Eucharist series are in the Mauritshuis, The
Hague (inv. nos. 267, 268); see de Poorter 1978, vol. 1,
27. Hans Vlieghe, “Une grande collection anversoise pp. 89, 285, 296.
du dix-septieme siecle: Le Cabinet d’Arnold Lunden,
beau-frere de Rubens,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 51 39. Denuce 1949, doc. 53, p. 37.
(1977), pp. 178-201; and Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 5
(1991), pp. 57-62. 40. Ibid., doc. 440, p. 380.
28. “voor sekere diensten aenden afflyvigen gedaen”; see 41. Leopold Wilhelm appears to have owned two oil
Denuce 1932, p. 81. The painting (Held no. 331?) was sketches by Rubens, a Circumcision (Held no. 331)
subsequently in the collection of the Archduke Leopold and The Crowning of the Victor (Held no. 269).
Wilhelm and is now in the Akademie der bildenden
Kunste, Vienna (inv. 897).
42. Inventory dated May 24, 1668; Denuce 1932, 52. See Jeffrey M. Muller, “Private Collections in the
pp. 246ff.; Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 9 (1997), doc. 2742, Southern Netherlands: Ownership and Display of
pp. 113-19; and Duverger, “Guilielmus van Hamme,” in Paintings in Domestic Interiors,” in Boston/Toledo
The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Shoaf Turner (New York, 1993-94, p. 198; and Ria Fabri, “De ‘inwendight
1996), vol. 4, p. 116. wooningh’ of de binnenhuisinrichting,” in exh. cat.
Brussels, Gemeentekrediet, St ad in Vlanderen. Cultuur
43. Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 8 (1995), doc. 2322, en maatschappij 1477-1787', 1991, also shown at Vienna,
pp. 107-11. Schloss Schallaburg, pp. 27-140, esp. p. 128.
44. For the inventory of Happaert’s estate, see Duverger 53. On the terms used in probate inventories and other
1984-2002, vol. 11 (2001), doc. 3754, pp. 370-82; on documents to describe an artist’s workplace see Filipczak
Happaert’s purchases at the sale of Rubens’s drawings 1987, pp. 128-30, 133.
in 1657, see Wood 1994, p. 333.
54. Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 7 (1993), doc. 2140, p. 320;
45. For the inventory, see Jules Vannerus, “La Galerie and Baudouin 1991, p. 48.
d’un amateur bruxellois du XVIIe siecle. Inventaire des
tableaux . . . ayant appartenu a Jean-Henry Gobelinus, 55. The painting (or a version?) is listed in the catalogue
chanoine de Sainte-Gudule,” Annales de la Societe of the sale of Regnier’s collection on December 4, 1666,
d’Arche'ologie de Bruxelles 12 (1898), pp. 310-30; on linking as “G 54. Un Quadro di mano di Pietro Paolo Rubens,
the “huict pieces” to Rubens’s modelli for the Achilles oue e dipinto Marte Vittorioso con molte figure largo 4
tapestries, see Haverkamp Begemann 1975, pp. 47-48, in circa con Cornice d’Ebano”; Simona Savini-Bianca,
and Lammertse, in Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 59. 11 Collezionismo veneziano nel TOO (Padua, 1964), p. 103.
On the other hand, Klara Garas (“Das Schicksal der
46. Denuce 1932, p. 333ff.; Duverger 1984-2002, Sammlung des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm,” Jahrbuch
vol. 11 (2001), doc. 3754, pp. 370-82. See also der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 64 [1968],
Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 59. p. 244, no. 245) lists “Rubens, Mars von Fama gekront” in
the 1659 inventory of Leopold Wilhelm’s collection, with
47. On Tessin’s visit to Anthoine’s collection, see no mention of the painting having come from Regnieri.
Gustav Upmark, “Ein Besuch in Holland 1687 aus
den Reiseschilderungen des Schwedischen Architectes 56. Held no. 240. For the correspondence between
Nicodemus Tessin d. J.,” Oud Holland 18 (1900), p. 202. Airoldi and Leopold, see Rooses 1886-92, vol. 3 (1890),
p. lOOn. Leopold owned oil sketches by other artists as
48. Denuce 1932, Denuce 1949, Duverger 1984—2002, well; see M. Muraro, “Studiosi, collezionisti e opere
etc. d’arte Veneta dalle lettere al Cardinale Leopoldo de’
Medici,” Saggi e Memorie 4 (1965), pp. 67-83.
49. Jules Guiffrey, Notes et documents sur les origines de la
manufacture des Gobelins et sur les autres ateliers Parisiens 57. On Haro’s collection, see Alexander Vergara, Rubens
pendant la premiere moitie du dix-septieme siecle, in Maurice and His Spanish Patrons (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 179-82;
Fenaille, Etat general des tapiesseries de la manufacture des on the Eucharist cartoons, see ibid., pp. 42 and 182, and
Gobelins depuis son origine jusqiPa nos jours, 1600-1900 de Poorter 1978, vol. 1, pp. 133-60. The modelli were sold
(Paris, 1923), vol. 1, p. 46; see also Held 1980, vol. 1, to Charles II of Spain between 1689 and 1691 in payment
pp. 67, 69. Held (ibid., p. 12) estimated that copies after of a debt.
Rubens’s oil sketches generally fetched about one-tenth
the price of an original sketch. 58. Vergara 1999, p. 185; M. Agullo Cobo, Noticias sobre
pintores madrilehos de los siglos XVIy XVII (Granada, 1978),
50. See, respectively, Denuce 1932, p. 359, Duverger p. 61.
1984-2002, vol. 12 (2002), doc. 3988, pp. 85-99, and
Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 59; Horace Walpole, Aedes 59. See de Poorter 1978, vol. 1, p. 224, and Vergara 1999,
Walpolianae: or a Description of the Collection of Pictures at p. 185.
Houghton-Hall in Norfolk (London, 1752), reprinted
with notes in A Capital Collection: Houghton Hall and the 60. See J. G. van Gelder, “Rubens in Holland in de
Heivnitage, ed. Larissa Dukelskaya and Andrew Moore zeventiende eeuw,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 3
(New Haven, 2002), p. 385 n. xlviii; and Gemeentelijke (1950-51), pp. 102-49; and Marjon van der Meulen,
Archiefdienst, Utrecht, Nederland (GAU U106a010 “Rubens in Holland in de zeventiende eeuw: enige
akte 28; Getty Archival Document N-3935 [Hulshout]). aanvullingen,” in Rubens and his World (Antwerp, 1985),
pp. 307-17. Most recently on the paintings by Rubens in
51. It must be noted, however, that probate inventories the stadholders’ collection, see Peter van der Ploeg and
are not perfectly reliable records of location, as objects Carola Vermeeren, ‘“From the “Sea Princes” monies’:
may have been moved from one room to another to The Stadholder’s Art Collection,” in exh. cat. The Hague,
facilitate the inventory process. Mauritshuis, Princely Patrons: The Collection of Frederick
WlESEMAN: NOTES 69
Henry of Orange and Amalia ofSolms, 1997-98, “Imagination et feu, l’esquisse dans la pensee du XVIIe
pp. 37-48 passim. siecle,” in exh. cat. Strasbourg, Musee des Beaux-Arts
and Tours, Musee des Beaux-Arts, L'Apotheose du geste:
61. Pieter Biesboer, Collections of Paintings in Haarlem., L’esquisse peint au siecle de Boucher et Fragonard, 2003-4,
1512-1745, Documents for the History of Collecting, pp. 39-47.
Netherlandish Inventories, 1, ed. Carol Togneri (Los
Angeles, 2001), doc. 95, pp. 301-16. 69. In his life of Jacopo Palma (Palma Vecchio); see
Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters Sculptors
62. Gemeentelijke Archiefdienst, Utrecht, Nederland and Architects, 10 vols., trans. Gaston Du C. De Vere
(GAU U106a010 akte 28); Getty Archival Document (London, 1912-14), vol. 5 (1913), pp. 260-61.
N-3935 (Hulshout).
70. Of the vast literature on de Piles’s theories, on the
63. On Meyers’s collection, see J. G. van Gelder, arguments outlined here see most recently Joanna
“Het Kabinet van de Heer Jaques Meyers,” Rotterdams Woodall, “Drawing in Color,” in London 2003-4,
Jaarboekje (1974), pp. 167-83; and Sasja Delahay and pp. 9-11 (where it is argued that Rubens’s oil sketches,
Nora Schadee, “Verzamelaars en handelaars in as disegni coloriti, consciously appealed to both sense
Rotterdam,” in Rotterdam.se Meesters uit de Gouden and intellect); Michel, “Imagination et feu,” in
Eeuw (Rotterdam and Zwolle, 1994), p. 38. Strasbourg/Tours 2003-4, p. 40; and Arras/Epinal, 2004.
64. “P. H. Lankrink’s Collection,” The Burlington 71. Michel, “Imagination et feu,” in Strasbourg/Tours
Magazine 86 (1945), pp. 29-35; and Kristin Lohse Belkin, 2003-4, p. 40.
“The Classification of Rubens’s Drawings Collection,”
Studien zur niederldndischen Kunst: Festschrift fur Dr. Justus 72. Diderot on Art, trans. and ed. John Goodman (New
Muller Hofstede, Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 55 (1994), Haven and London, 1995), vol. 2 (The Salon of 1767),
p. 113 n. 14. p. 212; and vol. 1 (The Salon of 1765 and Notes on
Painting), pp. 104—5.
65. See B. Teyssedre, “Une Collection frangaise de
Rubens au XVIIe siecle: Le Cabinet du Due de Richelieu 73. Frangois Hemsterhuis, Lettre sur la sculpture, precedee
decrit par Roger de Piles (1676-1681),” Gazette des Beaux- de la lettre sur une pierre antique (1765), p. 38, as translated
Arts 62 (1963), pp. 241-300; Antoine Schnapper, Curieux in Guilhem Scherf, “‘Terracotta is the concern of genius’:
du Grand Siecle: Collections et collectionneurs dans la France Connoisseurs and Collectors of Terracottas,” in exh. cat.
du XVIIe siecle (Paris, 1994), pp. 380-83; and Alexis Merle New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Playing with
du Bourg, “Une Grande figure de la curiosite sous Louis Fire: European Terracotta Models, 1740-1840, 2004, p. 2.
XIV: Armand-Jean de Vignerod du Plessis, deuxieme due
de Richelieu (1629-1715),” in exh. cat. Arras, Musee des 74. Michel, “Imagination et feu,” in Strasbourg/Tours
Beaux-Arts, and Epinal, Musee Departemental d’Art 2003-4, p. 42.
Ancien et Contemporain, Rubens contre Poussin: la querelle
du colons dans la peinture frangais a la fin du XVIIe siecle, 75. Scherf, “‘Terracotta is the concern of genius,”’ in
2004, esp. pp. 36-42. exh. cat. New York 2004, pp. 2-7.
66. De Piles, Conversations (Paris, 1677), p. 135; 76. See Providence 1975, and Peter Sutton, “Epilogue:
translation from J.R. Martin 1969, p. 62. Rubens’s Critical Fortune, Artistic Patrimony, and
Rubenism,” in Boston/Toledo 1993-94, pp. 87-96
67. On Max Emanuel’s collection, see Ulla Krempel, (with further references) for more general accounts
“Max Emanuel als Gemaldesammler,” in exh. cat. of Rubenism.
Munich, Residenz, Kurfurst Max Emanuel. Bayern und
Europa um 1700, 1976, vol. 1, pp. 221-38; and Rudiger 77. The ensuing discussion is centered on those artists
an der Heiden, Die Alte Pinakothek, Sammlungsgeschichte who actually owned oil sketches by Rubens and is thus
Bau und Bilder (Munich, 1998), pp. 34-35. admittedly arbitrary. Dozens of oil sketches by Rubens
(or attributed to him) can be traced to the collections
68. Pliny, Historia Naturalis 35.145; as translated in of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists, many of
Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 12. This overview of the historical whom also created oil sketches as a regular part of their
appreciation of the oil sketch is indebted to Held (ibid., working practice. A list of additional artists who owned at
pp. 6-8), as well as the surveys in New York 1967, pp. least one oil sketch by Rubens would include Hyacinthe
xv-xxv (by R. Wittkower); exh. cat. Rotterdam, Museum Rigaud, Godfrey Kneller, Richard Cosway, Sir Thomas
Boymans-van Beuningen, and Braunschweig, Herzog Lawrence, Benjamin West, Mathieu van Bree, Ary
Anton Ulrich-Museum, Schilderkunst uit de eerste hand: Scheffer, David Wilkie, Leon Bonnat, and Albert Besnard.
Olieverfschetsen van Tintoretto tot Goya, 1983-84, esp. One oil sketch (cat. 5) and two tronies by Rubens were
pp. 30-31; David Freedberg, “The Hand of Rubens,” in sold by the Anglo-American painter John Trumbull in
New York 1995, esp. pp. 16-21; and Christian Michel, London in 1797, but these were almost certainly works
purchased speculatively and never formed part of the 88. Harry Mount, introduction to Sir Joshua Reynolds,
artist’s personal collection; see Irma B. Jaffe, John A Journey to Flanders and Holland, ed. Mount (Cambridge,
Trumbull, Patriot-Artist of the American Revolution 1996), p. lviii; and Francis Broun, “Sir Joshua Reynolds’
(Boston, 1975), pp. 172-75. Collection of Paintings” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton
University, 1987), vol. 1, pp. 21-23.
78. See most recently, exh cat. Amsterdam, Museum
Amstelkring, Putti en Cherubijntjes: Het religieuze werk 89. M. Kirby Talley, ‘“All good pictures crack’: Sir
van Jacob de Wit (1695-1754), ed. Guus van den Hout Joshua Reynolds’s Practice and Studio,” in exh. cat.
and Robert Schillemans, 1995; and exh. cat. Amsterdam, London, Royal Academy of Arts, Reynolds, 1986, p. 57.
Bijbels Museum, In de wolken: Jacob de Wit als
plafondschilder, ed. Janrense Boonstra, Guus van den 90. The Letters of Sir Joshua Reynolds, ed. Frederick
Hout, and Hinke Bakker, 2000. On de Wit’s collection Whiley Hilles (Cambridge, 1929), p. 147.
of Rubens’s drawings (and his retouching of them), see
Michiel Plomp, “Collecting Drawings by Peter Paul 91. David Mannings, Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Complete
Rubens,” in Vienna/New York 2004-5. Catalogue of His Paintings, 2 vols. (New Haven, 2000),
vol. 1, pp. 10-14.
79. A. H. P. J. van den Hout, “Jacob de Wit en de
internationale barok,” in exh. cat. Amsterdam 1995, 92. Reynolds 1996, pp. 144-45 passim.
esp. pp. 112-13.
93. As in the discussion of Thomas Gainsborough’s work
80. Much of the information in the following section in the Fourteenth Discourse, given shortly after the
concerning eighteenth- and nineteenth-century collectors latter’s death in 1788. See Reynolds 1975, pp. 258-59.
and the sales of their collections is gleaned from the
resources of the indispensible Getty Provenance Index 94. On Crozat’s collection, see below. On Reynolds’s
(J. Paul Getty Trust, 2001 <www.getty.edu>). interest in the paintings and oil sketches by Rubens in the
collection, see Frederick W. Hilles, “Sir Joshua Reynolds
81. George Knox, Antonio Pellegrini, 1675-1741 (Oxford, at the Hotel de Thiers,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 74 (1969),
1995); and Bernard Aikema and Ewoud Mijnlieff, pp. 204-7 passim.
“Giovanni Antonio Pellegrini, 1716-1718: A Venetian
Painter in the Low Countries,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisc 95. Reynolds 1996, p. 19.
Jaarboek 44 (1993), pp. 215-39.
96. Broun 1987, vol. 2, pp. 144-48, 160.
82. Knox (1995, p. 121) points out that the “vicissitudes^
of war” would in all likelihood have prevented Pellegrini 97. From Delacroix’s journal entry for July 10, 1858,
from seeing the sketches for the Marie de Medicis cycle as translated in Michele Hannoosh, Painting and the
then in the collection of the Bavarian Elector Max “Journal” of Eugene Delacroix (Princeton, 1995), p. 29.
Emanuel at Munich. The specific works examined by Delacroix are no
longer attributed to Rubens.
83. Boucher also owned a number of oil sketches by his
contemporaries; while the sale catalogue lists oil sketches 98. The Journal of Eugene Delacroix: A Selection, ed.
by Rubens among the paintings, their modern equivalents Hubert Wellington, trans. Lucy Norton (Ithaca, NY,
are included in the “Gouaches, Miniatures et Etudes a 1980), p. 345, January 25, 1857.
Huile” at the very end of the catalogue.
99. Ibid., pp. 133—34, Antwerp, August 10, 1850.
84. Exh. cat. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, and Paris, Grand 100. Ibid., p. 134, Antwerp, August 10, 1850.
Palais, Frangois Boucher, 1703-1770, 1986-87, pp. 159-60;
see also Providence 1975, pp. 147-52. 101. Barbara Ehrlich White, “Delacroix’s Painted
Copies after Rubens,” The Art Bulletin 39 (1967), pp.
85. See Providence 1975, pp. 152-56; and exh. cat. Lille, 37-39, 43. William Etty also copied Rubens’s sketch in
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Au temps de Watteau, Fragonard et a painting now in the York City Art Gallery (see Held
Chardin, 1985, esp. pp. 98-101. 1980, vol. 1, p. 393).
86. On this aspect of Fragonard’s work, see the excellent 102. Margret Stuffimann, “Les Tableaux de la collection
discussion by Mary D. Sheriff, Fragonard: Art and de Pierre Crozat,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 72 (1968),
Eroticism, (Chicago, 1990), pp. 192ff. pp.11-143.
87. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, ed. Robert R. 103. On Crozat as a collector of drawings, see Michiel
Wark (New Haven, 1975), pp. 67-68. Plomp, “Collecting Drawings by Peter Paul Rubens,”
in Vienna/New York 2004-5.
WlESEMAN: NOTES 71
104. Helene Meyer, “La collection de Louis-Antoine Sketches: The Case of Count Antoine Seilern,”
Crozat, baron de Thiers,” in exh. cat. Dijon, Musee des in London 2003-4, pp. 23-30.
Beaux-Arts, L’Age d’or flamand et hollandais: Collections
de Catherine II, Musee de FErmitage, 1993, pp. 49-56. 118. Sale Pierre Andre Joseph Knijff, Antwerp (Grange),
July 18, 1785, lot 164: “Cette esquisse colorie est d’une
105. Ibid., p. 52. vigueur & d’une fierte de pinceau etonnante; tout y offre
un assemblage de teintes vierges, placees au premier
106. Catalogue des Tableaux du cabinet de M. Crozat, coup, mais qui, a mesure qu’on s’eloigne du Tableau,
baron de Thiers (Paris, 1755), pp. 8-9, 11-12, 21, etc. se fondent; les object s’arrondissent, se detachent,
charment & ravissent le Spectateur.”
107. The formation and later fate of Walpole’s collection
is thoroughly studied in Dukelskaya and Moore 2002. 119. Sale M. van Schorel, Antwerp, June 7, 1774, lot 3:
“ainsi, l’on peut concevoir qui tout est correct, exprime,
108. Walpole 1752, pp. 69-70. Kneller’s sketch for his fini, & du plus bel effet.”
equestrian portrait of William III (now lost) was also
among the paintings sold to Catherine the Great; the 120. “On remarque les changements qui Rubens
finished painting is at Hampton Court. a introduits dans le tableau, surtout dans sa partie
inferieure, ou les figures representant les antes du
109. Andrew Moore, “Aedes Walpolianae: The Collection purgatoire, et celles de quelques anges, ne sont pas
as Edifice,” in Dukelskaya and Moore 2002, p. 27. aussi parfaites qui dans l’esquisse. On aime a recontre
des compositions comme celles-la, ou l’on peut saisir
110. On Catherine’s collecting, see esp. exh. cat. l’inspiration vierge d’un peintre de genie, dans les
Dijon 1993. traces hardies se son pinceau.”
111. Emmanuel Starcky, “La Grande Catherine: un 121. Eveline Koolhaas-Grosfeld, “‘La lumiere nait
collectionneur passionne de tableaux flamandes et souvent du choc des opinions . . .’: Franqois Xavier de
hollandais,” in exh. cat. Dijon 1993, esp. p. 22. Burtin (1743-1818), Promoteur de la peinture hollandais
en France,” Revue de culture neerlandaise Septentrion 16,
112. Not all the oil sketches acquired by Catherine were no. 3 (1987), pp. 29-39; and Franqois-Xavier de Burtin,
on view, however. Natalya Gritsay has noted that the Traite theorique. et pratique des connoissances qui sont ne'cessaires
sketches for the Triumphal Entry of Ferdinand—the six a tout amateur de tableaux. ... ,2 vols. (Brussels, 1808).
acquired with the Walpole collection and six grisaille
sketches of the Hapsburg emperors—remained in store 122. Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), pp. 139, 141, 183,
until the mid-nineteenth century (“Seventeenth-Century respectively.
Flemish Paintings in the Aedes Walpolianae and in the
Hermitage,” in Dukelskaya and Moore 2002, p. 190.
113. On Desenfans’s activities as a dealer and collector,

see Giles Waterfield, Collection for a King (London, 1985).
114. Lamberg’s collecting activities are discussed briefly

by Renate Trneck, “Rubens in the Picture Gallery of the
Academy in Vienna,” in exh. cat. Brussels, Hotel de Ville,
Rubens, 2002, pp. 161-62.
115. See Erich Hubala, Peter Paul Rubens: die Gemalde

im Stadel (Frankfurt, 1990); and exh. cat. Frankfurt,
Stadtische Galerie im Stadelschen Kunstinstitut, Stddels
Sammlunv im Stadel: Gemalde, ed. Klaus Gallwitz,
1991-92.
116. On La Caze, see Sylvie Beguin and Claire Constans,

“Hommage a Louis La Caze,” Revue du Louvre 2 (1969),
pp. 115-32; and Dominique Jacquot, ‘“Cette fraicheur de
l’esquisse qui est la beaute du diable de la peinture,”’ in
Strasbourg/Tours 2003-4, pp. 61-62.
117. See the recent analysis of Seilern’s collecting by

Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen, ‘“Everything connected
with Rubens interests me.’ Collecting Rubens’s Oil
The Oil Sketch
as a Vehicle for
Rubens’s Creativity
Nico van Hout

74
I
n many museums Rubens’s oil sketches occupy a glittering place of honor. And so it should
be. Are not the master’s virtuosity and his famously sure and fluent brushwork expressed most
clearly in these works? Moreover, the originality of the oil sketches is beyond dispute (or so one
assumes), while it is increasingly becoming a cliche that Rubens’s large-scale works were to a
significant extent painted by a ghostly yet crowded atelier of assistants.
However, oil sketches belong only to the preparatory conceptualizing that precedes the final
painting. They are inherently a means and not an end. Perhaps Rubens would find it incomprehensible
that the public today values his unfinished preparatory works more than his elaborate history paintings.
There is no doubt, however, that Rubens’s final goal was the completed painting, which was the result
of an intense wrestling with form, color, and the application of the brush.
Sauntering through the galleries of museums or leafing through publications with reproductions
of Rubens’s oil sketches, one is constantly struck by how different they look one from another. Some
sketches consist of barely more than a few suggestive dark outlines and highlights (fig. 1), which
Rubens applied ever so nimbly and efficiently to the streaky imprimatura layer. This buffer layer
makes the lime-chalk ground of the panel less absorbent, so that the colors retain their brilliance.
The imprimatura layer is applied with a quick zigzagging movement and functions in the sketch as
a middle tone (a little like the blue, rose, and green ground layers of Renaissance drawings).1 It is only
at a certain distance and with sharp eyes that the viewer is conscious of these effects in the picture: it is
seen, among other places, in Rubens’s interpretation of the Crowning of Mary by Christ in the company
of God the Father and the Holy Ghost, one of his series of sketches for the ceiling decorations of
Antwerp’s Jesuit church (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam).
The Rubens oil sketch in the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth (cat. 15) has an entirely different
appearance. The duke of Buckingham and his horse are worked out in all details. The sketch is a
scrupulously faithful record of the large portrait that the English politician had ordered of himself.
Nothing in this scene is left to the imagination. The drapery of his fluttering red mantle is fully
elaborated, while the reddish brown color of his horse and the ocher-yellow skin tone of Neptune
are indicated in the foreground. Only a few dimly colored zones permit the streaky imprimatura
layer to show through.
The heterogeneous character of the oil sketches thus demands a scientific explanation. Among
Rubens scholars, Julius Held has most concerned himself with this question. In case after case he
examined how the preparatory material related to the end result, namely the completed painting.
Held did not arrive at a strict division of categories. Rubens’s working methods resist reduction into
a few formulas. Rather, they answer to an internal logic, a driving system that leads to the end result.
The extent and degree of difficulty of his inventions demand a clear description of the way they
were made.
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Coronation of the Virgin.
1620-25
29 x 18.4 cm
Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. 2416
van Hout: The Oil Sketch as a Vehicle for Rubens’s Creativity 75
In the painting tradition of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the invention of a composition
preceded the act of painting. The act of painting itself was considered to be nothing more than a
careful copying of the design with the aid of paint. Artists then applied very thin and transparent
layers of paint and sought to alter as little as possible the original concept during the execution of the
painting. Any drastic alteration would be disturbingly visible through the paint layers. Consequently,
artists placed great stock in the careful preparation of the initial conception of the composition.2 In
De pictura (1453) by Leon Battista Alberti we read that it is preferable to make corrections in one’s
imagination rather than on the panel, since it is not necessary to draw back the bow when the arrow
is not pointed at the target.3
Venetian artists like Titian and Tintoretto departed from the traditional system. With their
opaque oil painting technique, they created their compositions during the act of painting, correcting
their errors directly on the canvas. Rubens was familiar with both concepts. As a result he left a great
quantity of preparatory oils sketches and drawings that show many large and small changes to his
paintings, which one can study, for example, in x-ray photos, infrared images, and normal light.
In conceiving a painting Rubens in many cases followed a standard procedure, which began
with the studying of the biblical, mythological, or historical subject that he was representing. He
was supported in this research by his knowledge of classical literature and the allegorical language
of imagery.4 Above all, Rubens, more than other artists of his day, must have had an astounding
visual memory. His important sources of inspiration included antique sculpture and the inventions
of the great masters of the Italian Renaissance, which he assimilated into his work. Besides his memory,
Rubens also consulted drawn copies he himself had made or drawn reproductions that he purchased
and extensively retouched and corrected.5 From this gathered universe of forms, poses, and
expressions he was able to give form to the most diverse subjects.
Then came the moment when he committed
his first mental stirrings (pensieri) to paper. Just
like other artists, Rubens probably made use of
sketchbooks, although some compositions could
also have been worked out on loose sheets.6 The
first tentative scribblings, what the Dutch called
crabbelinge and the Italians described as scizzo,
looked a little like the wandering lines that
emerge on a notepad during the course of a long
telephone conversation. In all probability a great
number of such initial sketches did not survive
the test of time. However, their number must
have been considerable. In these first, loose pen
strokes Rubens began in grosso modo the outlines
of the figures that he would draw with pen or
chalk and sometimes with graphite (fig. 2).7 The
first, summary contours were almost always
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Venus Lamenting Adonis
Pen and brown ink, 30.6 x 19.8 cm
Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund, National Gallery
of Art, Washington, D.C., inv. 1968.20.1
changed soon after Rubens executed them. On top of an existing sketch he drew and worked
up or elaborated several figures or groups and repeated certain elements of his composition, seeking
alternative poses for his figures. Order was created out of the resulting chaos as he washed parts with
his brush and diluted ink, so that the emerging forms became legible once more.
Thereafter Rubens made the first synthesis of the various crabbelingen in the form of a summary oil
sketch on panel, or bozzetto. In this type of sketch in a small format the artist tried to find a solution
for the treatment of light in his subject. Consequently, the choice of colors in bozzetti are restricted
mostly to earth colors and white highlights. A second category of oil sketch, modelli, gives a more
complete picture of the end result. Often, these modelli are actually bozzetti, that are more fully
developed in terms of color and details. The creative process is here crystallized into a blueprint, a
plan that is essential to the realization of the large-scale composition. Often the most detailed sketches
were destined for tapestry weavers, sculptors, and jewelers who did not work in Rubens’s workshop.
Presumably Rubens determined the degree of finish of his oil sketches by his estimation of the abilities
of the person or team who was to carry out his working document. It stands to reason that highly
trained and talented assistants needed fewer instructions to complete a painting than collaborators
who worked more independently. In this case, a bozzetto must have been more than sufficient. The
differences between Rubens’s oil sketches thus can be explained in part by the medium in which
the subject would be realized and the qualifications of those who would carry out the project.
Finally, Rubens made detailed drawings of complicated figural positions and anatomical details
that would be of use in the execution of the painting on a large scale. For these drawings naar bet
leven (from life) he posed models. In addition, Rubens used a number of tronies, or character head
studies of personages (see cats. 1, 4, and 7), that turn up in the most diverse compositions.
With the modello, the drawings, and possibly several tronies as a guide, one or more assistants
began with the underpainting, or doodverf(literally, “dead coloring”), of the eventual painting.8 The
small subject was converted to a large scale; to ensure the accurate transcription of the composition,
a grid in white chalk might be applied. The doodverf stage is a pale prefiguration of the final product,
painted with pigments of lesser quality and less coloristic brilliance. The doodverf stage combines
prefatory but well-defined ideas with the option for the artist to farther refine the composition, or
herdoodverven (re-dead coloring). Hence the oil sketch is not the final stage of the creative process.
After the dead coloring and the re-dead coloring comes the working up (opschilderen) of the painting
and the retouching {retoucheren). The degree to which Rubens was involved in these later stages
depended on the delivered work (inferior work had to be improved by retouching), the prestige
of the commission, or the size of the payment that the artist would receive for the work.
One might assume that Rubens’s standard procedure followed approximately this progression.
But sometimes ad hoc solutions occurred to the painter while he was working, or he found a way
to simplify the process whereby the usual intermediary stages in the development of a composition
were passed over. This variable method naturally had implications for the function that the oil sketch
assumed within the preparatory material for a particular painting. This elastic system affected the
function of any creative step leading to a Rubens composition, including the oil sketches.
This early trial-and-error stage in the development of a composition was not restricted to works
on paper. In working up some individual compositions Rubens chose to let his thoughts run free, taking
their own course on the panel he had designated for his oil sketch (see cat. 38).9 From the gossamer but
illegible web of chalk lines, which often are detectable with the naked eye beneath the paint film, the
ultimate composition would be spun out. In working these designs out, some embryonic chalk lines
were ignored, while others were copied, strengthened, or newly defined with paint and brush.
It is striking that Rubens worked in this fashion mostly later in his career, in designing extensive
series. He may have done this to save time and to get a more complete overview of the various
components of the project. One can mention in this context the oil sketches for the tapestry series
The Triumph of the Eucharist (1625-26) and The Life of Achilles (1630-32), as well as the sketches for
The Triumphal Entry of Cardinal Infante Ferdinand into Antwerp (1634-35). In the oil sketches for this
last commission, Rubens began by indicating a central vertical axis in black chalk, undoubtedly to get
a better sense for the symmetry of his architectural design. A significant number of these tentative
Left: Fig. 3.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Arch of the Mint, front, detail of Hispania
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp
Right: Fig. 4.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Arch of the Mint, back, detail of Vulcan
scribbles can be discerned with the naked eye beneath the paint layer on the oil sketches for (among
others) the front and back fagades of the Arch of the Mint in Antwerp. This is also the case with
the other oil sketches that Rubens made for the project, and which are now in the State Hermitage
Museum in St. Petersburg. A more complete picture of the underdrawing in both Antwerp sketches
was obtained with the help of infrared reflectography (figs. 3 and 4). The visual evidence suggests that
stylistically, the underdrawing on the oil sketches exhibits the same characteristics as Rubens’s quick
sketches on paper: made with swift movements of the wrist, they set out the most important lines of the
composition. The underdrawings seem to have functioned for the artist primarily as an aide-memoire
or stenographic notation. They do not describe exact forms but instead roughly indicate the general
placement of a figure, a niche, or a coat of arms within the design. In studying the underdrawing on
sketches for the Achilles series and the sketch for the back side of the Arch of the Mint under the
stereomicroscope, it appears that the underdrawing was applied on top of the streaky imprimatura.10
In addition to using chalk, on rare occasions Rubens formulated his initial thoughts for a
composition in a brush drawing on the panel.11 In a handful of oil sketches, such as the Lion Hunt
in London (“Introduction,” fig. 12) and Munich, Rubens worked up the salient details of the rearing
horse and the falling rider more completely than the other—secondary—figures in the composition,
which remain at the stage of a brush drawing.1'1
In a number of instances Rubens appears to have barely prepared his paintings at all. Henry IV
at the Battle at Ivry, at the Rubenshuis, Antwerp, is a fragment of one of the paintings from the
uncompleted series devoted to the life of Henry IV. Apparently, apart from two small pencil drawings
on the verso of another oil sketch, Rubens did not resort to any drawing or developed oil sketch. In
this case the creative process took place directly on the canvas. Clear evidence of this is in the tentative
lines and amorphous forms of this painting, which offer valuable information for the study of Rubens’s
painting technique.13
Even within designs for the same series the execution of the individual sketches can be quite
different. That is certainly the case with The Death of Hector, for example.14 In comparison with the
other designs for the Life of Achilles series (all now in the collection of the Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, with the exception of cat. 27), which are all rather more finished, this sketch shows an
earlier stage of development, in which the painter strengthened or altered the course of his initial
chalk underdrawing by means of fine brushstrokes in a thin, transparent brown medium, and added
further details with the brush in dark gray, brown, and black. A few economical highlights indicate
reflections in the armor. In Rubens’s choice of technique for this sketch, drawing (disegno) takes
precedence over color (colore). The red of Achilles’ mantle and the yellow of Hector’s are suggested
Fig. 5.
Peter Paul Rubens
Achilles series, details of Herms
with just a light wash of color. The decorative forms at the lowest edge of the composition are
described with a minimum of brushstrokes: it seems as if this oil sketch was abandoned at the
dead coloring stage.
Moreover, it is quite striking that in this same Achilles series, apart from differences between the
individual sketches in terms of quality and degree of finish, the quality of brushwork can fluctuate
within a single sketch. This is especially clear, for example, when we compare the herms that flank
the compositions in the various oil sketches (fig. 5). Some of these figures are weakly and hesitantly
painted (as in Thetis Dipping the Infant Achilles into the River Styx, Achilles Recognized among the Daughters
ofLycomedes, Briseis Returned to Achilles [cat. 27], Thetis Receiving the Arms of Achilles from Hephaestus),
while in other herms one can immediately recognize the sure and judicious brushwork of the master
himself {Achilles Educated by the Centaur Chiron, The Wrath of Achilles, The Death of Hector, and The
Death of Achilles).
It is not a simple matter to arrive at an explanation for these qualitative differences. The uneven
state of preservation of the sketches might be one possible reason. Rubens painted his oil sketches
quite thinly, and they are thus extremely vulnerable to solvents. That is certainly the case for the
earth pigments that Rubens used to give form to his figures and model them with light and shadow.
It is precisely these transparent paint layers that over time have been harshly removed during careless
restorations. These damaged areas were frequently repainted. In some oil sketches the streaky
imprimatura has been thoroughly scrubbed, with the paradoxical result that even the strongest
highlights come across as darker than their bleached surroundings.
Another explanation may lie in the possibility that Rubens relied on his assistants more in the
creative process than has hitherto been assumed. It is certain that Rubens was responsible for the
final production of the series of designs for paintings and tapestries that were realized by his studio.
But must this automatically also mean that the master designed each composition for a series of related
images with his own hand? Did Rubens delegate work simply and solely when he desired copies to be
made? Or did he sometimes give his most talented assistants—those who could live up to his artistic
expectations—the task of coming up with their own proposal for a composition?
Apart from that, in the case of tapestry designs, it is highly likely that the patron or the tapestry
dealer might initially have envisioned a smaller series and the order was subsequently enlarged with
additional pieces. That is perhaps the case with the thirteen designs for the Life of Constantine, of which
twelve were woven in Paris in the shop of Marc Comans and Frangois van der Plancken (French, de la
Planche). Seven of the tapestries were given by Louis XIII to Cardinal Francesco Barberini as a farewell
gift when he left Paris in 1625. The series of oil sketches for the project can be divided into two groups.
The first group consists of broadly conceived compositions with numerous figures and battle scenes.15
The second group consists of rather simple, static compositions with fewer figures, painted on smaller
panels with squarer dimensions.16 The beautifully executed Triumphant Entry of Constantine into Rome
belongs to the first group of sketches (cat. 11). In comparison with the brushwork in this sketch,
the handling of paint in The Labarum (cat. 12), a sketch from the second group, is much less lively.
The paint is applied evenly and there is hardly any transparency to speak of. The Constantine series
was designed at the precise moment that Rubens’s atelier was working at top speed to complete the
paintings for the Marie de Medicis cycle before the specified deadline. It is therefore not unlikely,
given the immense amount of work, that Rubens was forced to entrust some of the designs for
secondary projects—even for paintings or tapestries—to his assistants.
Coda
Held observed that small, irregular marks, scratched with the end of the brush into the wet paint, can
be found in a number of oil sketches by Rubens: a phenomenon encountered earlier in the work of
(among others) Quentin Metsys (The Lamentation, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp)
or Pieter Bruegel the Elder (The Adoration of the Magi, The National Gallery, London); and later in
works by the young Rembrandt (here we think of the wiry lines incised in the dark mop of hair in his
Self-Portrait in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam).17 On rare occasions Rubens also experimented with
similarly incised scratches. In St. George and the Dragon (Museo del Prado, Madrid), for example, he
Figs. 6 and 7.
Peter Paul Rubens
Details of scratches in Triumphal Chariot ofKalloo
used the wooden end of the brush to scratch lines in the wet paint to suggest the white hairs in the
horse’s tail. The scratched traces on the oil sketches, on the other hand, appear to be meaninglessly
and inadvertently introduced; they are more mechanical accidents, the results of nonchalance, rather
than painterly devices to create an effect of three-dimensionality. Until now it has been somewhat
overlooked that these mysterious little lines are found mostly along the right edge of the sketch,
mostly near the top, sometimes near the middle, and only rarely near the lower right edge. We find
them again in a number of larger panels with a standard format of about 65 by 50 centimeters,18 and
on a few panels that were conceivably sawn down to a smaller format at some later date.19 On the
sketch for the Triumphal Chariot of Kalloo in Antwerp, the viewer can also notice identical scratches
in the middle of the upper portion of the panel, mostly to the right, or above and to the right, of a
more extensively painted area (figs. 6 and 7). The marks probably occurred as Rubens in the course of
painting his sketches made use of a maulstick (or a long-handled paintbrush), which he held in his left
hand and on which he rested his right hand as he painted. Fijnschilders used sticks that were furnished
at the tip with a soft cushion to prevent damage to their diminutive paintings. Because the oil sketches
were, after all, just preparatory material, perhaps Rubens was content with using a maulstick with a
blunt end. The contact and movement of the instrument against the panel could thus have caused the
scratches. Ordinarily one would not associate the use of a maulstick with the broad and free brushwork
of Rubens, the purveyor par excellence of monumental works. But to guide a hand that had to prepare
these complex compositions in a reduced format, a maulstick would certainly not have been superfluous.
van Hout: Notes 81
Notes Luxembourg Project,” in Rubens agli Uffizi. II restauro

delle Storie di Enrico IV, ed. M. Ciatti (Florence, 2001),
pp. 23-40.
9. This is the case with the The Five Wise Maidens (M.
Jaffe 1989, no. 1064), the Apotheosis of the Virgin (Yale
University Art Gallery, New Haven (ibid., no. 1230),
and the Beheading of St. Paul (cat. 38).
1. See N. van Hout, “Meaning and Development of
the Ground Layer in Seventeenth Century Painting,” 10. Observations of the author, with the aid of a
Looking through Paintings, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, stereomicroscope. These observations were confirmed
1998, pp. 199-210. by the observations of A. Boersma during the restoration
of the Achilles sketches in the Museum Boijmans Van
2. For the origins of the oil sketch in Italy, see L. F. Beuningen, Rotterdam, in the spring of 2002. See
Bauer, On the Origins of the Oil Sketch: Form. a?td Function Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 69.
in Cinquecento Preparatory Techniques (Ann Arbor, 1983).
11. For example, Held 1980, nos. 89, Studies for a Battle
3. L. B. Alberti, De Pictura, ed. J.-L. Schefer (Paris, 1992), of Horsemen, and 257, Studies for a Painting of“Occasio.”
vol. 1, p. 126, sec. 23, vol. 3, p. 225, sec. 59: “Denique vel
picturae vel sculpturae, simper tibi proponendum est 12. Held 1980, nos. 298 (London) and 300 (Munich).
elegans et singulare aliquod exemplar, quod et spectes
et imiteris, in eoque imitando diligentiam celeritati 13. Henry IV at the Battle oflvry, in the Rubenshuis,
coniunctam ita adhiberi oportere censeo, ut nunquam Antwerp (M. Jaffe 1989, no. 965). See van Hout 2001.
penniculum aut stilum ad opus admoveat pictor, quin
prius mente quid facturus et quomodo id perfecturus sit, 14. Held 1980, no. 126.
optime constitutum habeat. Tutius est enim errors mente
levare quam ex opera abradere'' [emphasis added] and “Que 15. The Marriage of Constantine and Fausta and of
rum pictorem nunquam bonum eum, qui quae pingendo Constantia and Licinius, The Emblem of Christ Appearing
conetur non ad unguem intelligat. Frustra enim arcu to Constantine, The Collapse of the Milvian Bridge and the
contenditur, nisi quo sagittam dirigas destinatum habeas.” Death of Maxentius, The Triumphant Entry of Constantine
into Rome, The Baptism of Constantine, Constantine
4. For Rubens and antique literature, see, among others, Defeating Licinius, and Triumphant Rome (Held 1980,
McGrath 1997, vol. 1, chaps. 1-5. nos. 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, and 51).
5. For the sheets after Italian masters that Rubens 16. The Labarum, The Trophy Raised to Constantine,
retouched, see J. Wood, Rubens: Drawing in Italy Constantine Investing His Son Crispus with Command of the
(Edinburgh, 2002). Fleet, Constantine Worshiping the True Cross, The Founding
of Constantinople, and The Death of Constantine (Held 1980,
6. See Held 1986, p. 26. Held maintained that this was nos. 41,44, 46, 48,49, and 50).
the case because on sheets with double-sided drawings,
the bottom of the drawing on the front side in most 17. Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 9 n. 8: “A minor technical
cases was connected with the upper part of the drawing peculiarity, observed in seven examples, has so far eluded
on the other side. In other words, Rubens turned the rational explanation. In each of these works one can
sheet vertically rather than horizontally. Thus Held notice, albeit in subordinate places, some short and
concluded that the sketchbooks never could have completely irregular marks, made at random, apparently
been bound along the short side. with the wooden end of the brush (see nos. 75, 78, 113,
131, 203, 227, 259, and fig. 7). With Rembrandt, who,
7. Good examples are the Lamentation overAdo?tis particularly in his youth, also employed the brush in this
(National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.), David and manner, the marks so produced make good sense as they
Goliath (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, break up the shadowy areas and at the same time suggest
and Musee Atger, Montpellier), Studies for the Visitation form-defining lines. No such purpose can account for the
(Musee Bonnat, Bayonne), Studies for a Lion Hunt marks in Rubens’ sketches, and yet they appear to have
(British Museum, London), the Martyrdom of St. Stephen been his own work and they must have been applied
(Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam), the when the paint film was still fresh. Since they appear
Apostles around the Grave of Mary (Nasjongalleriet, on shaded surfaces, they do create flickers of light which
Oslo), the Last Communion of St. Francis (Stedelijk may indeed be all that Rubens intended to achieve.”
Prentenkabinet, Antwerp), Studies of Male Figures and Other examples of oil sketches with these scratches
Female Centaurs (Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, eluded Held’s notice. We also found them on numbers
London); see respectively Held 1986, nos. 58, 62, 63, 61, 170, 200, 203, 217, and 289 of Held’s catalogue.
71, 99, 101, 104, 135, and 184.
18. Held 1980, nos. 75, 78, 113, 131, 259, and 289.
8. For Rubens and dead coloring, see N. van Hout,
“Henri IV valait bien une Galerie! Rubens’s Unfinished 19. Held 1980, nos. 170, 200, 203, 217, and 227.
Catalogue
1
Peter Paul Rubens
Head of a Youth
1601-2
Oil on paper, mounted on panel

34.9 x 23.4 cm
Jack S. Blanton Museum of Art,
The University of Texas at Austin,
The Suida-Manning Collection, 1999,
acc. no. 507.1999
Provenance: Central Picture Galleries, New York; Painted during his early years in Rome, this
Robert and Bertina Suida Manning, Forest Hills, NY, engaging study of the head of a youth is among
by 1968; given to the museum in 1999.
the earliest of Rubens’s oil sketches. With wide-
open eyes, slightly parted lips, and an overgrown
Exhibitions: Cologne, Kunsthalle, Peter Paul Rubens,
1577-1640, cat. byj. Muller Hofstede, 2 vols., 1977, tumble of curls, the boy turns his head sharply
no. 34; Rome, Palazzo della Esposizioni, L’ldea del Bello: to glance up and to his right. Strong light
Viaggio per Roma nel Seicento con Giovani Pietro Bellori, illuminates the subject from the right, casting
cat. by Evalina Borea, Carlo Gasparri, et al., 2000, no. 3; the far side of his face in deep shadow. Although
Cremona, Museo Civico “Ala Ponzone,” Capolavori della the head of the figure is quite finished, his shirt is
Suida-Manning Collection, cat. by Jonathan Bober and
described with just a few swift brushstrokes. This
Giulio Bora, 2001-2, no. III.4.
sketch exhibits all the Caravaggesque effetti that
Literature: M. Jaffe, “Rubens in Italy II: Some so profoundly shaped Rubens’s work during the
Rediscovered Works of the First Phase,” The Burlington first decade of the century: the bold chiaroscuro
Magazine 110 (April 1968); Muller Hofstede 1968, p. 229 and intense physicality, the sustained tension
n. 42 (dates it to c. 1609-10); M. Jaffe 1977, pp. 60, 62, inherent in the twisted pose, even the boy’s rather
113 n. 8, 24, fig. 180; David Freedberg, “L’Annee
feminine beauty. Typically, though, Rubens’s
Rubens: Manifestations et publications en 1977; Etats
rendering is more natural and more realistically
de recherches,” Revue de PArt 39 (1978), p. 90 n. 19
(questions attribution); Hans Vlieghe, review of M. Jaffe observed than that of his Italian model.
1977, in The Burlington Magazine 120 (July 1978), p. 473 The intense vitality of the sketch suggests that
(questions attribution); Didier Bodart, Rubens (Milan, it was done from life. Although Jonathan Bober
1981), p. 153 n. 48; Germano Mulazzani, Tout Rubens, (in exh. cat. Cremona 2001-2, p. 108) proposed
la peinture (Paris, 1981), vol. 1, p. 12, under no. 10;
that Rubens got the idea of doing life studies in
Held 1982, p. 101 (questions attribution); d’Hulst and
oil from the Venetian followers of Tintoretto,
Vandenven 1989, pp. 144—45; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 148,
no. 17; Didier Bodart, in exh. cat. Padua, Palazzo della there was a lively Northern tradition of painting-
Ragione, Pietro Paolo Rubens, cat. by Didier Bodart et al., head studies (tronies) from life, most notably
1990, p. 40; Stefan Weppelmann, Rubens: Die Altarbilder in the work of Frans Floris (c. 1519/20-1570)
fur Santa Croce in Gerusalemm,e in Rom (Munich, 1998), who, like Rubens, operated an immense and
pp. 94-95; Jonathan Bober, “The Suida-Manning
impressively efficient studio. These head studies
Collection in the Jack S. Blanton Museum of Art of the
played an important role in communicating the
University of Texas at Austin,” The Burlington Magazine
141 (July 1999), p. 449, no. XV; Nico van Hout,
master’s ideas to his studio assistants (see also cat.
“Studiekoppen in het oeuvre van Rubens,” unpublished 4). It is possible to distinguish two categories of
paper given at the symposium “‘Tronies’ in de Italiaanse, studies from live models in Rubens’s work: those
Vlaamse en Nederlandse schilderkunst van de 16de which were made in advance of, and apart from,
en 17de eeuw,” The Hague, Koninklijk Bibliotheek, a specific work of art and kept on hand as “visual
October 19-20, 2000.
capital”; and those which were made “ad hoc,” in
the process of developing a composition (see A.
Catalogue 85
Catalogue 87
Opposite: Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Mocking of Christ, 1601-2
Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Puy, Grasse
Balis, “Working It Out: Design Tools and figure made its final appearance as a page in
Procedures in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- the Portrait of a Warrior Accompanied by Two Pages,
Century Flemish Art,” in Vlieghe et al. 2000, about 1613-14 (versions in The Detroit Institute
p. 141). In Balis’s view, the former rarely exhibit of Arts, Detroit [inv. 79.16], and collection of
highly specific emotions but instead are portrayed Earl Spencer, Al thorp).
in generic moods and poses, which increased Michael Jaffe (1968) was the first to publish
their adaptability for use in different situational the Austin painting, then in the Manning
contexts. The Austin Head of a Youth clearly collection, and identify it as a study for the
belongs to this category of images. young boy who tries to shield Christ from his
Rubens must have been particularly pleased tormentors in The Mocking of Christ, giving the
with the effect of spontaneity achieved in this sketch a date of about 1601-2. Justus Muller
strikingly illuminated sketch, for it is one of the Hofstede (1968, p. 229 n. 42) proposed instead
most frequently repeated physiognomies in his that the Austin sketch originated as a ricordo of
oeuvre, figuring in numerous finished paintings the figure in these early Italian works and was
in the course of more than a decade. The figure painted soon after Rubens’s return to Antwerp
first appears—wearing a feathered beret—in The as preparation for comparable figures in The
Mocking of Christ, painted for the church of Sta. Judgement of Solomon and Portrait of a Warrior.
Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome, in 1601-2 (Notre Other authors (Held, Vlieghe) have questioned
Dame de Puy, Grasse; fig. 1), thus establishing an the attribution of the sketch to Rubens, tacitly
approximate date for the Austin study. The figure suggesting that it might be the product of
is seen in reverse in the Transfiguration painted Rubens’s workshop.
for the church of Santissima Trinita, Mantua Jaffe (1968, p. 180, and subsequent
(1604-5; Musee des Beaux-Arts, Nancy), and as publications) has suggested that the model for
a page to one of the magi in Rubens’s Adoration the Head of a Youth was the young Deodato del
of the Magi, painted for the Antwerp town hall in Monte (Dieudonne Van der Mont, 1582-1644),
1609-10 and reworked in Spain in 1629 (Museo Rubens’s first pupil and traveling companion to
del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1638). Rubens continued Italy. Comparison with the engraved portrait of
to use the figure as St. Matthew in the series of the mature del Monte included in Anthony van
apostles commissioned by the duke of Lerma, Dyck’s Iconologia does little to advance this theory,
1611-12 (Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1656); however (see Simon Turner, Anthony van Dyck,
as a music-making angel on a pair of organ part 2, The New Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish
shutters, also painted in about 1611-12 (Princes Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700
of Liechtenstein, Vaduz); and as a courtier in The [Rotterdam, 2002], no. 58).
Judgment of Solomon, 1613-14 (Museo del Prado, -MEW
Madrid, inv. 1543 [as school of Rubens]). The
2
Peter Paul Rubens
Samson and Delilah

probably 1609
Oil on panel
52.1 x 50.5 cm
Inscribed lower right (possibly eighteenth
century): P. P. R
Cincinnati Art Museum,
Mr. and Mrs. Harry S. Leyman Endowment,
acc. no. 1972.459
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) Johannes Philippus Happaert, p. 63; Antwerp 1977, p. 20; Tilmann Buddensieg,
Antwerp (listed in the inventory of goods drawn up “Simson und Dalila von Peter Paul Rubens,” in Festschrift
after his death [February 27, 1686]: “Item eene schetse fur Otto von Simson zum, 65. Geburtstag, ed. Lucius
van mijnheer Rubbens van Sampson ende Dalida”); Grisebach and Konrad Renger (Berlin, 1977), pp.
(probably) sale Jean-Baptist-Pierre Lebrun, Paris, April 329-30; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 8, 10, 430-34, no. 312,
11-23, 1791, lot 73 (“Dalila qui coupe les cheveux a 439, vol. 2, pi. 309, colorpl. 2 (wrongly as on poplar); exh.
Samson. Belle composition de sept figures eclairees de cat. London, The National Gallery, Acquisition in Focus:
nuit. Cette esquisse avancee produit l'effet d'un des beaux Rubens “Samson and Delilah, ” cat. by Christopher Brown,
tableaux en petit de ce maitre, dont la maniere large lui 1983, pp. 10-11; Joyce Plesters, ‘“Samson and Delilah’:
permettoit peu de faire davantage,” 18 1/2 x 20 1/2 Rubens and the Art and Craft of Painting on Panel,”
pouces; 201 livres, to Galland); private collection, National Galleiy Technical Bidletin 7 (1983), pp. 32-33, 35;
England, purchased from a York antique shop in the Mary Ann Scott, Dutch, Flemish, and German Paintings in
1930s; sale London (Christie’s), November 25, 1966, the Cincinnati Art Museum (Cincinnati, 1987), pp. 115-17;
lot 66 (21 x 23 1/2 in.; £24,000, to Hallsborough); Justus Muller Hofstede, “Artificial Light in Honthorst
Hallsborough Galleries, London; private collection and Terbrugghen: Form and Iconography,” in Hendrick
(Lord Plunket), London (1966-72); Thomas Agnew & ter Brugghen und die Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland:
Sons, London, from whom purchased by the museum. Beitrdge eines Symposions, ed. Rudiger Klessmann
(Braunschweig, 1988), pp. 26, 27 ill.; d’Hulst and
EXHIBITIONS: Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum, Vandenven 1989, pp. Ill, 114—15, fig. 76; M. Jaffe
Mantegna to Matisse: Selected Treasures of the Cincinnati 1989, p. 165, no. 89; Christopher Brown, in Liedtke
Art Museum, 1991-92 (no cat.); London, The National et al. 1992, pp. 178-80; Hans Vlieghe, in exh. cat.
Gallery, 2003-4 (no cat.). Cologne/An twerp/Vienna 1992-93, p. 347.(as in
Cleveland); Waldemar Januszczak, “A Rubens or a
LITERATURE: (Possibly) Denuce 1932, p. 334; London, Costly Copy?” The Sunday Times (London), October 5,
Christie’s, Christie’s Review of the Year, October 1966-July 1997, pp. 9-10, ill.; The Collections of the Cincinnati Art
1967 (London, 1967), pp. 20-21; Kahr 1972, p. 295; Museum. (Cincinnati, 2000), p. 177; (possibly) Duverger
Philip R. Adams, “Peter Paul Rubens,” The Cincinnati 1984-2002, vol. 11 (2001), doc. 3754, p. 371; David Jaffe
Art Museum Bulletin 10 (October 1973), pp. 2-7; exh. cat., and Amanda Bradley, “Rubens’s Massacre of the Innocents,”
Rotterdam, Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen, Kabinet Apollo 157 (June 2003), p. 13; Gregory Martin, “Rubens
van tekeningen: 16e en 1 le eeuwse hollandse en vlaam.se at Somerset House,” Apollo 159 (November 2003), p. 50.
tekeningen uit een Amsterdam.se verzameling, 1976-77,
Catalogue 89
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
Samson and Delilah, c. 1609-10
The National Gallery, London, inv. NG6461
The subject of this dramatic scene is taken from a mighty arm dangling over her leg. Standing just
the Old Testament book of Judges (chap. 16): the behind the couple, a young man lifts a lock of
Hebrew hero and legendary strongman Samson Samson’s hair with his left hand and snips it close
spent his life enmeshed in the brutal ongoing with the shears held in his right. The awkward
conflict between Israel and the Philistines. He crossing of his hands is surely intentional and
fell in love with the beautiful but deceitful meant to convey a specific reference to betrayal
Delilah, whom the Philistines bribed to discover (see Kahr 1972, p. 295, with further references).
the source of Samson’s colossal strength. Wearied Rubens emphasizes the eroticism of the
by Delilah’s persistent questioning, Samson scene not only in the visual expression of
revealed to her that his strength lay in his hair: Delilah’s treacherous sensuality but also through
if his hair were cut, he would be no stronger than the inclusion of the old crone who stands behind
any other man. One night as he lay sleeping in her. In accordance with biblical commentaries
Delilah’s lap, she called for a man to cut off his that describe Delilah as a temptress and whore,
hair, and Samson was immediately overpowered and certainly cognizant of the many moralizing
and captured by the Philistines. prints of brothel scenes produced during the
Rubens’s highly charged sketch locates sixteenth century, Rubens casts the old woman
Samson’s undoing in a darkened chamber as a procuress, aiding and abetting Delilah’s
illuminated by multiple sources of flickering duplicity (on the development of this tradition,
light. The lamp burning at the left edge of the see Kahr 1972). The statue of Venus and Cupid
composition, the candle held by the old woman, in a background niche underscores Delilah’s
torches held by the Philistines, and the lamp professionalism, making it clear, as Julius Held
burning before a background niche sculpt forms noted, “which deity is served in Delilah’s house”
with dramatic chiaroscuro and enhance the (1980, vol. 1, p. 431).
furtive urgency of the scene. Fully clothed but Rubens liberally referenced the work of
voluptuously bare-breasted, Delilah reclines on other artists in his composition: Delilah’s pose
a carpet-covered bed that spans the foreground echoes (in reverse) the figure of Night from
of the composition. Her left hand rests almost Michelangelo’s tomb for Giuliano de’ Medici
tenderly on Samson’s shoulder as he slumbers in in the church of San Lorenzo, Florence; the
postcoital repletion, sprawled across her lap with nocturnal setting and complex lighting effects
Catalogue 91
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Samson and Delilah, c. 1609
Pen and ink with brown wash, 16.4 x 16.2 cm
Private Collection, Amsterdam
were inspired not only by Caravaggio but also Rockox (c. 1630-35; Alte Pinakothek, Munich,
by Rubens’s colleague in Rome, Adam Elsheimer; inv. 858) shows the finished painting prominently
and the arrangement of the composition is hung above the fireplace in a fanciful rendering
sufficiently close to Tintoretto’s interpretation of de groote Saleth (the large salon) in Rockox’s
of the subject to suggest that Rubens might have home on the Keizerstraat.
known that painting as well (R. Oldenbourg, Rubens initially composed the main figural
Peter Paul Rubens, ed. Wilhelm von Bode [Munich, grouping in a pen-and-ink drawing (fig. 2), which
1922], pp. 83, 86; Tintoretto’s composition is differs from the painted sketch only in detail.
known in two versions, one at Chatsworth and The barber is brought farther forward in the
one in the John and Mable Ringling Museum, modello, creating a much tighter and more
Sarasota, inv. SN75). Rubens’s painting is in no effective grouping; Delilah’s right leg is extended
sense derivative, however, but attests to his to better support the weight of Samson’s body;
thorough understanding and inventive and the old woman at left holds a candle in her
assimilation of artistic sources. left hand while shielding it with her right,
The Cincinnati sketch is the modello for dramatically illuminating the treacherous act.
the large painting of Samson and Delilah Much detail is added in the painted modello,
commissioned by the wealthy Antwerp particularly in the background. A great swag of
burgemeester, antiquarian, and collector Nicolaas curtain at the top of the composition heightens
Rockox (1560-1640) and now in the National the closeness of the room, with the added effect
Gallery, London (fig. 1). In late 1608 or very of permitting us a covert glimpse of a clandestine
early 1609, Rockox had been instrumental in act. The niche with the statue of Venus and
Rubens’s receiving the prestigious commission Cupid has been added, as well as a shelf with glass
for an Adoration of the Magi for the Antwerp town jars (probably containing the lotions and potions
hall (now Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1638). appropriate, with the towel hanging below, to a
Formal parallels between the Adoration and prostitute’s toilet [Brown, in London 1983, p. 11],
the Samson and Delilah suggest that Rockox although Held interpreted them as wine vessels,
commissioned the latter at about the same time an allusion to drunkenness as one of the causes
(Brown, in London 1983, p. 8). Frans Franken of Samson’s downfall [Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 432]).
the Younger’s Banquet in the House of Burgemeester Rubens made few modifications to the modello
in the final painting: he changed the angle of

the barber’s face and gave him a beard, added
an elaborate ewer below the shelf with the glass
vessels, and added two soldiers to the group of
Philistines at the door. The London painting
is more horizontal in format than the modello,
incorporating at left a fuller view of Delilah’s bed
and the lamp; and at right, a strip of wall beside
the doorway and nearly the whole of Samson’s
outstretched foot. When the Cincinnati painting
was sold in 1966, strips of wood totaling about
8.25 centimeters wide (evidently not original) had
been added to either side of the panel, bringing
the proportions closer to those of the London
painting; these strips were removed before the
museum acquired the painting in 1972. The
inscription at lower right (itself a later addition)
Fig. 3. originally extended onto the added strip and
JACOB Matham after Peter Paul Rubens included the whole of Rubens’s surname.
Samson and Delilah, c. 1613 In addition to having been presented to
Engraving, 37.5 x44.1 cm
Rockox for his approval, the Cincinnati sketch
Cincinnati Art Museum, The Harry S. and Eva Belle
appears to have served as the modello for a
Leyman Fund, acc. no. 1973.740M
masterful engraving by the Haarlem printmaker
Jacob Matham (1571-1631; fig. 3). Details in
the print, such as the beardless barber, the
arrangement of jars on the wall shelf, and the
number of soldiers in the doorway, correspond
more closely to the modello than to the finished
painting. Matham’s engraving dates to about
1613; Rubens may have brought the oil sketch
(or a drawing based on it) with him when he
visited Haarlem in June 1612 (see Held 1980,
vol. 1, p. 432).
The mention of a sketch by “mijnheer
Rubbens” of “Sampson ende Dalida” in the
posthumous inventory of Johannes Philippus
Happaert in 1686 is too brief to permit certain
identification with the Cincinnati painting. The
reference might just as well be identified with
the Chicago (cat. 3) or Thyssen Collection
sketches of the same theme.
-MEW
3
(Exhibited in Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
The Capture of Samson

1609-10

The Art Institute of Chicago, Robert A. Waller
Memorial Fund, ace. no. 1923.551
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) Johannes Philippus Happaert, (1932), p. 246, ill. (as Rubens); Ludwig Burchard, in
Antwerp (listed in the inventory of goods drawn up after Gustav Gluck, Rubens, Van Dyck und ihr Kreis (Vienna,
his death [February 27, 1686]: “Item eene schetse van 1933), p. 395; Hans Gerhard Evers, Rubens undsein Werk:
mijnheer Rubbens van Sampson ende Dalida”); Albert Neue Forschungen (Brussels, 1943), pp. 162-63, 165 (as
Besnard (1849-1934), Paris; Frank T. Sabin, London, Rubens); Valentiner 1946, no. 18; Goris and Held 1947,
by 1914, from whom acquired by the museum. p. 31, no. 38; Frits Lugt, Inventaire general des dessins des
e'coles du nord, ecoles Flamandes (Paris, 1949), vol. 1, p. 56
Exhibitions: Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts, (as van Dyck); Rosen and Held 1950-51, pp. 77-91;
Eighth Loan Exhibition of Old Masters: Paintings by Anthony Held 1959, vol. 1, pp. 68, 104, under no. 26; Paintings in
Van Dyck, 1929, no. 10 (as van Dyck); Chicago, The Art the An Institute of Chicago (Chicago, 1961), p. 407; J. R.
Institute of Chicago, Century of Progress Exhibition, 1933, Martin 1968, p. 154; Kahr 1972, pp. 294—95; Tilmann
no. 77; Detroit 1936, no. 37 (as Rubens); Cincinnati, Buddensieg, “Simson und Dalila von Peter Paul Rubens,”
Cincinnati Art Museum, Nicolas Poussin and Peter Paul in Festschrift fur Otto von Simson zum 65. Gebunstag,
Rubens, 1948, no. 1; New York 1951, no. 3; Rotterdam ed. Lucius Grisebach and Konrad Renger (Berlin, 1977),
1953-54, no. 6; Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 28; pp. 332-33; Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 313, pp. 433-34,
Cologne/AntwerpAdenna 1992-93, no. 44.4. vol. 2, pi. 310; Held 1982, p. 85; Michael Jaffe, “Rubens
as a Draughtsman: Some Fresh Examples,” in Essays in
Literature: Arundel Club, London, 1914: Eleventh Northern European An Presented to Egben Haverkamp-
Year's Publications (London, 1914), no. 14 (as Rubens); R. Begemann on His Sixtieth Birthday (Doornspijk, 1983),
M. F., “An Early Sketch by Van Dyck,” Bulletin of the Art p. 117; exh. cat. London, The National Gallery,
Institute of Chicago 18 (1924), pp. 35-37 (as van Dyck); Acquisition in Focus: Rubens aSamson and Delilah, ” cat.
Ludwig Burchard, “Die Skizzen des jungen Rubens,” by Christopher Brown, 1983, pp. 8-10; d’Hulst and
Sitzungeberichte der Berliner Kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft Vandenven 1989, pp. 115-17, no. 32, fig. 77; M. Jaffe
(October 8, 1926), pp. 3-4, no. 20 (as Rubens); (possibly) 1989, no. 117; (possibly) Duverger 1981—2002, vol. 11
Denuce 1932, p. 334; E. Tietze-Conrat, “Van Dyck’s (2001), doc. 3754, p. 371.
Samson and Delilah,” The Burlington Magazine 61
Catalogue 95
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Blinding of Samson, c. 1609?
Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza.
Madrid, inv. 351
After the Hebrew hero Samson revealed the third oil sketch of the Blinding of Samson in
secret of his strength to his lover Delilah, locks the Thyssen Collection (fig. 1)—are all related
of hair were cut from his head while he slept, to the painting of Samson and Delilah
rendering him helpless (see cat. 2 for Rubens’s commissioned by Nicolas Rockox about 1609
masterful depiction of this scene). In the present (Kahr 1972, pp. 292ff.; for a discussion of the
sketch, Rubens explores the very next moment commission, see cat. 2). She suggested that the
in the narrative: the dramatic scene in which Thyssen sketch was the artist’s first, rather
Samson, shorn of his hair and thus of his tentative approach to the theme, followed by the
strength, is taken captive by a group of Philistine sketch now in Chicago, more fully developed
soldiers. Enhanced by the flickering chiaroscuro, with a clearer presentation of the narrative (ibid.,
the painting’s violent action contrasts sharply p. 295). Many elements are nearly identical in
with the languid sensuality and quiet stealth of the two sketches; the most striking change is
the Samson and Delilah. As the soldiers swarm Delilah’s transformation from a sturdy, contorted
fiercely to overcome Samson’s thrashing figure nearly Samson’s equal to the more passive,
resistance, Delilah struggles to raise herself delicate creature seen in strict profile in the
from her bed. Her left arm is outstretched, but Chicago sketch. If these works can be connected
whether she is pushing Samson into the arms with the Rockox commission (neither Held
of his captors or making a feeble, futile protest [1980, vol. 1, p. 433] nor d’Hulst and Vandenven
against the fierceness of the attack is not clear. [1989, p. 118] were convinced by Kahr’s
Behind Delilah is the ghostly figure of a woman, thesis, although they acknowledged the close
who with her left arm tries to shield Delilah from relationship between the Thyssen and Chicago
the soldiers’ attack. Samson’s torqued, muscular sketches), it may be, as Kahr suggested (1972,
figure recalls the Hellenistic statue of Laocoon p. 295) that the violence and frank eroticism
(which Rubens studied and copied so assiduously of Samson Captured by the Philistines were found
during his vist to Rome); the soldier at right unacceptable by Rubens’s patron, which led the
with his arm outstretched recalls the so-called artist to select a quieter, more contempletive
Borghese Warrior now in the Musee du Louvre aspect of the theme for his final submission.
(d’Hulst and Vandenven 1989, p. 116). Madlyn Rubens waited several years before revisiting
Kahr has argued that all three of Rubens’s oil the dynamic design he created for The Capture of
sketches of Samson and Delilah—the Chicago Samson. A large painting of The Capture of Samson,
sketch, the Cincinnati modello (cat. 2), and a painted in about 1620 or slightly before and now
Catalogue 97
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens and Studio
1'he Capture of Samson, c. 1620
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek,
Munich, inv. 348
in Munich, is largely a studio work but clearly Chicago picture (see Rosen and Held 1950-51).
derived from the composition worked out in the Rubens apparently abandoned the underlying
Chicago sketch (fig. 2). The poses of Samson and sketch after having formulated his ideas for the
his captors and of the old woman at the far left group of figures surrounding the Virgin at the
are nearly identical to those in the oil sketch, left of the composition and began again with
but again, the figure of Delilah has changed the panel now at Groningen (see cat. 6, fig. 2).
significantly. Rather than repeating the stiff and He barely covered up the traces of his earlier
somewhat remote effect produced by posing her sketch before beginning the Samson-, portions
in profile, in the Munich painting Delilah is more of the Virgin’s red and blue drapery as well
accessible, turned toward the viewer and twisting as the dog and sword at her feet can still be
her ample body away from the violent struggle. made out at upper right. These relics create a
The design also inspired Anthony van Dyck’s “strange, apparently unsubstantiated glitter,”
Samson Taken by the Philistines of about 1630-32 which enhances the effect of excitement and
(oil on canvas, 146 x 254 cm, Kunsthistorisches danger (Rosen and Held 1950-51, p. 83). The
Museum, Vienna, inv. 512). The poses of Samson technique of the Chicago sketch, and especially
and Delilah in the latter painting clearly reflect the palette—reminiscent of Tintoretto, with
the inventions of the Chicago sketch; even the luminous flashes of pink and crimson threading
small anecdotal detail of the barking dog to the the shadowy nocturne—as similar to other
left of Delilah’s bed is discernible in the sketch. sketches from the period just after Rubens’s
Possibly because of its connection with the return to Antwerp, such as the modello for the
workshop painting in Munich, as well as van Adoration of the Magi in Groningen.
Dyck’s painting in Vienna, the present sketch The mention of a sketch by “mijnheer
was ascribed to van Dyck when it was acquired Rubbens” of “Sampson ende Dalida” included in
by the Art Institute of Chicago. the inventory of Johannes Philippus Happaert of
X-rays taken of the panel secured the 1686 is too brief to permit certain identification
attribution to Rubens by revealing that The with the Chicago painting; the reference might
Capture of Samson was painted over an earlier, just as easily be identified with the Cincinnati
unfinished sketch by Rubens (turned upside or Thyssen sketches of the same theme.
down) for the Adoration of the Magi commissioned -MEW
in 1609 for the Antwerp town hall; this discovery
also provided important evidence for dating the
4
Peter Paul Rubens
Head of a Young- Warrior
c. 1614—15
Oil on panel
50.8 x 41.5 cm
Private Collection
PROVENANCE: (Probably) Jean Nicolas Ribard, Rouen

(1694-1758); Jean Philippe Nicolas Ribard, Rouen
(1724-1798), and by descent; Heinz Kisters, Kreuzlingen,
to 1958; Dr. Gunter Henle, Duisberg; sale London
(Sotheby’s), December 3-4, 1997, lot 40; private
collection.
EXHIBITION: Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum,

Die Sammlung Henle: aus dem grossen Jahrhundert der
niederltindischen Malerei, cat. by Horst Vey, 1964, no. 30.
LITERATURE: Jean-Baptiste Descamps, “Catalogue et

Estimation des Tableaux appartenants au feu Monsieur
Jean Philippe Nicolas Ribard,” ms., 1798, no. 17 (“Deux
Tetes d’apotres par Rubens”); Held 1980, vol. 1, pp.
609-10, no. 443, vol. 2, pi. 429; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 224,
no. 406 (as c. 1616); McGrath 1997, vol. 1, fig. 207,
vol. 2, pp. 303, 307 n. 47.
Catalogue 99
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens and Anthony van Dyck
St. Ambrose Baning Emperor Theodosius from Entering the
Cathedral, c. 1616-17
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG524
Opposite: Fig. 2.
Willem Panneels(P)
Two Studies of a Youth’s Head
Black chalk, pen and ink on paper, 12.3 x 22.6 cm
Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen,
inv. KKSGB6644
Facing three-quarters to the right, a young boy however, perhaps about 1614 or 1615. As
dressed in soldier’s armor looks up from beneath evidence for this earlier dating, Justus Muller
a thick, wildly unruly mop of hair. Delicate, Hofstede (letter to G. Henle; see Held 1980,
almost feminine features and slightly parted vol. 1, p. 610) noted that among the large body
lips create an innocently youthful appearance. A of drawings after Rubens probably by Willem
dark cloak is draped over the boy’s left shoulder. Panneels that make up the so-called Rubens
Light from the left highlights his creamy skin Cantoor is a sheet showing the present head
and tousled curls and deposits gleaming accents together with a view of the same model in lost
on the ribs and bolts of his gorget, casting the far profile, presumably also based on an oil sketch
side of his face into shadow. The hand resting (now lost) by Rubens (fig. 2). This latter head
on the staff at lower right is probably a later was used by Rubens in a painting of Christ and
addition, intended to give a more narrative the Adulterous Woman, datable to about 161 A-15
quality to the sketch. The panel is composed of (Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique,
two horizontal planks, with a strip about three Brussels, inv. 3461). Assuming that the two head
centimeters wide added at the left. studies from the same model were painted at the
The boy’s head can be seen—with a thin same time, the present study must also have been
mustache and tightly curled chin whiskers adding executed during this period. Stylistically, the Head
some maturity to his youthful face—as a warrior of a Young Warrior shows the heavy, glossy curls—
in the background of Rubens’s St. Ambrose alternating thick strokes of dark paint with more
Barring Emperor Theodosius from Entering the delicate scumbled highlights—and creamy skin
Cathedral, painted (with the assistance of Anthony tones frequently encountered in Rubens’s works
van Dyck) in about 1616-17 (fig. 1). The present from the early to mid-1610s. Comparable in
study may have been created a few years earlier, handling is the Two Studies of the Head of a Young
Catalogue 101
Man, which probably slightly postdates the four oil sketches by Rubens’s hand (coll. Princes
present sketch (oil on panel, 46.3 x 63.5 cm; of Liechtenstein, Vienna, inv. 113; Los Angeles
coll. H. Schickman, New York, [Held no. 446]). County Museum of Art, inv. A4590.39-20;
Several other physiognomies in the St. Narodni Galerie, Prague, inv. DO-4377; and
Ambrose altarpiece are also based on known a private collection), which served in turn as
painted head studies by Rubens, a voluble model models for numerous figures in paintings dating
of the efficient design and execution of a large from at least 1612 to 1618. The curly-haired,
commission by the master and his atelier. Most bearded centurion at far left in the St. Ambrose
of Rubens’s head studies, including the present is based on a study head that was also employed
work and (cat. 1), express generic moods and as the model for a figure in Rubens’s Death of
expressions, allowing them to be adapted for use Seneca (c. 1611-20; Alte Pinakothek, Munich,
in a variety of contexts. Arnout Balis points out inv. 305). Interestingly, this latter study of a
(“Working It Out: Design Tools in Sixteenth- man’s head is painted on a panel of nearly
and Seventeenth-Century Flemish Art,” in identical configuration to the Head of a Young
Vlieghe et ah, 2000, p. 141) that paintings like Warrior (minus the added strip at left) with the
the St. Ambrose “seem not just to make use of the horizontal join in the panel occurring at almost
available heads, but to be altogether conceived exactly the same place (oil on panel, 49.1 x 37.2
on the basis of them”: the painting’s dramatic cm; sale London (Sotheby’s), December 3-4,
content “reads” from the juxtaposition and 1997, lot 81 [with further references]). These
interaction of these specific character heads. two related studies thus appear to have been
The impressively bearded man positioned painted at the same time, on pieces cut from
beside St. Ambrose and looking so intently at a single, larger panel.
the emperor was the subject of no fewer than -MEW
5
(Exhibited in Greenwich and Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
Decins Mas Relating His Dream
c. 1617
Oil on panel transferred to canvas (1773),

in turn transferred to masonite (c. 1954-55)
80.7 x 84.5 cm
Samuel H. Kress Collection, National Gallery
of Art, Washington, D.C., 1957.14.2 (1394)
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) sale Randon de Boisset,

Paris, February 27, 1777, lot 31 (as “Germanicus [on a
pedestal] haranguing and giving orders to five officers,”
with approximately the same dimensions—“2 pieds 5
pouces 6 lignes en quarre”—but on panel rather than
canvas, to which it had been transferred four years
earlier); the de Boisset panel was sold to “Lebrun”
(Pierre Le Brun?); (possibly) sale John Trumbull, Esq.,
London (Christie’s), February 17, 1797, lot 25 (as
“Germanicus haranguing his troops, sketch”); sale
F. A. von Kaulbach, Munich (Helbing), October 29-30,
1929, lot 194; Samuel H. Kress Collection, 1955.
Exhibitions: Cologne/Vienna/An twerp 1992-93,

no. 44.8:11; Lille, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Rubens, cat. by
Arnauld Brejon de Lavergnee et al., 2004, no. 150, ill.
Literature: Oldenbourg 1921, p. 460, note to no. 142;

Emil Kieser, “Antikes im Werke des Rubens,” Miinchner
Jahrbuch derbildenden Kunst, N.F., 10 (1933), p. 126;
van Puyvelde 1940, p. 26, no. 1; L. Burchard and R.-A.
d’Hulst, in exh. cat. Antwerp 1956, p. 135, under no. 81;
Charles Seymour Jr., Art Treasures for America: An
Anthology of Paintings and Scidpture in the Samuel H. Kress
Collection (London, 1961), p. 147, fig. 138; Michael Jaffe,
“Rubens as a Draughtsman,” The Burlington Magazine 107
(1965), p. 379; Erwin Panofsky, “Classical Reminiscences
in Titian’s Portraits,” in Festschrift fur Herbert von Einem
(Berlin, 1965), pp. 188Ff.; H. D. Rodee, “Rubens’
Treatment of Antique Armor,” The Art Bulletin 49
(1967), pp. 22 3ff.; Stechow 1968, pp. 69-71; Colin Eisler,
Paintings from the Samuel H. Kress Collection: European
Schools, Excluding Italian (London 1977), pp. 104-6;
Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 25, no. 1, vol. 2, pi. 1.
Catalogue 103
104 Drawn by the Brush-. Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Emblem, of Christ Appearing to Constantine, 1622
Philadelphia Museum of Art: The John G. Johnson
Collection, J 659
The story of Deems Mus is told by Livy (8.6, and Remus in a circular decoration, his shield
9-10). Publis Deems Mus (the Elder) was a with an apotropaic head encircled with radiating
consul and commander of the Roman legions bolts of lightning, and weapons. The other four
fighting the Latins at Capua. He and his fellow modelli for the series depict the interpretation
commander, Titus Manlius, both had a dream of the animal sacrifice by the soothsayer, the
informing them that one of the two armies modello for which is in the Oskar Reinhardt
engaged in the conflict would have to sacrifice Collection, Winterthur (Held 1980, no. 2); the
its commander to the gods of the underworld consecration of Decius Mus by the high priest,
and to Mother Earth, but as a consequence the present location unknown (a copy is in Munich;
opposing army would be completely defeated. Held 1980, #3); the death of Decius Mus, in the
Each general conveyed the dream to his officers. Museo del Prado, Madrid (Held 1980, no. 3 a);
After consulting a soothsayer who performed and the obsequies of Decius Mus, in the
a sacrificial offering to the gods, it was Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Munich
determined that Decius Mus must make the (Held 1980, no. 4). A series of cartoons in the
ultimate sacrifice. At the command of the highest princes of Liechtenstein collection now in
priest, Decius covered his head with a toga and Vienna were executed after the modelli and
consecrated himself to the infernal gods with a have been variously attributed to either or
solemn and dreadful vow. He then threw himself both Rubens and his pupil, Anthony van Dyck.
into battle and was killed. Fulfilling the prophecy, Rubens was a descendant of a famous tapestry
the Romans attacked with renewed strength and manufacturer (Hendrick Pype, called Pypelinckx,
routed their enemy. d. 1580) and in 1630 married the daughter of a
In the present sketch, which is the first in prominent tapestry dealer; thus, he was closely
a series of five modelli for tapestry designs, allied with this flourishing Flemish industry.
Decius Mus wearing a bright red cloak stands The Decius Mus series was the first of his
on a pedestal to address five of his officers whose large tapestry series. It was commissioned on
ensigns and standards bristle against the sky. November 9, 1616, by a Genoese businessman,
Closest to the dais, the young warrior in shadow Franco Cattaneo, from the Antwerp tapestry
wears armor over a dark red tunic and has a merchants Jan Raes and Frans Sweerts, in a
green cloak over his shoulder. The soldier with document that specified that Rubens should
his back to the viewer wears a leopard skin over a design the series and be the judge of the quality
blue tunic. The soldier on the far right wears an of the final product—a testament to his expertise
elaborately decorated helmet and bright red cloak in the field. Rubens himself mentioned the
and carries a labarum. An eagle hovers above tapestries in letters to Sir Dudley Carlton in
Decius, and at the base of his pedestal is a still May 1618.
life consisting of his helmet, complete with a As Emil Kieser (1933) and Wolfgang Stechow
gilded relief of the Roman wolf with Romulus (1968) observed, the subject of the history of
Catalogue 105
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Decius Mus Relating His Dream
Oil on canvas, 294 x 277.9 cm
Sammlung des Fiirsten von und zu Liechtenstein, Vienna,
inv. G 47
Decius Mus had never before been depicted in to the allocutio composition when he executed
an art cycle. It undoubtedly appealed to Rubens The Emblem of Christ Appearing to Constantine
because, as he pictured it, the story was one of (fig. 1) in 1622 in his second venture into
unflinching heroic stoicism, valor, and a profound tapestry design, the Life of Constantine series.
trust in the wisdom of the gods. In all probability As Julius Held observed (1980, vol. 1, p. 25),
the subject was suggested by the learned artist Rubens surely knew Justus Lipsius’s De Militia
and avowed Stoic to Cattaneo prior to the romana libri quinque (3rd ed., Antwerp, 1602),
drafting of the contract in November 1616. which discusses the classical allocutio and gives
Rubens also probably was attracted to the examples of the associations of antique military
theme by the occasion it presented to display his leaders and military signs. Held (ibid.) further
extensive knowledge of the costumes, customs, observed that one of the ensigns features a
and appearances of antiquity. Much of Rubens’s prominent outstretched hand that appears
time in Italy had been spent researching ancient frequently on Roman coins and which Caspar
Roman civilization and its relics. He also had Gevartius in the Pompa Introitus ([Antwerp,
a renowned command of ancient literature. As 1641-42], p. 8) interpreted as a “symbol of
early as 1608 Rubens had contributed drawings warlike valor and trust.”
of Roman sculptures to illustrate his brother The painting in Vienna (fig. 2) corresponds
Philip’s book of essays on Roman expressions to the present modello in most salient regards, but
referring to civilian and military apparel. The its major change is the conversion of the design
Decius Mus series thus offered him for the to a more upright, narrower format. Thus in the
first time a grand stage on which to display his large version, the left side of the frame is much
expertise. It surely is not a matter of chance that, closer to the figure of the general, his hand
as H. D. Rodee (1967) first observed, Rubens’s almost touches the ensigns, and the figure of the
Decius Mus series is more archaeologically correct eagle is eliminated. A black chalk drawing in the
than any of the master’s other later treatments of Albertina, Vienna, no. 8238, was published by
Roman history subjects. Ludwig Burchard and R.A. d’Hulst (Antwerp
Even the composition of the present work is 1956, no. 81) as an original study by Rubens for
derived from ancient Roman examples, namely the present design but was correctly demoted to
the allocutio designs of leaders addressing their a copy by J. Miiller-Hofstede (1966, p. 449) and
troops that appear on the Arch of Constantine Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 25).
(see Kieser 1933, p. 126). Rubens later returned -PCS
6
(Exhibited in Greenwich only)
Peter Paul Rubens
Adoration of the Mavi

c. 1617-18
Oil on panel
48.2 x 64.8 cm
Private Collection
(Courtesy David Koetser, Zurich)
PROVENANCE: Baroness A. Stummer, Vienna;

V. Tavarnok, Vienna; private collection, Switzerland;
sale Zurich (Galerie Roller), September 24, 2003,
lot 3009, ill.; with David Koetser, Zurich.
Exhibitions: Tokyo, Tokyo Takashima-Yamaguchi

Prefectural Art Museum, Peter Paul Rubens, also shown
at Kyoto Takashima, Kyoto, 1985-86, no. 21, ill.
LITERATURE: Theodor von Frimmel, Verzeichnis der

Galerie Winter-Stummer, December 1895, no. 156;
Jacques Foucart, in exit. cat. Paris 1977-78, p. 175, under
no. 128 (as a copy); Didier Bodart, Rubens e la Pittura
Fiamminghi de Seicento nelle Collezioni Pubbliche Florentine
(Milan, 1981), no. 285a, pi. 56; Hans Devisscher, The Life
of Christ: Before the Passion: the Infancy of Christ in Corpus
Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard (forthcoming).
Catalogue 107
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
Adoration of the Magi, c. 1616-17
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyon, inv. 118
the end of the nineteenth century but did not

surface again until 1980 in Switzerland, where
it was examined by Julius Held, but only after
he had published his extensive study of the oil
sketches. In a letter dated February 22, 1981,
Held confirmed the work’s attribution to Rubens.
The painting subsequently was published by
The subject is based on Matthew 2:Iff. In a Didier Bodart (1981) as by Rubens, and its
horizontal composition composed of full-length attribution has been confirmed by Hans
figures arrayed friezelike across the panel, the Devisscher (who will include the work in his
three magnificently attired kings and their forthcoming book for the Corpus Rubenianum) in
entourage approach the Holy Family in the a letter dated January 20, 1997. As Held observed
manger. The Madonna in white and golden in his correspondence, the sketch is a modello for
robes stands holding the Christ Child, whose the large canvas of the Adoration of the Magi in
tiny foot is held and kissed in a tender gesture the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lyon (fig. 1). He
by the oldest magus, the Assyrian king Caspar, further noted that the sketch outlines much of
who kneels wearing gold and blue drapery and what would be realized in the final canvas.
an ermine stole. The Christ Child raises his hand Although as with most of Rubens’s sketches it is
in a blessing above the king’s bare head. Behind not so fully resolved in detail as the larger work,
the kneeling magus stands the second king it also reveals some notable changes: among the
viewed in profile with white turban, brown robes, group of heads seen above the soldier’s shield,
and a brilliant red mantle. The long train of his the callow youth farthest on the right is changed
garment is borne by a page wearing a chasuble. to a bearded older man; Joseph at the far right
The third, Ethiopian, king, called Balthazar or is deprived of his staff and turned in profile; the
Melchior, stands with arms akimbo at the back black servant bearing the gold box at the extreme
left, wearing a tall white turban and long blue left is given a new striped outfit and a more
cape over a golden tunic and pink sash. Two elaborated gift; and the architecture of the stable
soldiers with armor and shields, one wearing a at the back has been developed and the view at
plumed helmet, stand behind the central king, the upper right curtailed. Another noticeable
and many bearded men and young boys are feature of the final composition is its greater
among the curious onlookers. In addition to compression, with the figures moved closer to
the golden bowl resting on the manger, the magi the picture plane and made more monumental.
bring other gifts, including a golden wine cup The Lyon canvas was also long overlooked as a
held by a page at the second king’s side and a major work by Rubens until Jacques Foucart
golden box carried by a bearded servant in a resuscitated it in the exhibition Le Siecle de Rubens
crimson tunic in the crowd at the back left. in Paris in 1977-78 (no. 128). In that catalogue
The stable is adumbrated only in the most he listed the present work as a copy, but knew it
cursory fashion, a ramble of planks and earth, only through Frimmel’s 1895 catalogue.
with glimpses of slate blue sky in both upper The horizontally disposed design for the
corners and pennants faintly fluttering at the Adoration of the Magi was first explored by
left above the heads of horses. Rubens in his oil sketch in Groningen (fig. 2) for
Long hidden from the public view, the present the large version of the theme that he painted in
work was catalogued by Theodor von Frimmel at about 1608-9 for the Statenkamer of Antwerp’s
Catalogue 109
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Adoration of the Magi, c. 1608-9
Groninger Museum, Collection C. Hofstede de Groot,
Groningen, obj. no. 1931.0121
Town Hall. Hoping to win favors from Spain,

the town hall painting was presented by the
city magistrates to the powerful Don Roderigo
Calderon, conde d’Oliva, Spanish Ambassador
Extraordinary, and a resident of Antwerp in 1612.
Calderon eventually fell out of favor with the
Spanish court and was beheaded in 1621; Philip Lyon canvas had a distinguished early
IV acquired the painting from his estate two years provenance, having been acquired by the
later. Most of the salient features of the present Elector of Bavaria in Antwerp in 1698 from
composition are already set out in the Groningen Gijsbert van Ceulen, together with twelve other
sketch, but in reverse: the Holy Family stands to paintings by Rubens that are now among the
one side, the first king kneels in profile before pride of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich.
the Christ Child in the manger, while the second The popularity of the theme of the Adoration
king in long red drapery stands behind him. of the Magi during the Counter-Reformation in
Although posed similarly with hands on hips, part stemmed from the subject’s association—by
the black king appeared at the back center, while its magnificent pageantry, luxurious costumes,
muscular attendants brought forth treasure to the retinue of attendants, and many curious
one side where the pages now appear. onlookers—with the celebration of the Holy
Rubens painted the subject of the Adoration Mass. In the present work, as in all of Rubens’s
of the Magi more frequently than any other other treatments of the theme, the Madonna is
subject from the life of Christ. (For all the not viewed passively holding the Child in her lap
various paintings of the subject, see M. Jaffe but actively standing, presenting the Christ Child
1989, nos. 21, 96, 98, 476, 482A, 503, 525, 526, to the visitors from the East and their awestruck
559, 560, 779, 780, 880, 948, 1094; Hans attendants as they proffer their gifts and prayers.
Devisscher, Peter Paul Rubens: Aanbidding der As Held observed in discussing Rubens’s various
Koningen [1992] listed ten variations on the innovative treatments of the Adoration of the
theme.) However, most of Rubens’s designs Magi (1980, vol. 1, pp. 451, 456), throughout
are upright in format and, like the vast and his career the painter represents the Virgin as
justifiably famous paintings in the St. Janskerk the symbol of the mother Church and also as
in Mechelen of 1619, the Musee des Beaux-Arts, Ecclesia, displaying the heavenly infant, not
Brussels (painted for the Capuchins in Tournai on a lowly manger, but on a straw-covered
in c. 1619), the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone table resembling an altar, to the representatives
Kunsten, Antwerp (painted for the high altar of of mankind. Thus she is the Virgo Sacerdos,
St. Michael’s Abbey in 1624), and the Musee du officiating and assisting as a celebrant in the ritual
Louvre, Paris (painted for the Cloister of the of the Mass, while at the same time presenting
Annunciation, Brussels, 1626-27), were designed him naked to the world as the ultimate sacrificial
to be altarpieces. The fact that the present work offering. Illuminated by a miraculously brilliant
(like the Groningen sketch for the town hall shaft of light, the Christ Child makes the sign of
commission) is of a horizontal format suggests the blessing, which, as in the Brussels altarpiece,
that it and the final canvas in Lyon may have may have been inspired by Pseudo-Bonaventura’s
been executed for a secular rather than Imitatione Vitae Christie.
ecclesiastical destination, although the source -PCS
of its commission is unknown. Nonetheless, the
7
Peter Paul Rubens
Head of a Negro
c. 1618-20
Oil on panel
45.7 x 36.8 cm
The Hyde Collection, Glens Falls, New York,
inv. 1971.40
PROVENANCE: Count Schwanenberg, Schwanenberg

Castle, Czechoslovakia; New York, Lilienfeld Galleries;
by whom sold 1938 to Mrs. Charlotte Hyde, Glens Falls,
NY; bequeathed to The Hyde Collection, 1952.
Exhibitions: New York 1939, no. 331; Cambridge, MA,

Harvard University, Fogg Art Museum, October 1941,
no cat.; New York, van Diemen-Lilienfeld Galleries,
Masterpieces of Five Centuries, 1951, no. 15;
Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 36.
Literature: Goris and Held 1947, p. 30 no. 30; exh.

cat. Rotterdam 1953-54, p. 48, under no. 17; Muller
Hofstede 1968, pp. 224-25; Michael Jaffe, “Reflections
on the Jordaens Exhibition,” Bulletin of the National
Gallery of Canada 12 (1969), p. 12; Karel Braun, A lie tot
nu toe hekende schilderijen van Van Dyck (Rotterdam, 1980),
p. 93, no. 119 (as van Dyck); Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 447,
p. 612, vol. 2, pi. 435; James K. Kettlewell, The Hyde
Collection Catalogue (Glens Falls, NY, 1981), pp. 94-95;
M. S. Young, “Letter from the U.S.A.: Hidden Treasure,”
Apollo 124 (1986), p. 550; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 228, no. 428
bis (as c. 1616-17); Liedtke et al. 1992, p. 329, no. 191
(as van Dyck).
Catalogue 111
•
3*
■
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
Foilr Studies of the Head of a Negro, c. 1613-15
Oil on panel transferred to canvas, 51 x 66 cm
Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels,
inv. 3176
This simple life study of a man’s downturned Although the physiognomies are identical, the
head exemplifies Rubens’s keen mastery of man in the Hyde Collection sketch wears a shirt
physiognomy and expression. The man looks with a narrow collar open at the neck, while the
down and to his right, allowing the light subject of the Brussels panel wears a broad-
emanating from upper left to softly sculpt the collared shirt beneath an ocher doublet. This
contours of his face. His slightly furrowed brow suggested to Julius Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 612)
and pensive expression express a sense of that the two paintings were done on different
concentration or concern. By leaving much of occasions. The technique of the two sketches is
the panel’s light ground bare, Rubens intensifies also rather different, with a more liberal use of
the contrast with the man’s deep, burnished glazes in the Hyde Collection sketch. Held’s
skin tones. proposal that the two sketches were painted less
The identity of the model for this sensitive than five years apart would accommodate these
sketch is not known, but the same man also stylistic differences, yet it also acknowledges the
appears in Rubens’s Four Studies of the Head of a fact that there is no marked difference in the age
Negro from about 1615, in the Musees Royaux of the sitter. The fact that Rubens appears to
des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels (fig. 1). have studied his model over a number of years
The heads in the Brussels sketch are each on indicates that the sitter was probably a resident of
a different scale and were apparently not all Antwerp rather than a onetime visitor, perhaps a
painted at the same time (as noted by Nico servant in a wealthy local family. Held proposed
van Hout, in an unpublished paper given at the that the same man may also have been painted by
symposium “‘Tronies’ in de Italiaanse, Vlaamse en Jacob Jordaens, in a study of two heads formerly
Nederlandse schilderkunst van de 16de en 17de in the collection of Jacob Goldschmidt, New
eeuw,” The Hague, 2000), yet their individual York (see Julius S. Held, in Oud Holland 80
poses and careful distribution within the sketch [1965], p. 115, fig. 11).
result in a cohesive and dynamic arrangement. Unlike many of Rubens’s head studies, the
Rubens explored a variety of facial expressions present oil sketch cannot be connected with any
in the Brussels sketch: like the more subdued known painting by his hand. Two heads from the
but no less accomplished study of a single head Brussels sketch can be linked to several works
in the Hyde Collection, the effect is lively and from the 1610s, however: for example, the head
immediate, indicating that they were all done at the left appears in the Drunken Silenus of
from life. about 1616-17 in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich
Catalogue
(inv. 319); and the smiling face at the top of Fig. 2.

the sketch was used in the Adoration of the Workshop of Peter Paul Rubens
Four Studies of a Male Head, c. 1617-20
Magi painted by Rubens for the St. Janskerk,
Mechelen, in 1617-19. The head at the left was
TheJ. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. 71.PB.39
also engraved by Paulus Pontius and included
in a drawing book containing twenty prints
after designs by Rubens (C. G. Voorhelm
Schneevoogt, Catalogue des estampes gravees
d’apres P P. Rubens, avec Vindication des collections
ou se trouvent le tableaux et les gravures [Haarlem,
1873], p. 238, no. 65).
Although the attribution of the Brussels
sketch to Rubens has never been questioned,
the authorship of the Hyde Collection sketch
has frequently been challenged. Many scholars
have considered the painting to be by Anthony
van Dyck (see the opinions cited by Held 1980,
vol. 1, p. 608; also M. Jaffe 1989, p. 228, under
no. 428 bis), yet, as Held notes, the execution
of the sketch favors an attribution to Rubens
over van Dyck. A related sketch in the J. Paul
Getty Museum, Los Angeles (fig. 2), currently
given to “Workshop of Peter Paul Rubens,”
copies the four heads from the Brussels sketch
but arrays them more horizontally, thus losing
the dynamic interaction created between the
heads in Rubens’s original.
-MEW
8
Peter Paul Rubens
Christ on the Cross

c. 1618-20
Oil on panel
20.3 x 15.3 cm
Otto Naumann, Ltd., New York
Provenance: Sale London (Christie’s), December 2,

1977, lot 21 (attributed to Rubens); private collection,
Madrid, 1977; dealer Arthena, Barcelona, 1978; Joseph
Guttman, Los Angeles; sale London (Christie’s), July 6,
1990, lot 104; David Bowie, New York; private collection.
Exhibitions: Madrid 1977-78, no. 84; Barcelona,

Artema, Maestros de la Pintura Flamenca Siglo XVII, 1978,
no no.; New York, Schmidt Bingham Gallery, “Valta
fantasia’’’’: Saints, Angels, and Other Heavenly Creations,
1990-91, no no., also shown at Memphis, The Dixon
Gallery and Gardens, and Knoxville, Knoxville Museum
of Art; New York 1995, no no.
LITERATURE: Michael Jaffe, “Exhibitions of the Rubens

Year, III,” The Burlington Magazine 120 (1978), p. 346
(proposes a date of c. 1627-28); Julius S. Held, “New Oil
Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens,” The Burlington Magazine
129 (1987), pp. 581-83, figs. 15, 16; M. Jaffe 1989, p.280,
no. 759; David Freedberg, in New York 1995, pp. 54—58;
Judson 2000, pp. 135-36 (questions attribution).
115
Catalogue
ftsAdjtifitffa
At the very center of this diminutive sketch is displayed on his left hand and foot.
the figure of Christ, nailed to a rough wooden Despite—or perhaps because of—its unusually
cross and surrounded by a tight cluster of saints. small scale, this sketch of the Crucifixion has
Christ inclines his head to the right and appears sparked considerable debate as to its iconography,
to communicate with the Virgin Mary and John function, dating, and attribution. When the
the Evangelist; the motif recalls a detail of the painting first appeared at auction in 1977, all
Crucifixion described in John 19:25-27, in which four sides of the composition were covered with
Christ said to his mother, “Woman behold thy repaint (obscuring the framing elements) and the
son! Then saith he to the disciple [John], Behold central portion was disfigured by retouches and
thy mother!” The Virgin collapses to the ground, discolored varnish. Julius Held initially rejected
her side pierced by a sword, a reference to the the attribution to Rubens but reversed his
iconography of the Sorrows of the Virgin. opinion after a thorough cleaning revealed not
Kneeling at the base of the cross, Mary Magdalen only the framing elements but also the quality of
embraces Christ’s feet, a reminder of the moving the original brushwork (Held 1987, p. 583). More
episode in which she washed Christ’s feet with recently, J. Richard Judson—who illustrates the
her tears and wiped them with her hair (Luke panel before cleaning—has rejected the painting
7:38). At the far left is St. Peter, identified not from Rubens’s oeuvre and proposed instead an
only by his usual attribute of the keys but also by attribution to a later Antwerp painter, perhaps
the inverted cross of his martyrdom. Just behind Abraham van Diepenbeeck (Judson 2000, pp.
and to the left is another bearded figure wearing 135-36, fig. 108). But both the delicate handling
a pilgrim’s hat and carrying a staff, who has been of the paint and the remarkably adroit phrasing
identified either as St. James Major or possibly of the composition, which manages to suggest
St. Roch, patron saint of plague victims (Freedberg, both spaciousness and monumentality in a small
in exh. cat. New York 1995, p. 55). Wearing a and densely packed scene, strongly support
lemon yellow cloak over a blue robe is St. Philip, Rubens’s authorship.
carrying the cross on which he, too, was crucified. The original function of the sketch remains
To the right, behind the figure of St.John, is in question, however. As Freedberg perceptively
St. Andrew with his X-shaped cross; St. George noted (exh. cat. New York 1995, pp. 56-57),
in armor with his customary banner of a red Rubens has emphasized the relationship between
cross on a white ground; and a crowned male the individual saints represented and the cross
figure holding a scepter and wearing a purple fur on which Christ was crucified, connections that
trimmed robe, possibly representing King David- were elaborated on in numerous contemporary
Tucked neatly into the lower right corner of the treatises on Christ’s cross, including one penned
composition is the kneeling figure of St. Francis, by Rubens’s good friend Justus Lipsius. Peter,
the stigmata of Christ’s wounds prominently Philip, and Andrew are shown with the crosses
Catalogue 117
of their martyrdom; George with his banner; held personal significance. But what sort of
James (or Roch) with a staff reminding the work? The two painted frames surrounding the
viewer of the holy wood of Christ’s cross; and the scene present the potential patron with several
Virgin and St. Francis are shown bearing Christ’s possibilities for finishing the composition, a
wounds. Even the Old Testament figure of King technique that Rubens used on numerous other
David may be interpreted in this context: Psalm occasions (for example, the Glorification of the
22 refers to the wicked who have “pierced my Eucharist sketch in the Metropolitan Museum of
hands and feet,” a typological parallel invoked Art, cat. 33). The present design shows a more
in the Good Friday liturgy. elongated frame on the left than on the right,
Judson nonetheless found it difficult to different options for the lower corners, different
reconcile the figure of the Virgin as Mater capitals on the outer frames, plain or carved
Dolorosa, swooning at the foot of the cross, with moldings, a keystone or scrollwork at top, and
Rubens’s careful attention to iconographic detail a putto at upper right. Although we cannot be
(2000, pp. 135-36): not only is the depiction of certain—lacking any finished work based on this
the Virgin at the Crucifixion with a sword in her sketch or any information about a commission—
side apparently unprecedented, but the fainting the relative scale of the framing elements seems to
posture was inconsistent with Franciscan ideals suggest that the sketch might have been a design
and thus unthinkable for Rubens to include in a for a small altarpiece or devotional picture, or
painting that also featured St. Francis. (For the perhaps a painted epitaph or funerary monument
suggestion that this Crucifixion might have been (Freedberg, in exh. cat. New York 1995, p. 56).
commissioned by a Franciscan monastery, see Stylistically, the sketch fits comfortably among
Diaz Padron, in Madrid 1977-78, p. 99.) But works painted toward the end of the 1610s,
these calculated adjustments offered Rubens when Rubens was composing similarly crowded
skillful and pragmatic solutions to the formal altarpieces such as the monumental Crucifixion
requirements of presenting a rich iconographic (“Le Coup de Lance”) of 1620, or The Last
program within a confined space. Thus, situating Communion of St. Lrancis of 1618-19, both painted
the Virgin’s figure rather lower than the standing for the Franciscan church of the Minorites in
saints expands the perception of space, and the Antwerp (both now Koninklijk Museum voor
sword piercing her heart enhances the affective Schone Kunsten, Antwerp). The present sketch
impact of Christ’s Crucifixion. might also be compared with a larger sketch for
The persistent emphasis on the cross suggests a Crucifixion probably dating to about 1627 and
that this sketch might have been a study for a now in the Rockoxhuis, Antwerp (Held 1980,
work commissioned by a confraternity devoted to vol. 1, no. 353).
the Ffoly Cross (Freedberg, in exh. cat. New York -MEW
1995, p. 56) or an individual for whom the subject
9
Peter Paul Rubens
St. Gregory ofNazianzus

c. 1620-21
Oil on panel
50.2 x 65.4 cm
Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York,
George B. Matthews Fund, 1952, inv. 1952:14
Provenance: Francois-Xavier de Burtin, Brussels; from Nazianzenus by Rubens,” Buffalo Fine Ans Academy
whom purchased in 1801 by Duke Ernst II of Gotha- Gallery Notes 17 (1953), pp. 2-6; van Puyvelde 1947,
Altenburg (1745-1804), together with three other p. 27, no. 6; Julius S. Held, “A Postscript: Rubens in
sketches by Rubens for the Jesuit Ceiling, for “110 Louis America,” An Digest 28 (1954), pp. 13, 35; Held 1959,
d’ors”; Herzogliches Gemaldegalerie, Gotha, until 1951; p. 113, under no. 47, fig. 52; in J.R. Martin 1968,
E. & A. Silberman Galleries, New York. pp. 142-43, no. 25b, 203, fig. 134; David W. Steadman,
in J. R. Martin 1972, pp. 142, 176; exh. cat. Providence
EXHIBITIONS: Brussels 1910, no. 363; Brussels 1937, 1975, pp. 64-65, no. 19 (not in exh.); exh. cat. Antwerp
no. 68; Rotterdam 1953-54, no. 27; Cambridge/New 1977, ill. p. 118; Steven A. Nash et ah, Albright-Knox
York 1956, no. 31; Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, and An Gallery: Painting and Sculpture from Antiquity to 1942
Buffalo, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Trends in Painting, (New York, 1979), pp. 166-67; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 34,
1600-1800, 1956-57, no no.; New Haven, Yale University 38, 60-61, no. 36, vol. 2, pi. 37; Held 1986, pp. 125-26,
Art Gallery, Painting and Sculpture from the Albright-Knox under no. 147, fig. 16; White 1987, pp. 152-53, ill. p. 155,
An Gallery, 1961, no. 70; Brussels 1965, no. 221; New no. 177; Fineley Hooper and Matthew Schwartz, Roman
York 1967, no. 47. Letters: History from, a Personal Point of View (Detroit,
1991), ill. p. 160; Anne-Marie Logan, in exh. cat.
Literature: Catalog der Herzoglichen Gemaldegallerie Wellesley, Davis Museum and Cultural Center, and
zu Gotha (Gotha, 1858), p. 26, no. 48; Rooses 1886-92, Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Flemish
vol. 1 (1886), p. 35, no. 25 bis; C. Aldenhoven, Katalog der Drawings in the Age of Rubens: Selected Works from
Herzoglichen Gemaldegalerie (Gotha, 1890), p. 9, no. 36; American Collections, cat. by Logan, 1993-94, p. 198,
Hippolyte Fierens-Gevaert, ed. Tre'sor de Van helge au under no. 53; Hans Devisscher, in exh. cat. Lille,
XVlle siecle (Brussels, 1912), vol. 1, p. 51, pi. 15; Michael Palais des Beaux-Arts, Rubens, 2004, pp. 256-57,
Jaffe, “Rubens’ Sketching in Paint,” An News 54 (1953), no. 143 (not in exh.).
pp. 34, 36-37; Michael Jaffe, “The Sketch of St. Gregory
Catalogue 119
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
St. Gregory Nazianzus Subduing Heresy, 1620
Black chalk heightened with white chalk on
laid paper, 41.2 x 47.5 cm
Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums,
Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Clarence L. Hay, 1969.168
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-c. 390), one saint’s victory over the heresies embodied by
of the four Greek Fathers and a Doctor of the the vanquished demon.
Church, was the son of the bishop of Nazianzus, Rubens first outlined the composition in a
in Cappadocia. From 379 to 381 Gregory served black chalk drawing now in the Fogg Art
as bishop of Constantinople. He was one of the Museum, one of only two surviving preparatory
most eloquent writers on the doctrine of the drawings for the Jesuit Ceiling paintings (fig. 1).
Trinity and played a key role in defending the Rubens carefully established the main elements
Church against Arianism, a heretical sect that of the design in this initial drawing, leading Julius
denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Gregory’s Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 34) to suggest very plausibly
rhetorical skill earned him the title “the that the drawing may have been submitted to the
Theologian.” Jesuit authorities during the negotiations for the
In this dynamic modello for a ceiling painting contract signed on March 29, 1620. The drawing
in the Jesuit church in Antwerp (see cat. 10 for presents a more elaborate composition, with two
the history of the commission), Gregory—a demons and a second, larger angel at left, and the
figure rarely seen in Western art—is cast by suggestion of an architectural setting at right. In
Rubens as a powerful and passionate warrior in refining the composition for the oil sketch now in
the Church’s battle against heresy. The saint’s Buffalo, Rubens eliminated the more prominent
glittering eyes and the rippling undulations of his of the two demons and shifted the position of
voluminous chasuble and wind-tossed pallium the other to emphasize its awkward backward
convey the violence of his wrath as he plunges tumble under the thrust of the bishop’s crozier.
his crozier into the mouth of the demon at left. The architecture at right has been replaced by a
Half-man, half-beast, the demon itself is thinly bank of clouds; and the larger of the two angels,
rendered in dusky shades of brown pigment, with who in the original drawing assisted the saint
smoke and flames (described by Cesare Ripa as an in defeating the demons, has been eliminated,
attribute of Heresy; see J. R. Martin 1968, p. 203) presumably to emphasize the magnitude of
issuing from around his head. Above the saint’s Gregory’s role in defending the orthodox faith
head is an angel carrying a banderole inscribed against heresy (Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 60). Honed
“S. Gregor[ius] Nazianzenus,” to announce the to its essence, the final composition reflects the
Catalogue 121
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
St. Athanasius Overcoming Arms,
c. 1620-21
Schlossmuseum, Gotha, inv. 755/709
simplicity and narrative clarity that are consistent so-called Arian Heresy. Formal parallels can
features of Rubens’s designs for the Jesuit church. be drawn with other works as well. As John
Rubens’s full-scale painting of St. Gregory of Rupert Martin has noted (1968, p. 140), the
Nazianzus was part of a series of sixteen images pose of the demon, with his right arm lifted in
of saints (eight male and eight female), which a defensive gesture, is a recurrent one in other
was installed, together with representations of paintings of an apocalyptic nature by the artist,
the Name of Jesus and the Name of Mary, in the such as Rubens’s Fall of the Rebel Angels of 1622
side aisles of the Jesuit church in Antwerp. The (Alte Pinakothek, Munich, inv. 306) or as the
four Greek Fathers of the Church—including personification of Sin in The Crucifixion (engraved
Gregory of Nazianzus—were located along the by Paulus Pontius), showing Christ triumphant
north side of the church; the four Latin Fathers over sin and death.
along the south side, each alternating with female The verso of the Buffalo panel is marked
saints and martyrs. Each of the saints represented with arms of the city of Antwerp, and the initials
was chosen by the Jesuit fathers (and specified in LS in monogram, the mark of the Antwerp panel
the contract of 1620) for their passionate defense maker Lambrecht I Steens (see J. van Damme,
of the Church against the incursions of heresy. “De Antwerpse tafereelmakers en hun merken.
This was a theme of considerable currency during Identificatie en betekenis,” Jaarboek van het
the period and of particular relevance to the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen
Jesuits, an order noted for their militant defense [1990], pp. 207-8; and Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 9,
of the doctrines of the Catholic Church against 54, 60). Identical marks appear on the back of
the threat posed by the Protestant Reformation. Rubens’s St. Athanasius in Gotha; the fact that
Rubens’s design for St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the dimensions of the two panels are virtually
a figure for whom there was no iconographic identical prompts the suggestion that they were
tradition in Western art, is similar to (if markedly created at precisely the same moment.
more dramatic than) another scene from the -MEW
Jesuit Ceiling, St. Athanasius Overcoming Arius
(fig. 2). The likeness is appropriate, since the two
saints were united in their quest to eradicate the
10
Peter Paul Rubens
The Last Supper
1620-21
Oil on panel
43.8 x 44.1 cm
Seattle Art Museum, Gift of the
Samuel H. Kress Foundation, acc.no. 61.166
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) with Guillaume Forschoudt, Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1953-54, no. 34;
Antwerp, by 1662; (possibly) Simon de Vos (1603-1676), Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 32; Washington, D.C.,
Antwerp, June 16, 1662, acquired in partial exchange for National Gallery of Art, Art Treasures for America: An
six works sold to Forschoudt in 1661 (“Ontfangen bij Anthology of Paintings and Sculpture in the Samuel Kress
mij onderschreven van den Eeersamen Sr Forschoudt de Collection, 1961-62, no. 80; Washington, D.C., National
somme van twee hondert ende ses en viertich gulden met Gallery of Art, Leonardo’s “Last Supper”: Precedents
noch een schetce van Rubens, een Avontmael, voor ses and Reflections, 1983-84, no. 14 (entry by Arthur K.
groote platen die ick gemackt ende gelevert hebbe den Wheelock); New York, Salander-O’Reilly Galleries,
3 december 1661” [Jean Denuce, Kunstuitvoer in de lie Eugene Delacroix: Paintings and Drawings, Peter Paul
eeuw te Antwerpen defirma Forchoudt (Antwerp, 1931), Rubens: Three Oil Sketches, 1989, no. 33; Raleigh, North
pp. 62-63]); collection Jacques de Roore (1686-1747); his Carolina, North Carolina Museum of Art (and other
sale, The Hague (Verheyden), September 4, 1747, lot 45 venues), A Gift to America: Masterpieces of European
(79 florins; sold, with 6 other sketches from the series, to Painting from the Samuel H. Kress Collection, 1994,
de Groot); Anthonis and Stephanus de Groot; sale The no. 12 (entry by Chiyo Ishikawa).
Hague (Rietmulder), March 20, 1771, lot 4 (56 florins,
to Abels); collection Jacques Clemens (canon of St. Bavo Literature: Rooses 1886-92, vol. 1 (1886), p. 25,
Cathedral, Ghent); his sale, Ghent, June 21, 1779, lot under no. 8, vol. 5 (1892), p. 305; (possibly) Jean Denuce,
232; (possibly) Supertini and Platina, Brussels; sale Kunstuitvoer in de 17e eeuw te Antwerpen defirma Forchoudt
Amsterdam (Schley et ah), September 19, 1798, lot 150 (Antwerp, 1931), pp. 62-63; van Puyvelde 1947, p. 28,
(bought in); sale Brussels (Geens), August 25, 1814, no. 4; Michael Jaffe, “Rubens at Rotterdam,” The
lot 108; sale Robert de Saint-Victor, Paris (Roux), Burlington Magazine 96 (February 1954), pp. 54, 57;
November 26, 1822-January 7, 1823, lot 29 (Roux); European Painting and Sculpture from the Samuel H. Kress
marquise d’Aoust; his sale, Paris (Lair-Dubreuil), June 5, Collection (Seattle, 1954), pp. 60-61; J. R. Martin 1968,
1924, lot 78; Galerie Georges Petit, Paris; Francesco pp. 81-83, 198, no. 8; Colin Eisler, Paintings from the
Gentili di Giuseppe, Paris, until 1940; by descent to Samuel H. Kress Collection: European Schools Excluding
Mrs. A. Salem, Boston, 1940-50; Frederick Mont and Italian (Oxford, 1977), pp. 106-9; Held 1980, vol. 1,
Newhouse Galleries, New York, 1950-54; Samuel H. pp. 35, 36-37, 49-50, 468, no. 20, vol. 2, pi. 22; Chiyo
Kress Foundation, New York (inv. K1997), on loan to Ishikawa, The Sam,uel H. Kress Collection at the Seattle
the Seattle Art Museum, 1954-61. An Museum (Seattle, 1997), pp. 38-39, 41.
Catalogue 123
Fig. 1.
Peter Neefs and Sebastian Vrancx
Interior of the Jesuit Church in Antwerp
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 1051
In 1615 the Jesuit community in Antwerp assistant Anthony van Dyck and other artists
began construction of a magnificent new church, in his atelier and touched up as necessary by
a sumptuous “Marble Temple” that was to the master himself. Rubens was to be paid seven
function as both a calculated expression of the thousand guilders for the thirty-nine paintings,
power of the Catholic faith in Antwerp, the each measuring approximately 210 by 280
northern bastion of Counter-Reformatory zeal; centimeters. The contract further stipulated
and a monument to the wealth and influence of that the artist had the option of handing the
the Jesuit order. Although it now bears the name preliminary oil sketches over to the Jesuit fathers
of St. Carlo Borromeo, the Antwerp church once the commission was completed, or else
(completed in 1621) was the first dedicated to St. providing another painting for one of the side
Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order, altars of the church. (Tellingly, Rubens chose
who was canonized only in 1622. Rubens was to retain his sketches.)
involved in this project almost from its inception: The complex theological program for
he designed decorative elements for the fagade of the ceiling decorations was worked out by the
the building and painted two major altarpieces for Jesuit fathers, and a partial list of subjects was
the church, which depicted the key Jesuit saints— appended to the contract. Paintings in each of
Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier—performing the eighteen bays in the upper-level galleries
miracles (both Kunsthistorisches Museum, (representing a theologically “higher plane”)
Vienna). Rubens’s most extensive involvement depicted the mysteries of salvation through a
with the church, however, was in the form of series of typological comparisons between Old
thirty-nine ceiling paintings commissioned to and New Testament scenes. In the side aisles were
decorate the sanctuary’s side aisles and galleries, depictions of male and female saints (see cat. 9),
and the underside of the organ loft. their more “terrestrial” placement in accordance
On March 29, 1620, Rubens signed a with their humbler and more accessible roles as
contract with Jacobus Tirinus, the superior of intercessors. Three paintings under the organ
the Professed Llouse of the Society of Jesus loft at the entrance to the church were to depict
in Antwerp, which specified the terms of the the patron saints of the Archdukes Albert and
commission. (The history and development of Isabella. Taken as a whole, the cycle emphasized
Rubens’s ceiling paintings for the Jesuit church the triumph of orthodoxy over heresy and
in Antwerp are thoroughly analyzed by John defended the sacraments of the Catholic
Rupert Martin [1968] and Julius Held [1980, Church, an unassailable statement of Counter-
vol. 1, pp. 33-62]; the text of the contract is Reformatory values.
published by Martin [pp. 213-19].) Within a On July 18, 1718, less than a hundred years
year of the signing, Rubens was to supply small after its dedication, the Jesuit church was struck
sketches fkleyne afteekeningen, or “small drawings”) by lightning and Rubens’s ceiling paintings were
of the designs for the paintings; the large finished destroyed in a disastrous fire. Our knowledge of
paintings were to be executed by Rubens’s chief the original placement of the paintings and their
Catalogue 125
Fig. 2.
Christian Benjamin Muller
after Peter Paul Rubens
Last Slipper
Red chalk and gray wash on paper, 19x30 cm
Museum Plantin-Moretus/Stedelijk Prentenkabinet,
Antwerpen: collectie Prentenkabinet, inv. OT 412
theological program depends on a handful conclude that the Last Supper was one of the
of written descriptions and depictions of the first designs executed for the commission (Held
interior of the church (fig. 1). Rubens’s original 1980, vol. 1, p. 35). As with all of Rubens’s
compositions survive in two preliminary drawings designs for ceiling paintings in the Jesuit church,
and twenty-nine oil sketches by his hand: five the Last Supper is rendered di sotto in su, creating
grisailles and twenty-four colored modelli, the the illusion of a room extending beyond the
more finished designs that would have been structural confines of the church. A series of steps
shown to the Jesuit fathers for approval. (Four and a basket of bread and ewer of wine perched at
additional sketches record designs for paintings the edge of the composition enhance the conceit.
not included in the final series.) Later copies after Partly masked by the billowing red curtain, an
the ceiling paintings augment our understanding oculus provides not only a dramatic light source
of their final appearance. In 1711-12, the Dutch but also a suggestion of infinite space.
painter Jacob de Wit (1695-1754) made drawings As originally installed in the north gallery
(now lost) after thirty-six of the thirty-nine of the Jesuit church, the Last Supper was flanked
ceiling paintings; following the fire of 1718, he by the Old Testament subjects of Abraham and
produced a set of larger drawings in red chalk Melchizedek, traditionally interpreted as a
(see J. R. Martin 1968, pp. 47-51 on the copies prefiguration of the Eucharist; and Moses in
produced by de Wit). As an aspiring decorative Prayer between Aaron and Hur, a less common
painter, de Wit was much more concerned with subject also symbolically associated with the
Rubens’s approach to solving the technical rituals of the Catholic mass (see J. R. Martin
problems of foreshortening in illusionistic ceiling 1968, pp. 198-99, and Held 1980, pp. 36-37). In
paintings than with details of iconography. More his final rendering of the scene (fig. 2), Rubens
accurate records of Rubens’s finished paintings reduced the number of disciples from seven
are the series of drawings made by Christian to four. This change permitted him to isolate
Benjamin Muller (1690-1758) a mere six months Christ’s right hand, holding the bread, against
before the fire (now Stedelijk Prentenkabinet, the background and thus emphasize the initial
Antwerp). solemn celebration of the Eucharist, the central
In the Seattle Last Supper, Jesus, clad in a blue sacrament of the Christian church.
robe and a vibrant coral mantle, offers bread and A possible copy after the Seattle sketch is
wine to the disciples gathered closely around him. mentioned in the posthumous inventory of
The urgency of his pose is matched by that of the painter Victor Wolfvoet, Antwerp (d. 1652;
the gray-bearded apostle Peter seated opposite. inventory October 24-26, 1652: “Een
Although Rubens originally blocked out a Avondmaelken op panned, in binnenlysten,
rectangular design for the scene, the composition naer Rubens geschildert” [Denuce 1932, p. 141]).
is tightly focused within an octagonal format (the -MEW
ceiling paintings alternated oval and octagonal
compositions). This evidence led Held to
11
Peter Paul Rubens
The Triumphant Entry of Constantine
into Rome
1622
Oil on panel
48.6 x 64.5 cm
Indianapolis Museum of Art, The Clowes
Collection, inv. IMA2001.237
PROVENANCE: Frangois de la Planche, Paris, by Literature: Louis-Frangois Dubois de Saint-Gelais,

1627; property of the Saint-Marcel shop of the Royal Description des Tableaux du Palais Royal, avec la vie des
Manufactory of Tapestries, Paris, under the directorship peintres a la tete de leurs ouvrages (Paris, 1727; reprint,
of Marc de Comans and Frangois de la Planche (d. 1627), Geneva, 1972), fob 409 (“[Douze Esquisses. Peintes sur
and later Hippolyte de Comans; Henri de Valois bois, la plus haute a un pied dix pouces, & la plus large
(1603-1676), Paris; Philippe, due d’Orleans (1674—1723), deux pieds. Ces Esquisses qui ont ete executees en
Paris; by descent to Philippe (Egalite), due d’Orleans Tapisseries, sont tres-precieuses, faisant voir l'abondance
(1747-1793), Paris; collection sold in 1791/92 to de la veine de ce grand Peintre. Elies representent les
Thomas Moore Slade and Associates, London; Robert principaux Sujets de l'Histoire de Constantin.] VI:
Banks Jenkinson, second earl of Liverpool and prime L’Entree triomphante de Constantin dans Rome.”);
minister of England (1770-1828); his sale, London William Buchanan, Memoirs of Painting, with a
(Christie’s), May 25, 1829, lot 63 (£44.2, to Smith); Chronological History of the Importation of Pictures by the
John Smith, London; by whom sold to George John Great Masters into England since the French Revolution,
Vernon, November 18, 1829; Hon. George John Vernon 2 vols. (London, 1824), vol. 1, p. 169; Smith 1829-42,
(1803-1866), fifth baron Vernon, Sudbury Hall, Derby; vol. 2 (1830), pp. 204—5, no. 739; Waagen 1854—57,
Dr. G. H. A. Clowes (1877-1958), Indianapolis; The vol. 2, p. 502, no. 14; Rooses 1888-92, vol. 3 (1890),
Clowes Fund Collection (inv. CL 10069). p. 213, no. 723; C. Stryenski, La Galerie du Regent
Philippe, Due d’Orleans (Paris, 1913), p. 188; van Puyvelde
EXHIBITIONS: London, British Institution, Pictures by 1947, p. 29, no. 6; DuBon 1964, passim.and p. 112,
Rubens, Rembrandt, Vandyke and Other Artists of the pi. 60; A. Ian Fraser, A Catalogue of the Clowes Collection
Flemish and Dutch Schools, 1815, no. 121; Indianapolis, (Indianapolis, 1972), pp. 124—25; Held 1980, vol. 1,
John Herron Art Museum, Paintings from the Collection pp. 75-76, no. 43, vol. 2, pi. 44; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 267,
of George Henry Alexander Clowes, cat. by David G. no. 683; Kruger 1989, pp. 175-79; White 1987,
Carter, 1959, no. 50; Notre Dame, University of Notre pp. 171-72; I. van Tichelen, in exh. cat. Antwerp,
Dame Art Gallery, A Lenten Exhibition, 1962, no. 43; Hessenhuis, Rubenstextiel/Rubens’s Textiles, cat. by
Bloomington, Indiana University Museum of Art, Guy Delmarcel et al., 1997, p. 74; McGrath 1997,
Northern European Painting—The Clowes Fund Collection, vol. 1, p. 87.
cat. by Henry R. Hope, 1963, no. 32; Philadelphia,
Philadelphia Museum of Art, Constantine the Great: The
Tapestries, the Designs, cat. by David DuBon, 1964, no. 4a.
Catalogue 127
Fig. l.
Triumphal Entry of the Victorious General
Relief on the Arch of Constantine, Rome
Marble, 350 cm
Palazzo dei Conservatori Museum, Capitoline Museum,
Rome, inv. MC. 809/S
In this sketch from Rubens’s designs for

tapestries illustrating the life of Constantine
the Great, the Roman emperor is shown entering
the city of Rome after his decisive victory over
his brother-in-law and co-emperor Maxentius.
(For a brief discussion of the series as a whole,
see cat. 12, with further references.) Maxentius’s
defeat, which took place near the Milvian Bridge
on October 28, 312, rendered Constantine the
sole emperor of the Western Roman Empire.
Constantine approaches the city on horseback,
with one hand raised in greeting. He is procession is subtly enhanced by the sweeping
accompanied by a lictor on foot, wearing an diagonal brushstrokes of the panel’s imprimatura,
animal skin and carrying the fasces, symbol of clearly visible through the thinly painted design.
magisterial power and authority, and by several Rubens’s primary literary source for this,
mounted soldiers, one of whom carries the as most of the scenes from the Constantine
labarum bearing the monogram of Christ. series, was the description of Constantine’s life
Hovering overhead are the genius of Victory, contained in Cardinal Cesare Baronio’s Annales
who holds a wreath above Constantine’s head, Ecclesiastici (Rome, 1588-1607; Antwerp,
and Fame, who sounds the trumpet of Truth, 1597-1609). Baronio’s account is in turn drawn
having removed from her mouth the trumpet from that of Eusebius, who recounted in detail
spreading falsehoods (Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 76). the emperor’s procession along the Via Flaminia
Hurrying from the archway at right is a goddess to the triumphal arch that had been erected in his
wearing a helmet and a short sword; she honor by the Roman Senate {Anno 312.54—63).
represents either Roma, the patroness of the As was customary, Rubens’s oil sketches for
city of Rome, or Minerva, goddess of wisdom the Constantine series served as the models for
and of battle on behalf of just causes. She holds the full-scale cartoons in watercolor on paper
a statuette of Victory in one hand and with the which the weavers followed in creating the
other indicates the two priests standing in the actual tapestry. A letter from Rubens’s great
doorway. In the background are several kneeling friend and fellow scholar of antiquity, Nicolas-
figures who extend their arms in welcome. The Claude Fabri de Pieresc (1580-1637), makes it
broken column and capital in the foreground at clear that the cartoons were painted by Rubens’s
right may refer to the glorious rebirth of a partly studio assistants in Antwerp, then shipped to
ruined city. In Rubens’s luminous oil sketch, the the tapestry manufactory of Marc Comans and
stately forward movement of Constantine’s Frangois de la Planche in Paris. Pieresc was
Catalogue 129
Fig. 2.
Woven at the Comans-de la Planche Factory after
Peter Paul Rubens
The Triumphal Entry of Constantine into Rome 1623-25
Wool and silk with metal threads, 328 x 377 cm (without
border)
Philadelphia Museum of Art: Gift of the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation, inv. 1959.78.1
dell’Incendio in the Vatican; see Kruger 1989, pp.

among the first to inspect a shipment of four 176-77; further on Rubens’s sources, see DuBon
cartoons for the Constantine series (not including 1964, pp. 25-29, and Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 76).
the Triumphant Entry) that arrived in Paris in The tapestry woven in the Comans-de la
November 1622. He described in detail the Planche shop of the Triumphal Entry of
reaction of Louis XIII’s inspectors to the designs; Constantine into Rome (fig. 2) compresses
although many criticized what they felt was an the composition horizontally, eliminating the
excessive curvature in the legs of several figures, column at the extreme right in the sketch and,
they commended Rubens’s “profound knowledge more significantly, closing the distance between
of antique costumes and the exactitude with Constantine and Roma/Minerva, thereby
which you have rendered even the nails of the diminishing the sense of opposing movement that
boots” (letter from Pieresc to Rubens, dated animates the original oil sketch. The architecture
December 1, 1622; Rooses and Ruelens is more detailed in the tapestry, and bits of
1887-1909, vol. 3, pp. 83ff., as translated in foliage have been added in the foreground.
DuBon 1964, p. 6). Another painting depicting Constantine’s
Rubens’s wide-ranging knowledge of the arts Triumphant Entry into Rome, noted
of Roman antiquity is apparent throughout the (erroneously) as formerly in the Orleans
Constantine series, deliberately exploited to craft collection, was in the sale Thomas Emmerson,
the decorous, even severe ambiance appropriate Esq., London (Phillips), June 15-16, 1832,
to his majestic subject. The shallow, relieflike lot 70 (£67.4, to Marshall). The painting was
presentation of the Triumphant Entry, for sold from the Marshall collection in 1881 and
example, consciously echoes the static format was subsequently in the sale Leo Kirch, The
of antique triumphal processions such as the Hague (Kleykamp), June 10, 1924, lot 36 (as
Triumphal Entry of the Victorious General on the on canvas, and as attributed); Leo van Puyvelde
Arch of Constantine in Rome (fig. 1). More (1947, p. 29) noted a copy of the composition
specifically, this relief probably served as the then on the Brussels art market. In the
inspiration for the figures of Constantine and introduction to the 1924 sale catalogue, C.
the two kneeling men in the background of the Hofstede de Groot described the Kleykamp
scene. Roma/Minerva’s gesture of offering a picture as a contemporary replica, probably made
statuette of Victory alludes to a design found under Rubens’s direction before the original was
on Constantinian coins; her helmet is based sent to the Saint-Marcel tapestry manufactory
on one worn in another frieze on the Arch of of Marc Comans and Francois de la Planche in
Constantine (although Peter Kruger notes that Paris; there is, however, no firm evidence that
Rubens might also have taken it from a detail such copies were made.
in Raphael’s Victory at Ostia in the Stanza -MEW
12
Peter Paul Rubens
The Lab arum
1622
Oil on panel
35.4 x 27.5 cm
Private Collection
PROVENANCE: Francis de la Planche, Paris, by LITERATURE: Louis Franqois Dubois de Saint-Gelais,

1627; property of the Saint-Marcel shop of the Royal Description des Tableaux du Palais Royal, avec la vie des
Manufactory of Tapestries, Paris, under the directorship peintres a la tete de leurs ouvrages (Paris, 1727; reprint,
of Marc de Comans and Francois de la Planche Geneva, 1972), fob 408 (“[Douze Esquisses. Peintes sur
(d. 1627), and later Hippolyte de Comans; Henri de bois, la plus haute a un pied dix pouces, & la plus large
Valois (1603-1676), Paris; Philippe, due d’Orleans deux pieds. Ces Esquisses qui ont ete executees en
(1674-1723), Paris; by descent to Philippe (Egalite), due Tapisseries, sont tres-precieuses, faisant voir l'abondance
d’Orleans (1747-1793), Paris; collection sold in 1791/92 de la veine de ce grand Peintre. Elies representent les
to Thomas Moore Slade and Associates, London; principaux Sujets de l’Histoire de Constantin.] II. Le
Thomas Hammersley, London, to at least 1811; sale Labarum”); William Buchanan, Memoirs of Painting, with
London (Christie’s), March 7, 1801, lot 78 (£69.6, bought a Chronological History of the Importation of Pictures by the
in); sale London (Coxe), June 11, 1808, lot 7 (£99.15, Great Masters into England since the French Revolution, 2
bought in); Stamp Brooksbank, Esq., London, by 1830; vols. (London, 1824), vol. 1, p. 169, no. 3; Smith 1829-42,
sale Brooksbank et ah, London (Stanley), May 31, 1834, vol. 2 (1830), pp. 202-3, no. 735; Waagen 1854—57, vol. 2,
lot 87 (£16.16 [bought in?]); (probably) Henry Pelham p. 502, no. 10; Rooses 1888-92, vol. 3, p. 211, no. 720;
Archibald Douglas Pelham-Clinton (1864-1928), seventh C. Stryenski, La Galerie du Regent Philippe, Due dlOrleans
duke of Newcastle and fourteenth earl of Lincoln; his (Paris, 1913), p. 188, no. 474; L. van Puyvelde, “On
sale, London (Christie’s), June 4, 1937, lot 90 (with Rubens Drawings,” The Burlington Magazine 77 (1940),
three other panels, as “The Story of Decius Mus—a p. 124, ill.; van Puyvelde 1947, p. 29, no. 3; Held 1959,
set of four”); Thomas Agnew & Sons, London, by 1940; vol. 1, p. 115 (under no. 50); DuBon 1964, p. 10, pi. 65;
H. E. M. Benn, Ilkley, Haslemere and Bognor Regis; exh. cat. Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art,
Colnaghi’s, London; sale London (Christie’s), December Constantine the Great: The Tapestries, the Designs, cat. by
11, 1992, lot 59; sale New York (Christie’s), January 12, David DuBon, 1964, p. 85, no. 20a (not exhibited); Held
1994, lot 104. 1980, vol. 1, p. 73, no. 41, vol. 2, pi. 42; Held 1986, p. 130
(under no. 156); M. Jaffe 1989, p. 267, no. 681; Kruger
EXHIBITIONS: London, British Gallery, Pictures by Rubens, 1989, pp. 10, 166-68.
Rembrandt, Vandyke and Other Artists of the Flemish and
Dutch Schools, 1828, no. 162 or 163; King’s Lynn,
Guildhall of St. George, Exhibition of Oil Sketches and
Small Pictures by Sir Peter Paul Rubens, July-August 1960,
no. 11; London, Agnew’s, Oil Sketches and Pictures by Sir
Peter Paul Rubens, February-March 1961, no. 18.
Catalogue 131
The Labarum is one of twelve sketches that pp. 65-70), and Elizabeth McGrath (1997,
Rubens executed in 1622 for a cycle of tapestries pp. 87-88). A simpler reading of the series seems
depicting the life of Constantine the Great more plausible: as the first Roman emperor to
(288-337), the first Christian Roman emperor convert to Christianity, Constantine was a
(see also cat. 11). It was the artist’s second major natural choice for an allegorical glorification
foray into tapestry design, following the Decius of a contemporary Christian monarch—and
Mus series (see cat. 5). Unlike any of Rubens’s particularly Louis XIII, whose father, Henry IV,
other designs for tapestries, the Constantine had experienced such a dramatic conversion
tapestries were woven, not in the Southern to Catholicism. Moreover, as the subject was
Netherlands, but at the tapestry manufactory an ideal forum for Rubens to display his
of Marc Comans and Francois de la Planche understanding of classical literature and the
(Frans van der Plancken) in the Faubourg Saint- fruits of his passionate and acquisitive study of
Marcel in Paris. antiquities, the artist himself may well have had
The circumstances of the series’ origin are a hand in selecting the theme.
unclear. In a letter of 1626 Rubens stated that The twelve tapestry designs depict key
he made the tapestry designs “per servizio di” (in events from Constantine’s life, mostly after
the service of) Louis XIII. David DuBon (1964) his conversion to Christianity (for a complete
suggested that they were commissioned by discussion of the series, see DuBon 1964; Held
Comans and de la Planche, while Julius Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 65-85; and Kruger 1989).
(1980) proposed that the designs were a joint “Labarum” was the term used in antiquity for
venture between Rubens and de la Planche the military standard adopted by Constantine
intended to secure Rubens an official after he received his miraculous vision. In the
appointment from Louis XIII. The twelve preceding design, The Emblem of Christ Appearing
sketches are mentioned in a 1627 assessment to Constantine (cat. 5, fig. 1), the Chi-Rho
of de la Planche’s possessions after his death; the monogram of Christ appears in the sky; the vision
fact that the modelli were already in the possession was subsequently explained to the emperor in a
of the Saint-Marcel shop by this date strongly dream, in which Christ instructed him to place
suggests that de la Planche played a key role in the emblem on his banner to ensure victory over
commissioning the series. Rubens’s claim that he his co-emperor Maxentius. In the present sketch,
made the designs in the service of the king may Constantine stands at right, clad in armor with
only reflect the fact that the latter was the de a flowing red cloak around his shoulders and a
facto patron of the workshop that commissioned hero’s laurel wreath on his head. He gestures
them—or, given the fact that Rubens’s letter dramatically toward the burst of light streaming
complains of not having received full payment from upper right as he entrusts the labarum to
for the series, he may have dangled the phrase to two of his centurions, just prior to the decisive
emphasize the seriousness of his claim. Whatever battle against Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge
parties were involved in the initial discussions, (312). With the action reduced to just three
arrangements for production of the tapestries figures, Rubens renders the event in symbolic,
were undoubtedly negotiated while Rubens rather than realistic, terms.
was in Paris in 1622 to discuss the paintings Like many of the sketches from the series, The
commissioned by Marie de Medicis for the Labarum consciously evokes, in DuBon’s words,
Luxembourg Palace. “the calm monumentality of the antique” with
John Coolidge (“Louis XIII and Rubens: The measured, deliberate gestures and clear references
Story of the Constantine Tapestries,” Gazette des to the past (1964, p. 25). The domed building
Beaux-Arts 67 [1966], pp. 271-92) maintained with columned portico in the background at right
that Louis XIII devised the program for the recalls the Pantheon in Rome; Peter Kriiger
series himself, encoding within it both a political (1989, p. 167) has linked the two centurions
allegory and a criticism of the policies of his holding the labarum to figures raising a tropaion
mother, Marie de Medicis; this proposal has in the Gemma Augustae, a Roman cameo that
rightly been disputed by Jacques Thuillier and Rubens had copied in a drawing sometime prior
Jacques Foucart (Rubens’ Life of Marie de’ Medici to 1622. Held has also observed that the pose
[New York, 1969], p. 98), Held (1980, vol. 1, of the standing centurion closely resembles, in
Catalogue 133
Fig. 1.
The Labarum
Wool, silk and metal thread, 350x275 cm
Collection du Mobilier National, Paris, inv. GMTT 45/3
reverse, the figure of the Vestal Tuccia in a Constantine tapestry designs, the Death of
drawing possibly originally planned as part of the Maxentius (Wallace Collection, London, inv. 520;
Marie de Medicis cycle (Musee du Louvre, Cabinet see G. Gepts, “Tafereelmaker Michel Vrient,
des Dessins, Paris; see Held 1959, p. 115. Kruger leverancier van Rubens,” Jaarboek van het
[1989, pp. 10-12] argues against connecting this Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp
drawing with the Medicis commission). [1954-60], pp. 83-87; J. van Damme, “De
Similarly, Rubens drew from a number of Antwerpse tafereelmakers en hun merken.
literary sources in developing his designs for Identificatie en betekenis,” Jaarboek van het
the Constantine series. Although he consulted Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen
classical accounts by Eusebius (the Vita [1990], pp. 223-22; and Rotterdam/Madrid
Constantanti) and Lactantius (De Mortibus 2003-4, pp. 17-18). The “A” brand has recently
Persecutorum), his primary source seems to have been shown to be a year mark from about
been the Annales Ecclesiastici by Cardinal Cesare 1621-22 (van Damme 1990, p. 198; and J.
Baronio (1538-1607). Baronio’s book had been Wadum, “The Antwerp Brand on Paintings
recently republished in Antwerp; Rubens is on Panel,” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 1998,
known to have purchased a copy in 1620, shortly pp. 192-94, 198).
before beginning work on the Constantine series. The tapestry woven in the Saint-Marcel shop
The back of the panel on which The Labarum from Rubens’s design for The Labarum presents
is painted is impressed with the monogram of no significant changes from the original modello
the panel maker Michiel Vrient (fl. 1615-37) and (fig. 1). The painting of The Labarum, that was
branded with the letter “A.” Vrient’s is the panel in the sale Alexander Ludwig Alfred Eberhard,
maker’s mark found most often on Rubens’s oil second prince zu Erbach-Schonberg, Frankfurt
sketches, including six sketches from the Life of (Bangel), May 10, 1920, lot 13, ill. (oil on canvas,
Achilles series, at least sixteen from the Marie 40 x 32 cm), identified in the 1992 and 1994 sale
de Medicis cycle, the modello for Abraham and catalogues as identical to the present picture, is
Melchizedek from the Eucharist series (cat. 19), probably a copy.
as well as another of the sketches for the -MEW
13
Peter Paul Rubens
St. Norbert Overcoming Tanchelm
c. 1622-23
Oil on panel
66.5 x 46 cm
Private Collection
PROVENANCE: Dealer Van Diemen, Berlin and New York,

1930; dealer Colnaghi, London; dealer P. de Boer,
Amsterdam; Dr. O. Hirschmann, Amsterdam; Curtis Baer,
New Rochelle, NY.
Exhibitions: Amsterdam 1933, no. 17; Brussels 1937,

no. 27; New York 1942, no. 17; Rotterdam 1953-54,
no. 36; Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 35;
Boston/Toledo 1993-94, pp. 285-87, no. 25.
Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), no. 384;

Rooses 1886-92, vol. 2 (1888), p. 329, no. 476; van
Puyvelde 1940, no. 50; I. Leyssens, “Hans van Mildert,
1588-1638,” Gentsche Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenis 7
(1941), pp. 122-23; Goris and Held 1947, no. 63; W. L.
Kitlischka, Rubens und die Bildhauerei: die Einwirkung
der Plastik auf sein Werk und Rubens' Ausrwirkung auf die
Bildhauer des 17. Jahrhunderts (Ph.D. diss., Vienna, 1963),
pp. 112-15, 157-58; Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, vol. 1,
p. 117, under no. 70; Michael Jaffe, “Rediscovered Oil
Sketches by Rubens, II,” The Burlington Magazine 111
(1969), p. 529; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 577-78, no. 420,
vol. 2, pi. 408; M. Jaffe 1989, pp. 282-83, no. 777.
Catalogue 135
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
Adoration of the Magi, 1624
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp,
inv. 298
traditional attributes, wearing the white habit

of the Premonstratensians and a bishop’s miter,
while holding a crozier in one hand and a
monstrance in the other. He stands victorious
atop the fallen and diminutive Tanchelm, who
glares up at him with powerless ire. Tanchelm
is dressed in “historical” costume, pseudo-
Burgundian, sixteenth-century attire with slashed
sleeves, puffed-up, knee-length britches, and
hose. The majority of the scene is executed in
a very limited brunaille palette, but the sky is
loosely brushed in blue and there are accents
of green in the landscape and in Tanchelm’s
stockings. Underdrawing is visible through
Tanchelm was an early-twelfth-century critic Norbert’s costume, and infrared examination
of the Catholic Church, denying the authority reveals that the figures originally stood on a
of bishops and the clergy, opposing tithing, rectangular pedestal that was later painted over
and even claiming that the sacrament of the with the summary landscape that now appears.
Eucharist was ineffectual for salvation. His Rubens sketch was for a sculpture (see fig. 2)
heresy was particularly successful in Antwerp by his friend and collaborator, Hans van Mildert
and the surrounding countryside. St. Norbert (1588-1638), that would become one of the
(c. 1080-1134) was the founder of the figures flanking Rubens’s own altarpiece for
Premonstratensian (or Norbertine) order that the high altar, the Adoration of the Magi of 1624
combated Tanchelm’s heresy. Traveling to (fig. 1) in the church of the abbey of St. Michael.
Antwerp with twelve of his order, he took Rubens was devoted to the abbey. Both his
over St. Michael’s church and reinstituted the mother and brother Philip were buried there (in
orthodox celebration of the Eucharist. Eventually 1608 and 1611 respectively), and he had donated
the heresy was suppressed and St. Michael’s a large altarpiece of the Madonna and Child with
became one of the most powerful religious Saints (the first version of the altarpiece for
institutions in the city. For his defense of the Chiesa Nuova in Rome) to the church following
sacrament of the Eucharist and the offices of the his return from Italy. He was commissioned to
Church, Norbert was canonized in 1582 and execute the altarpiece for the high altar by the
became the object of impassioned veneration in abbot of St. Michael’s, Mattheus Yrsselius
Counter-Reformation Antwerp. (For images of (Mattheus Gorisson van Eersel, 1514-1629),
St. Norbert and discussion of his struggle with whose portrait Rubens painted in about 1622
the Tanchelmian heresy, see exh. cat. Averbode, (Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, inv.
Abdij der Norbertijnen, Sint Nobertus in de 613) and which also hung in the church. The
Brabantse Kunst, 1971; Held 1980, vol. 1, abbey had been damaged in the recent religious
pp. 577-78; and Wieseman, in Boston/Toledo disturbances and also by a major fire in 1620.
1993-94, p. 285 and n. 1). Yrsselius was dedicated to restoring the former
Rubens has depicted Norbert with his splendor of St. Michael’s. Rubens’s Adoration of
Catalogue 137
Fig. 2.
Hans van Mildert
St. Norbert Overcoming Tanchelm,
Alabaster, 250 cm high
Church of St. Trudo, Zundert, Noord Brabant
the Magi was surrounded with a tabernacle,

crowned by a statue of the Virgin, and flanked
by sculptures of St. Norbert and St. Michael,
the patron saint of the abbey. The sculptures and
tabernacle were removed from St. Michel’s when
the abbey was secularized during the French
occupation (1796-97) and were purchased in
1803 by the church of St. Trudo, in Zundert,
Noord Brabants, where they remain today.
Van Mildert also collaborated with Rubens in
executing the sculpture for the facade and high
altar of the Jesuit church in Antwerp in about
1619-22, and on the tomb effigy of the renowned
Dominican preacher Michiel Ophovius in the
church of St. Paul, Antwerp, about 1638-39.
In translating Rubens’s oil sketch, van Mildert
made several changes: the saint now wears a
pallium over his white gown, has a longer, more
elaborate crozier, and holds a chalice instead of
a monstrance; however, this last change was
probably added by a later hand, since the figure
was described in 1629 as canying a monstrance
(Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 578). But van Mildert also
made several changes that sap some of the life out Rubens’s Adoration of the Magi (fig. 1) was
of the figures and make them more conventional. selected to emphasize the sacramental character
For example, rather than looking down at the of the event, incorporating allusions to the liturgy
defeated heretic, Norbert stares straight ahead, in ritual objects such as censers, candelabra, and
and the slight but vitalizing cock of the head in the quasi-ecclesiastical garments of the Magi
the sketch has been replaced by a more columnar, (see also cat. 6). The three sculptures atop the
less graceful pose. Tanchelm’s leg also now altar surround—St. Michael conquering Lucifer,
dangles down at an awkward right angle, St. Norbert defending the sacraments and the
rendering the heretic more broken than authority of the Church, and the Virgin and
squirming in impotent rage. Child triumphant over sin—were clearly designed
In his design for the high altar of the church as extensions and complements of the symbolism
of St. Michael, Rubens carefully orchestrated of the painting itself. Even the portrait of
the iconography of the entire ensemble to Yrsselius in prayer was turned in three-quarter
accord with the Roman Catholic faith of the profile in the traditional posture of a donor’s
Premonstratensian order (see Held 1980, vol. 1, portrait to direct his worshipful gaze toward the
pp. 456, 578; and Wieseman in Boston/Toledo Christ Child in this carefully choreographed
1993-94, p. 287). In recognition of the order’s ensemble.
devotion to the celebration of the Eucharist, -PCS
14
Peter Paul Rubens
The Virgin as the Woman of the Apocalypse
c. 1623-24
Oil on panel
63.5 x 49.2 cm
TheJ. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles,
acc. no. 85.PB.146
PROVENANCE: Kloster Neustift, Freising, Germany, Literature: Rooses 1886-92, vol. 5 (1892), no. 384 bis;
c. 1624-1803; Benjamin West, London (d. 1820); sale K. Woermann, Wissenschaftliches Verzeichnis der dlteren
West, London (Christie’s), June 24, 1820, lot 75 (bought Gemalde der Galerie Weber (Hamburg, 1892), pp. 136-37;
in); sale West, London (Christie’s), June 10, 1822, lot 17; Rosenberg 1905, p. 52, ill.; Ludwig Burchard,
Edmund M. Blood, London, 1868-87; London art “Anmerkungen zu den Rubens-Bildern der Alten
market, 1887; acquired by W. Bode for the Weber Pinakothek in Munchen,” Kunstchronik, N.F., 23
Collection; Eduard Friedrich Weber, Hamburg; his sale (1911-12), p. 259 (questions attribution); A. Feulner,
Berlin, February 20-22, 1912, lot 191; sale M. de Nemes “Zur Datierung des apokalyptischen Weibes von P. P.
of Budapest, Paris, June 17-18, 1913, lot 72; Federico Rubens,” Monatshefte fur Kunstwissenschaft 12 (1919),
Gentili di Giuseppe, Paris; Bousquart, Paris, 1919; with pp. 341ff.; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 464, under no. 240;
Paul Cassirer and Walter Feilchenfeldt, Berlin and Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 389, pp. 525-26, vol. 2, pi. 379;
London, 1938; Alfred Hausamann, Zurich, 1938-84; sold Leo Weber, Die Erneuerung des Domes zu Freising,
for Hausamann by Feilchenfeldt in 1985 to the museum. 1621-1630 (Munich, 1985), pp. 84—90 n. 345, fig. 118;
“Acquisitions/198 5,” TheJ. Paul Getty Museum Journal 14
EXHIBITIONS: Diisseldorf, Kunsthistorische Ausstellung, (1986), p. 215, no. 118;M.Jaffe 1989, p.284, no. 783;
1904, no. 271; Diisseldorf 1912, no. 29; Rotterdam Konrad Renger, in exh. cat. Munich, Alte Pinakothek,
1953-54, no. 47; Cologne, Kunsthalle Koln, Weltkunst Peter Paul Rubens Altdre fur Bayern, 1990-91, pp. 75,
aus Privatbesitz, 1968, no. F 31; Mexico City, Museo 116-17 n. 28, fig. 44; Konrad Renger, “Rubens’ Bavarian
Nacional de San Carlos, Rubens and His Time, 1998-99, Altarpieces and Counter Reformation Propaganda,” in
also shown at Ferrara, Palazzo dei Diamanti. Rubens dalVltalia alPEuropa: atti del convengo internazionale
di Studi. Padova 24-27 Maggio 1990 (Vicenza, 1992), p. 29
Konrad Renger with Claudia Denk, Flamische Malerei des
Barock in der Alten Pinakothek (Munich, 2002), p. 318.
Catalogue 139
The subject is derived from the Book of no. 1082). It is unknown when the commission
Revelation 12:1-10. At the center appears the was transferred from Rottenhammer to Rubens,
“woman” of the Apocalypse, an allusion to the but it is notable that the former, who worked
Virgin, who is “clothed with the sun, and the in a more fastidious and presumably deliberate
moon under her feet,” protectively holding up manner than the swift and painterly Rubens,
the infant Christ Child. (The link between the was at the end of his career; Empress Eleanore
Woman of the Apocalypse and the Virgin was complained in a letter to Rottenhammer of March
made at least as early as the thirteenth century 1625 about the delay in the completion of the
by Bonaventura.) She wears a white dress, blue painting. From another letter to the Freising
mantle, and ocher shawl. On the orb of the moon chancellor, Dr. Biener, dated December 10, 1624,
on which she stands she crushes a serpent with we know that the altar was almost finished. The
her right foot, a reference to Genesis 3:15. To first mention, however, of Rubens’s painting,
the left the archangel Michael, in red with armor identified as Matris Apocalypoticae effigies, dates
and wielding a lightning bolt, and two angels, from 1632, when it was evacuated in advance
one with a lance, subdue a hydra-headed, reddish of invading Swedish troops.
dragon (the “great red dragon, having seven The final altarpiece differs from the sketch
heads”) and other demons that tumble into a fiery in many details. As Julius Held observed (1980,
abyss below (Rev. 12:7-9: “And there was war in vol. 1, p. 526), some of these changes were
heaven; Michael and his angels fought against probably made to accommodate the fact that
the dragon. . . . And the great dragon was cast the proportions were changed in the final canvas
out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, to a more attenuated format, with more height
which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out relative to width. Thus a third angel was added on
into the earth, and his angels were cast out with the left to rout the dragon and demons, which
him”). At the right are two other angels, and now are more prominent, while the Virgin is
above, God the Father commands another relatively smaller in the final composition and
angel to attach wings to the Virgin’s shoulders wears red and blue. Held suggested that
(Rev. 12:14: “And to the woman were given two Michael’s pose was inspired by Raphael’s St.
wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the Michael (Musee du Louvre, Paris). In the final
wilderness”). Prominent at the upper left are stars version it was changed from a frontal to a three-
(Rev. 12:4: “and his tail drew the third part of the quarter-side view. God the Father’s commanding
stars of heaven and did cast them to earth”). gesture has become more emphatic by additional
This sketch is the modello for the vast foreshortening, and the wings that are attached
altarpiece that Rubens executed for the high to the Virgin are now more clearly identifiable
altar of the cathedral at Freising, now preserved as “eagle’s wings.” Finally, the landscape below,
in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich (fig. 1). Prince- attributed to an anonymous follower by Held
Bishop Veit Adam von Gebeck of Freising but “probably by Lucas van Uden” according to
commissioned the painting. The renovation of Michael Jaffe (1989, p. 284), features a view of the
the cathedral at Freising was begun in 1621, and city of Lreising in the final altarpiece. Jaffe (ibid.)
its nearly completed high altar was consecrated suggested that the entire composition might owe
on January 1, 1624. Initially the commission a debt to Tintoretto’s St. Michael and the Devil
was awarded to the German painter Hans (Gemaldegalerie, Dresden), which Rubens copied
Rottenhammer (1564-1625). The bishop wrote when he was in Italy in a drawing now preserved
Rottenhammer on July 11, 1623, that he wanted in the Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de
a subject “applicable to all feast days of the Belgique, Brussels. Several pentimenti appear
Blessed Virgin [xo sich auf alle wiser Lieben Frauen in the sketch, especially around the figure of
Fest applizieren Hesse]-, in Counter-Reformation St. Michael. The crescent of the moon was also
iconography, the Apocalyptic Woman was lowered and moved to the rieLt.
regarded as a reference both to the Assumption -PCS
of the Virgin (see Speculum, Humanae Salvationis)
and the Immaculate Conception (see J. J. M.
Timmers, Symboliek en Iconographie der christelijke
Kunst [Roermond-Maaseik, 1947], p. 483,
Catalogue 141
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Virgin as the Woman of the Apocalypse, c. 1624-25
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek
Munich, inv. no. 891
IS
Peter Paul Rubens
The Duke of Buckingham

c. 1625
Oil on panel
46.6 x 51.7 cm
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas,
no. AP 1876.08
PROVENANCE: Claude-Maurice-Henri Roxard de la Salle (as Don Juan dAutriche)-, Charles Richard Cammell, The
(1837-1882), Nancy, France; sale Roxard de la Salle, Paris Great Duke of Buckingham (London, 1939), p. 376; Julius
(Drouot), March 28, 1881, lot 29, to Mme Louis Stern S. Held, “Rubens’s Sketch of Buckingham Rediscovered,”
for 13,000 francs; Mme Louis Stern, Paris; by descent to The Burlington Magazine 118 (August 1976), pp. 547-51,
her granddaughter, Mme Sylvie de Langlade, Paris, until ill.; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 393-95, no. 292, vol. 2, pi. 294,
1974; with Somerville and Simpson, London; private colorpl. 11; Walter A. Liedtke, “Rubens, Velazquez, and
collection, London; with Somerville and Simpson, from the Spanish Riding School,” In the Arts 3, no. 1 (April
whom the Kimbell Art Museum acquired it in 1976. 1980), pp. 14-15, fig. 2, p. 16; Kimbell Art Museum:
Handbook of the Collection (Fort Worth, 1981), p. 76, ill.;
Exhibitions: Berlin, Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen White 1987, pp. 190-92, pi. 213; Vlieghe 1987, pp. 31,
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Bilder vom Menschen in der 66-67, no. 81a, fig. 54; Charles S. Scribner III, Peter
Kunst des Abendlandes, cat. by Brigitte Huefler, 1980, Paul Rubens (New York 1989), p. 90, ill. p. 91; Walter A.
no. 8, ill. no. 8; New York, The Frick Collection, In Liedtke, The Royal Horse and Rider (New York, 1991), ill.;
Pursuit of Quality: Twenty-five Years of Collecting Old Stephanie Lile, “The Morgan as Old World Horse,” The
Masters; Paintings from- the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Morgan Horse, July 1990, pp. 59-61, ill. p. 58; Liedtke et
Worth, 1990, no. 5, ill. al. 1992, pp. 200, 202, ill. p. 201; Jonathan Brown, Kings
and Connoisseurs: Collecting Art in Seventeenth Century
Literature: Paul Mantz, “La Collection de M. Roxard Europe (Princeton, 1995), p. 31, ill. no. 19; David M.
de la Salle,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (March 1881), p. 250, Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire
ill. p. 251; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 4 (1892), p. 158, no. 931; (Iowa City, 1999), ill. p. 104; Gert-Rudolf Flick, Missing
Jean Guiffrey, “La Collection de Madame Louis Stern. II, Masterpieces: Lost Works of Art, 1450-1900 (London,
Les Tableaux,” LesArts 10 (November 1911), p. 17, ill. 2003), p. 249, ill. p. 245.
Catalogue 143
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
Equestrian Portrait of George Villiers,
Duke of Buckingham, c. 1625-27
Formerly collection of earl of Jersey,
Osterly Park, destroyed by fire, 1949
Seated astride a sorrel horse with gray mane and initially sought to ally England with Spain against
tail, the duke of Buckingham is portrayed as the France and subsequently sought an alliance with
General of the Fleet. Beneath him in the lower France against Spain; by 1627 England was in a
left corner are Neptune with a trident and a naiad costly war with both nations. So unpopular was
who both look up with admiration at the young, the duke’s quixotic foreign policy that he was
handsome leader. Beyond some reeds the masts of assassinated on August 23, 1628. However, when
a large fleet appear in the distance. In the golden Rubens met Buckingham in Paris in 1625 on a
yellow sky to the right above the duke flutters a diplomatic mission to Charles I’s proxy marriage
genius holding the trumpet of Fame in his right to Henrietta Maria, Buckingham was riding
hand, scattering flowers and blowing wind from high. Newly appointed to the post of General
his mouth to propel the fleet. The duke’s mount of the Fleet, he commissioned from Rubens an
is viewed in profile rearing on its hind legs, its equestrian portrait of himself in this role; Rubens
head turned slightly toward the viewer. Clad was paid 500 livres in 1625 for “drawing his
in armor, bareheaded, and sporting a blue sash, L[ordship’s] picture on horseback” (W. Noel
bright red breeches, and a fluttering crimson and Sainsbury, Original Unpublished Papers Illustrative
pink cape, Buckingham turns to look directly at of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens as an Artist and
the observer. Neptune has blue drapery and the a Diplomat [London, 1859], p. 68). The present
genius diaphanous white drapery and yellow work is the modello for the final large painting
highlights in his hair. that was owned by the earl of Jersey at Osterley
A favorite of King Charles I as well as his Park but was destroyed by fire in 1949 (fig. 1).
Master of the Horse, Georges Villiers, the first The likeness of the duke was recorded in a
duke of Bedford, amassed a huge fortune and drawing now preserved in the Albertina, Vienna
art collection but was a rakish figure given to (fig. 2). From Rubens’s correspondence with
disastrous political shifts and intrigues. He Balthasar Gerbier (who was Buckingham’s
Catalogue 145
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Portrait of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham
Black and red chalk, heightened with white,
38.3 x 26.6 cm
Albertina, Vienna, inv. 8256
Master of the Horse as well as his confidential Caritas (the two female figures), but Vlieghe
agent), we know that the painter was working (ibid.) correctly rejected this view, emphasizing
hard on the portrait in the autumn of 1625 but instead Buckingham’s glorification in the role of
was interrupted by a journey he had to make for Commander of the Navy. In addition to Neptune,
the Infanta; he may have finished the final picture the naiad, and the fleet, the final version also
by September 18, 1627, when he sent several includes a larger armada and a beach strewn
paintings by his hand to the duke (see Vlieghe with shells. In the period when Rubens first
1987, p. 65). conceived this portrait he was just installing the
In the final portrait the allegorical apparatus magnificent cycle glorifying Marie de Medicis in
designed to glorify Buckingham as commander the Luxembourg Palace (now preserved in the
has been elaborated, possibly at the duke’s Musee du Louvre, Paris), which makes similar
request. The female personification of Victory use of allegorical personifications for propaganda
now flies before the duke with a laurel wreath purposes. Huemer (1977, pp. 57-58) observed
and cornucopia, and on the right another female that Rubens’s decision to depict the duke on
allegorical figure, possibly of Caritas with a horseback with the fleet at sea in the background
flaming heart, subdues a demonic figure of Envy followed an English tradition; Willem de Passe
(see Gregory Martin, “Rubens and Buckingham’s had earlier engraved the duke in a similar setting,
‘Fayrie lie,’” The Burlington Magazine 108 [1966], and the former Lord High Admiral, the earl of
pp. 613-18, and Vlieghe 1987, p. 64) or possibly Nottingham, had been depicted in a similar way.
Discord (Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 394). Francis Rubens and Buckingham remained in regular
Huemer (.Portraits, Corpus Rubenianum Fudwig contact from 1625 on, as Buckingham negotiated
Burchard, pt. 19, vol. 1 [Brussels, 1977], pp. to purchase the painter’s collection of antiquities,
57-61) sought to interpret this portrait as an gemstones, and some of the master’s paintings,
allegory of Fortitudo (embodied in the duke) and while Rubens sought to use the relationship to
secure peace for the Southern Netherlands. It is accurately depicted in Antoine de Pluvinel’s
In addition to the equestrian portrait, Rubens influential treatise on equitation, L'Instruction de
also painted an illusionistic ceiling for his roy en Vexercise de monter a cheval ([Paris, 1925];
patron depicting the Triumph of the Duke Liedtke 1989, p. 22, fig. 8). Liedtke (ibid., p. 23)
of Buckingham, which like the portrait was suggests that Buckingham’s pose is “better
destroyed in the fire at Osterley Park, but for described as a rear on command (an appropriate
which there is an oil sketch in the National movement for a military figure).” He also
Gallery, London. Buckingham’s patronage of suggested that the source for Rubens’s portrait
Rubens also undoubtedly encouraged Charles I could be Thomas Cockson’s print Charles Blount,
to retain the master’s services. However, as we Earl of Devonshire, on Horseback of about 1604
have noted, Buckingham had only about a year to (ibid., p. 23, fig. 11). Rubens’s later equestrian
enjoy Rubens’s paintings before he was killed (on portraits Cardinal Infante Ferdinand (Museo del
their relationship, see especially G. Martin 1966). Prado, Madrid) as well as the lost Philip IV both
Rubens’s earlier equestrian portraits, such as employ the rearing pose first adopted in the
the Duke ofLerma of 1603 (Museo del Prado, Buckingham portrait. The latter also undoubtedly
Madrid) and Giancarlo Doria of about 1606-7 influenced later equestrian portraits by Anthony
(Palazzo Vecchio, Florence), were configured van Dyck and Diego Velazquez.
frontally with the horse advancing toward the Julius Held (1980, p. 393) and Vlieghe (1987,
viewer. He had also depicted mounted horses p. 66) both incorrectly assumed that the present
rearing in profile in, for example, his copy of work could be the painting mentioned by Gustav
Leonardo’s Battle of Anghiari (of which there is F. Waagen (Kunstwerke und Kiinstler in England
a drawing in the Louvre and a painted version in und Paris, 3 vols. [Berlin, 1837-39], vol. 2 [1838])
the Akademie der bildenden Kiinste in Vienna) of the “Duke of Alva on Horseback,” which was
and his St. George and the Dragon of about 1607 in Lord Radnor’s collection at Longford Castle;
(Museo del Prado, Madrid). Another early however, that is another work on canvas
example of a rider on a horse viewed in profile identified in 1909 as Rubens’s Portrait of Archduke
rearing on its hind legs appears in the so-called Albert, Governor of the Netherlands, formerly
Riding School (formerly in the Kaiser-Friedrich- known as the portrait of the duke of Alva
Museum, Berlin; repr. Vlieghe 1987, fig. 4), which (see Helen Matilda, Countess of Radnor, and
was probably only a workshop copy of Rubens’s William Barclay Squire, Catalogue of the Pictures
original of about 1615. Sixteenth-century prints in the Collection of the Earl of Radnor [London,
by Antonio Tempesta and after Stradanus also 1909], pp. 37-38, no. 62). Vlieghe (1987, p. 66)
depict rulers on rearing horses in profile. The lists five copies of the present work, including
pose became a symbol in Baroque portraiture paintings in the museums in Schwerin and the
of a leader’s authoritative control. In a poem on Zanesville Art Institute, Zanesville, Ohio. In an
Rubens’s lost equestrian portrait of Philip fV (a article on the collection of Arnold Lunden
copy is in the Uffizi, Florence) that assumed this (Rubens’s brother-in-law) Vlieghe (“Erasmus
pose, Francisco de Zarate even likens the horse to Quellinus and Rubens’ Studio Practice,” The
the people under the monarch’s control (“Rubens Burlington Magazine 119 [1977], pp. 636-42) also
in short shows with the horse how you ought notes, “No. 134 Deux Esquisses: l’une le Due de
to be a vassal to your prince”; see Larry Ligo, Bucquingam. C’est peut etre l’Apotheose du Roi
“Two Seventeenth Century Poems Which Link Jacques premier qui est souvent pris pour le Due
Rubens’s Equestrian Portrait of Philip IV to de Buckingham fl. 50-00.” The document exists
Titian’s Equestrian Portrait of Charles V,” Gazette only in eighteenth-century manuscript copy
des Beaux-Arts 75 [1970], pp. 345-55). While (Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 5, doc. 1225). It is
Hans Vlieghe (1987, p. 65) and others have unknown whether this refers to the present
described the equestrian pose in the Buckingham work or another sketch.
portrait as the levade, Walter Liedtke (see Liedtke -PCS
1989, pp. 19ff.) points out that properly speaking
this is not correct; in the levade the horse bends
its haunches deeply and tucks its raised forelegs
close to the body while keeping its head straight.
M 'fe::
VS.
-iV-':'"
16
Peter Paul Rubens
The Emperor Julius Caesar
c. 1626
Oil on oval panel

33 x 26.6 cm
Stephen Mazoh, New York
Provenance: (Possibly) collection Thomas Jodocus

Loridon de Ghellinck, Ghent, by c. 1790; (possibly) his
sale, Ghent (Goesin), September 3, 1821, and ff., lot 63
(as “manner of Rubens”; 40 francs [with lots 64, 65, 66,
67, 68], to Murphy); sale Thomas Schnell, Paris, May
18-19, 1922, lot 95 (as “Ecole de P-P. Rubens, Deux
empereurs remains en buste”; 145 francs); Alvin-
Beaumont, Paris; Jean Decoen, Brussels; collection
Ludwig Burchard, Berlin and London, from 1925; by
descent to Wolfgang Burchard; sale London (Christie’s),
April 11, 1986, lot 7, ill.
Exhibition: Rotterdam 1953-54, no. 48.
LITERATURE: Catalogue d'une tres-belle et riche collection de

tableaux . . . qui composent le cabinet de Monsieur T. Loridon
de Ghellinck ... a Gand (Ghent, c. 1790), p. 20, no. 68
(“Jules Cesar . . . legerement colore, mais peint d’une
grande maniere,” oval, 12 x 10 pouces); Michael Jaffe,
“Rubens’s Roman Emperors,” The Burlington Magazine
113 (1971), p. 300; M. Jaffe 1977, pp. 17-18; M. Jaffe
1989, p. 298, no. 869; Marjon van der Meulen, Rubens:
Copies after the Antique, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig
Burchard, pt. 23, 3 vols. (London, 1994), vol. 2, p. 119,
under no. 109.
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
Vespasian
Private Collection
The imperial ruler is seen at bust length, turned and those now known suggests either that some
three-quarters to the right. He wears a cuirass of the six portraits may have been misidentified
beneath a red cloak pinned at the shoulder; his or that some of the paintings from the Loridon
close-cropped hair is encircled by a laurel wreath. collection have since been lost (and others
This is one of a series of at least six, and possibly resurfaced), and that Rubens’s series originally
twelve, bust-length portraits of Roman emperors included the twelve works customary for
painted by Rubens in about 1626. Other extant historical portraits on this theme. The lives of
portraits from the series include Vitellius (present the first twelve Roman emperors, known as the
location unknown), Vespasian (private collection; “Twelve Caesars”—Julius Caesar (ruled 45-44
fig. 1), Nero (present location unknown), B.C.), Augustus (31 B.C.-A.D. 14), Tiberius
Otho (Scunthorpe Museum and Art Gallery, (14-37), Gaius (Caligula, 37-41), Claudius
Scunthorpe), and Galba (present location (41-54), Nero (54-68), Galba (68-69), Otho (69),
unknown). The oval format and uniform Vitellius (69), Vespasian (69-79), Titus (79-81),
dimensions of these sketches correspond to a and Domitianus (81-96)—were memorably
series of six busts of Roman emperors said to chronicled in a firsthand historical account
be by Rubens (per cat. 1790) or in his manner by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. Filled with
(per sale cat. 1821) that were in the collection gossip and lively anecdotes, Suetonius’s text
of Thomas Loridon de Ghellinck in Ghent by was probably the most widely read series of
the end of the eighteenth century. The Loridon biographies from the Roman world.
catalogues describe portraits of Julius Caesar and Portraits of the Twelve Caesars in all media
Vespasian but also of Augustus, Tiberius, Vitellius, were popular among princely collectors in the
and Titus. The discrepancy between the list of sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, creating
subjects mentioned in the Loridon catalogues for them a fictional ancestry and invoking
Catalogue 151
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Julius Caesar, 1619
Stiftung Preussische Schlosser und Garten
Berlin-Brandenburg (Jagdschloss Grunewald),
inv. GK I 972
genealogical and ideological connections with last archaeological projects, the series of Twelve
past imperial power. One of the most interesting Famous Greek and Roman Men designed by
series of painted Roman imperial portraits was Rubens and engraved by various printmakers,
that probably commissioned by the Dutch and finally brought to fruition in 1638 (van der
stadholder Maurits of Orange or his stepbrother Meulen 1994, vol. 1, pp. 142-52, vol. 2, pp. 115ff.,
and successor Frederik Hendrik, between about nos. 108-19). While probably based on the same
1615 and 1625 (on the series, see Helmut Borsch- sculptural model, the likeness of Julius Caesar
Supan, Jagdschloss Grunewald, Verwaltung der in the present sketch is less rugged and stern in
Staatlichen Schlosser und Garten [Berlin, 1981], aspect. Rather than fixing a piercing gaze on the
pp. 48-52). A dozen leading painters from the viewer, he gazes off to the right, creating a more
Northern and Southern Netherlands—including contempletive mood.
Rubens, Abraham Janssens, Hendrick Goltzius, The exact purpose of the Julius Caesar and the
Gerard van Honthorst, and Dirck van Baburen— other small sketches from the series is not known.
each contributed a bust-length likeness of an Michael Jaffe (1971, p. 300) commented that they
emperor. Rubens’s bust of Julius Caesar, painted “were probably not intended in the procedural
in 1619 and possibly later reworked by the artist, sense to be sketches” and proposed that they may
is certainly the most animated of the series have been created for an antiquarian colleague
(fig. 2); characteristically, although he modeled of Rubens, possibly as a result of his having
the likeness on an antique portrait bust in his met in Paris in the mid-162 Os several eminent
own collection, there is not a trace of stone antiquaries—Girolamo Aleandro, Giovanni
in this lively and intelligent visage. The same Doni, and Cassiano del Pozzo—then traveling in
imperial bust served as the model for the the entourage of Cardinal Francesco Barberini.
likeness of Julius Caesar in one of Rubens’s -MEW
17
Peter Paul Rubens
The Gathering of Manna
c. 1626
Oil on panel
64.8 x 52.3 cm
Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Frances and Armand Hammer Purchase Fund,
inv. M.69.20
Provenance: The dukes of Infantado up to the Literature: Rooses 1886-92, vol. 1 (1886), p. 73;
thirteenth duke, who died in 1841; inherited by his son, P. Leprieur, “Ecoles du Nord,” in Collection Pacully
the duke of Pastrana, Madrid (d. 1888); sold by the (Paris, 1900), p. 14, pi. 26; P. Leprieur and M. Rooses, in
duchess of Pastrana to Emile Pacully, Madrid and Paris; Collection Emile Pacully sale cat., 1903, pp. 40, 41, 62, 63,
sale, Pacully, Paris (G. Petit), May 4, 1903, lot 29, ill. no. 29, ill.; M. Rooses, “De Verzameling Pacully te Paris,”
(bought in); sale, Pacully, Paris (Drouot), July 5, 1938, Onze Kunst 2 (1913), pp. 121, 122; V. Josz, “La Collection
lot 28, purchased by the dealer Guy Stein, Paris, who Pacully,” LesArts 2, no. 16 (April 1903), pp. 35, 36, ill.;
sold it to Baron Robert Gendebien, Brussels; M. Philippe “The Pacully Collection,” The Connoisseur, May 1903,
de Lovinfosse, Faulx-les-Tombes; acquired for the Los pp. 258, 259, ill.; van Puyvelde 1940, pp. 33, no. 7b;
Angeles museum in 1969 from Rosenberg and Stiebel, E. Haverkamp-Begemann, “Rubens Schetsen,” Bulletin,
New York, with funds donated by the Frances and Museum Boymans, Rotterdam 5 (1954), p. 9; Victor H.
Armand Hammer purchase fund. Elbern, in exh. cat. Essen,Villa Htigel, Peter Paul Rubens:
Triumph der Eucharistie, Wandteppiche aus dem. Kolner Dom,
EXHIBITIONS: London, Dowdeswell Galleries, Exhibition Winter 1954-55, p. 31, no. 10; Victor H. Elbern, “Die
of a Collection of Old Masters, the Property ofM. Emile Rubensteppiche des Kolner Domes, ihre Geschichte
Pacully of Paris, 1901, no. 8; Rotterdam 1953-54, no. 73; und ibre Stellung im Zyklus ‘Triumph der Eucharistie,’”
Bordeaux, Galerie des Beaux-Arts, Flandres, Espagne, Kolner Domblatt 10 (1955), p. 74, fig. 29; Held 1968,
Portugal du XVe au XVIIe siecle, 1954, no. 80; Brussels p. 16; The Armand Hammer Collection, Los Angeles County
1965, no. 225; Memphis, Brooks Memorial Art Gallery, Museum, 1971, no. 3; Held 1980, vol. l,.pp. 148-49, no.
The Armand Hammer Collection, 1969, no. 3, ill.; 95, vol. 2, pi. 97; de Poorter 1978, vol. 1, pp. 297-99, no.
Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, The Armand 8b, vol. 2, fig. 134; Scribner 1977/82, pp. 44, fig. 8,
Hammer Collection, 1970, no. 3, ill.; Los Angeles, Los 41-45,119.
Angeles County Museum of Art, The Armand Hammer
Collection, also shown at the Royal Academy, London, and
the National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 1972, no. 3; Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, A Decade
of Collecting, 1965-1915, 1975, no. 65.
Catalogue 153
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Gathering of Manna
Oil on panel, 15.5 x 13 cm
Musee Bonnat, Bayonne, inv. 456
A Active tapestry is suspended by a cord with when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon
tassels from three lions’s heads attached to two the face of the wilderness there lay a small round
Solomonic columns and an architrave. On the thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground.” It
right is the figure of Moses in a red mantle with tasted “like wafers made with honey.” A substance
his identifying horns of light emanating from his unknown to them, they called it “manna,” perhaps
head, holding his rod in his left hand and lifting from the Hebrew for “What is it?” Since the
his right hand heavenward in a gesture of appeal manna was said to have fallen to the earth like
or thanksgiving. Before him and on the left, the dew, it was often depicted as a precipitate caught
Israelites gather manna in baskets and sacks. by the Israelites from the air, as here depicted by
On the left a woman in golden-ocher drapery Rubens. The Old Testament subject had long
holds the hand of a child in her right hand while been regarded as a prefiguration of the Eucharist.
balancing a large basket of manna on her head. The miraculous food that God caused to rain
Another woman bends her head low to receive a down on the Jews to sustain them in the
second basket hefted by the man behind Moses, wilderness symbolizes the heavenly bread of
while another woman catches the falling manna the New Covenant that nourishes mankind on
in her skirt. In the foreground a man squats to its journey to salvation. As Nora de Poorter
lift a heavy grain sack filled with the miraculous observed (1978, p. 295), the biblical term
substance. Just visible to the right of Moses is the “heavenly bread” (Psalms 78:24-25) referred
head of a man with a beard, who may be Aaron. to manna and was also adopted to describe the
In the sky flecks of white manna continue to fall. Eucharist. Christ identifies himself with manna
The biblical subject is based on Exodus as the “true bread from Heaven” that will bring
16:14-16, which records that the Israelites had everlasting life: “I am the living bread which
become restless under the leadership of Moses came down from heaven: if any man eat of this
and Aaron when they were threatened in the bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that
desert with starvation. Plowever, God promised I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the
to provide for them, “and in the morning . . . life of the world” (see John 6:31-32, 48-51).
Catalogue 155
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Gathering of the Manna, c. 1625
Bequest of John Ringling, Collection of
The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art,
State Art Museum of Florida, SN211
The present modello was preceded by a bozzetto Gathering of Manna indicates that in Rubens’s
now in the Musee Bonnat, Bayonne (fig. 1) in overall design for the Eucharist tapestry series, it
which the composition was reversed as it would was paired among the various prefigurations with
appear in the final tapestry. While some of the a scene of Elijah with the Angel (1 Kings 19:4-9),
figures’ positions are already established (e.g., for which there are again a bozzetto as well as a
the woman with the child and basket, as well as modello in the museum in Bayonne (de Poorter
the second woman who is assisted by a man to 1978, nos. 9a, 9b, figs. 138, 139). The prophet
place the basket on her head), other details would Elijah was also sustained by heavenly food and
change. At this preliminary stage a woman kneels drink and hence became a popular type for
in the foreground to gather manna in a basket, the Eucharist.
Moses gestures with his rod to heaven, and the At some point in its history the present panel
column on the left was still covered by the Active was enlarged on all four sides to create a panel
tapestry. The most important changes between measuring approximately 120 by 88 centimeters.
the bozzetto and modello, however, were to increase The expanded areas were painted with an
the prominence of Moses and make all the figures architectonic border, and part of the scene itself
more monumental by enlarging them and was overpainted with an oval “stone” cartouche
grouping them more tightly. The final cartoon for decorated with cherubs and garlands of flowers
the composition is preserved in the John and and fruit (see de Poorter 1978, fig. 135). In this
Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota (fig. 2). state it was long believed incorrectly to be by Jan
In addition to minor changes, it moves the figures Brueghel the Elder and Rubens; however, Max
still closer together, farther compressing the Rooses correctly observed that the border of
space. The final tapestry by the weavers Jan garlands was a later addition and suggested that
Raes, J. Fobert, and H. Vervoert, like the others they might be by the flower specialist Pieter
in the series, is still preserved in the Convent of Gysels (active c. 1650). The added parts were
the Descalzas Reales, Madrid (de Poorter 1978, removed after the picture was sold in 1938.
no. 8, fig. 132). The narrower format of the -PCS
18
Peter Paul Rubens
The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in Adoration
c. 1626
Oil on panel
66.7 x 46.7 cm
The Speed Art Museum, Louisville, Kentucky,
Gift in memory of George W. Norton IV,
by his mother, Mrs. George W. Norton, Jr., and
his aunt, Mrs. Leonard T. Davidson, 1966.16
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) Jean de Julienne (1686-1766), no. 125; London, Royal Academy of Arts, Works by the Old
Paris; (possibly) his sale, Paris, March 30-May 22, 1767, Masters: and by Deceased Masters of the British School, 1882,
lot 99 (“Pierre Paul Rubens . . . , un Pape qui fait no. 221; Madrid, Palacio Real, El Arte en la Cone de los
l’ouverture de la Porte Sainte: on compte sept figures qui Archiduques Albeno de Austria e Isabel Clara Eugenia
se groupent ensemble; deux anges sont sur des nouees. (1598-1633): Un Reino Imaginado, cat. by Alejandro
II est peint sur bois & port 24 pouces de haut, sur 16 Vergara et al., 1999, no. 90.
pouces 9 lignes de large,” to Horion); (possibly) sale J. B.
Horion, Brussels, September 1, 1788, lot 19 (“Un tableau LITERATURE: (Possibly) Sir Joshua Reynolds, A Journey
representant les quatres Docteurs de l’Eglise”; 1,210 to Flanders and Holland (1797), ed. Harry Mount
francs, to “De Bruyn from London”); (possibly) de (Cambridge, 1996), p. 21 (as in Horion collection, “a
Bruyn, London; Richard Troward, London, by 1807; his sketch by Rubens, of three saints on their knees”);
sale, London (Phillips), April 18, 1807, lot 13 (bought in (possibly) Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), p. 185, no. 644
at £273); his sale, London (Coxe),June 11, 1808, lot 15 (the painting in the Julienne and Horion collections, as
(£276.15 to Williams-Wynn); Sir Watkin Williams- “The Pope causing the Holy Gate to be opened”);
Wynn, fifth baronet (1772-1840), Wynnstay, Denbigh, (possibly) Rooses 1888-92, vol. 2 (1888), p. 199 (the
Wales, and by descent; sale Lt. Col. Sir Watkin Williams- painting in the Julienne and Horion collections); Rooses
Wynn et ah, London (Sotheby’s), June 30, 1965, lot 10 1904, vol. 2, p. 432; Held 1968, pp. 2-23, esp. 16-18; de
(£17,500); Rosenberg & Stiebel, New York, 1966, from Poorter 1978, vol. 1, pp. Ill, 114, 118, 127, 180, 272-73,
whom purchased by the museum. no. 4b, vol. 2, fig. 108; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 142, 160-61,
no. 113, vol. 2, pi. 115 (as Princes of the Church Adoring the
EXHIBITIONS: London, British Institution, Pictures Eucharist); Scribner 1977/82, pp. 95, 97-98, fig. 33; Allis
by Rubens, Rembrandt, Vandyke and Other Artists of the Eaton Bennett, ed., J. B. Speed An Museum, Handbook
Flemish and Dutch Schools, 1815, no. 6 (as The Doctors of the (Louisville, 1983), p. 142, ill.; M. Jaffe 1989, pp. 294-95,
Church)-, London, British Institution, Pictures by Italian, no. 854; Bauer 1992, pp. 231, 241, fig. 9-6; Liedtke et al.
Spanish, Flemish, Dutch, French and English Masters, 1847, 1992, p. 361, no. 406, ill.
Catalogue 157
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Adoration of the Eucharist, c. 1626
The Art Institute of Chicago, Mr. and Mrs.
Martin A. Ryerson Collection, inv. 1937.1012
Between a pair of rusticated Tuscan columns,

a group of ecclesiastical dignitaries kneels and
stands in adoration of the Eucharist. At the far
right is a bishop, wearing a richly embroidered
cope; immediately to the left is a pope, his papal
tiara resting on the ground before him. Beyond
him is a cardinal, clasping his tasseled hat, and a left in the Chicago sketch, features identifiable
Dominican monk, his hands upraised in prayer. likenesses of members of the ruling Spanish and
Standing behind these figures are a man holding Austrian houses of the Hapsburg dynasty, Rubens
the triple-cross staff of the papacy, another with probably did not intend to portray specific
a crozier, and a third figure of whom only the individuals in this sketch (pace Julius Held [1968
head can be seen. All of the figures look to the p. 18, and 1980, vol. 1, p. 161] who identified the
sky, where two putti hover in the clouds and pope as “the still youthful Urban VIII”). Nor do
gesture toward the left. they, as was previously assumed, represent the
The object of the ecclesiastics’ worshipful Fathers of the Church (see, among others, Rooses
attention is revealed in Rubens’s maquette, which 1904, vol. 2, p. 432; and the description of the
plots the original placement of this composition painting in the 1965 sale catalogue). Rather, the
amid five of the tapestries he designed for the generic personalities embody different degrees
chapel in the Convent of the Descalzas Reales and branches of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,
in Madrid (the bozzetto now in the Art Institute united in worshiping the sacrament.
of Chicago, fig. 1). This set of tapestries was Among the approximately sixteen tapestries
originally hung around the chapel’s high altar designed by Rubens for the Eucharist series
on the feast of Corpus Christi and Good Friday are eleven large narrative scenes (including
(Scribner 1977/82, p. 93; for additional works in the Abraham and Melchizedek, cat. 19) depicted
the Eucharist series, see cats. 17-22). The putti on fictive tapestries hung from an elaborate
in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy direct the figures’ architectural framework. As Nora de Poorter has
gaze toward the scene at upper center of the explained (1978, vol. 1, pp. 181, 187, and passim),
ensemble, where two cherubs bear a monstrance these illustrations and prefigurations of the
that contains the consecrated Elost and emits Eucharist are intended to be read as “depictions”
a brilliant light. As a whole, the scenes in the adorning an illusionistic architectural construct.
composite sketch depict the adoration of this The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in Adoration and the
instrument of the Eucharist by the entire other scenes surrounding the chapel’s high altar,
fellowship of the Church, including an upper tier by contrast, are presented without the distancing
of music-making angels and earthly dignitaries device of a fictive tapestry: they inhabit the same
from the secular and ecclesiastic realms. space as the viewer and thus occur in “reality.”
While the companion scene of The Secular Rubens employed this strategy of differentiation
Hierarchy in Adoration, which appears at the lower to emphasize the idea, crucial to Counter-
Catalogue
Fig. 2.
Jacob Geubels after Peter Paul Rubens
The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in Adoration
Wool and silk, c. 490 x 330 cm
Patrimonio Nacional (Descalzas Reales),
Madrid, inv. 00614216
the right of the scene and extending beyond

the enframing column. As Held noted (1980,
vol. 1, p. 161), the configuration of the Louisville
sketch is simpler, more monumental, and the cast
of characters more dignified than in the bozzetto,
reflecting Rubens’s constant process of refining
his compositions for greater impact and
narrative clarity.
The large cartoon from which the tapestry
was woven has not survived, but the tapestry
woven in Brussels by Jacob Geubels shows only
minor differences from the modello (fig. 2). In
the modello the architectural surround is only
schematically indicated (and is in fact one of
the least finished of the series); the tapestry
Reformatory dogma, that the sacrament of the introduces egg-and-dart molding at the capitals
Eucharist miraculously united the faithful with and fluting on the lower portion of the columns.
heavenly things, eradicating barriers between The Dominican’s hand is no longer hidden
earth and heaven. behind the column, and in general the figures
Comparison of the Louisville modello with appear more compressed in the space between
the bozzetto now in Chicago (fig. 1) reveals how the columns.
Rubens modified his initial conception of the The early provenance of this sketch (prior
subject. In the bozzetto, the heavenly message is to 1807) seems likely but cannot be confirmed;
conveyed by a large angel, which in the modello the sketch that passed from the Julienne and
has been replaced by two putti. An acolyte Horion collections is mentioned by John Smith
(originally shown kneeling between the cardinal and Max Rooses but not connected by them
and the pope) and another shadowy figure with the Eucharist series. A later owner of the
standing behind have been eliminated from the picture, Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, fifth baronet
group of large figures, reducing their number (nicknamed “Bubble”), was the son of a serious
from nine to seven in the Louisville sketch. In collector and patron of the arts; the younger
the Chicago bozzetto the pope wears a long ocher Williams-Wynn also acquired some notable
cloak and swings a censer; in the modello, his works for the collection, including, in addition
hands are crossed in prayer and he wears the to the present painting, Rubens’s Forest at Dawn
short cape (mozzetta) and fur-trimmed camauro with a Deer Hunt, now in the Metropolitan
(cap) of his office. Lorms and gestures are Museum of Art (inv. 1990.196).
grander, more expansive in the modello, -MEW
overwhelming the sliver of landscape visible at
19
{Exhibited in Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
The Meeting of Abraham and
Melchizedek
c. 1628
Oil on panel
66 x 82.5 cm
National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.,
Gift of Syma Busiel, 1958.4.1 (1506)
PROVENANCE: Possibly Palazzo Nuovo, Madrid; sale Venice, Palazzo Grassi, The Triumph of the Baroque:
Jean de Julienne, Paris (Remy), March 30-May 22, 1767, Architecture in Europe, 1600-1750, cat. by Henry A.
lot 98 (possibly purchased by Horion); sale J. B. Horion, Millon, also shown at the Musee des Beaux Arts,
Brussels, September 1, 1788, lot 20 (to “Lozen”?); John, Montreal, National Gallery of Art, Washington, and
Lord Trevor; by inheritance to his wife (her estate sale, Centre de la Vieille Charite, Marseille, 1999-2001
1782); Lady Stepney, 1782-1830; sale Lady Stepney, (shown only in Montreal), p. 595, no. 626.
London (Christie’s), May 1, 1830, lot 93 (as acquired from
the widow of John, Lord Trevor; bought in); sale Lady Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), under nos.
Stuart, London (Christie’s), May 15, 1841, lot 73; with 504 and 641, vol. 9 (1842), no. 288; Waagen 1854-57,
Charles J. Nieuwenhuys, Brussels and London; sold vol. 2 (1854), p. 182; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 1 (1886), p. 63,
to Sir Thomas Baring, second baronet (1772-1848), no. 46 bis, p. 149, under no. 120; J. Weale and J. P.
London; his sale Baring, London (Christie’s), June 3, Richter, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures
1848, lot 121, bought by C. J. Nieuwenhuys for Sir Belonging to the Earl of Northbrook (London, 1889), no. 87;
Thomas’s son, Thomas Baring (1799-1873); by bequest Oldenbourg 1921, p. 467, ill.; van Puyvelde 1940, under
to his nephew, Thomas George Baring, first earl of no. 8 (as a replica of the Prado’s sketch); Larsen 1952,
Northbrook (1826-1904); by inheritance to his son, p. 174; Walter Stoye, Rubens' Meeting of Abraham and
Francis George Baring, second earl of Northbrook Melchizedek (privately published, 1956), pp. 5, 6-16;
(1850-1929); with P. & D. Colnaghi, London, 1930; Jennifer Fletcher, Peter Paul Rubens (London and New
sold in 1936 to Walter Stoye, Oxford, his sale London York, 1968), p. 89, ill.; Egbert Haverkamp Begemann,
(Sotheby’s), July 2, 1958, lot 44, purchased by Carstairs “The Sketch,” Art News Annual 27 (1971), pp. 59, 66, 67,
Gallery, New York, for the National Gallery of Art. ill.; Scribner III 1975, pp. 524-25, figs. 11, 15; de Poorter
1978, p. 110, ills. 288-92, no. 7C, figs. 122, 124, 127;
EXHIBITIONS: London, British Institution, 1841, no. 69; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 144-46, no. 92, vol. 2, pi. 94; Erik
London, New Gallery, 1898, no. 123; London, New Larsen, “Apropos Some Rubens Sketches,” Pantheon 4
Gallery, Exhibition of the Flemish and British Schools, (October-December 1981), pp. 314-21; Scribner
Including a Selection from the Works ofP. P. Rubens, 1899, 1977/82, pp. 3-40, fig. 5; White 1987, p. 184, pi. 207;
no. 141; London, Guildhall, 1906, no. 116; London, M. Jaffe 1989, p. 289, no. 820, ill.; Nora de Poorter,
Colnaghi’s, Paintings by Old Masters, 1934, no. 12; in Liedtke et al. 1992, pp. 197-99, pi. 60; Eric M.
London, Royal Academy, 1937-38, no. 104; London, Zafran, “John and Lulu: The Newly Discovered
Royal Academy, Flemish Art, 1300-1700 Winter Exhibition, Correspondence,” John Ringling: Dreamer.; Builder,
1953-54, no. 205; Boston/Toledo 1993-94, no. 21, ill.; Collector, The John and Mable Ringling Museum of
Sarasota, The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Art (Sarasota, FL, 1997), p. 46, ill.
Peter Paul Rubens and the Tradition of Tapestries, 1997;
Catalogue 161
Fig. 1. Fig. 2.
The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek
Oil on panel, 15.6 x 15.6 cm Oil on panel, 86 x 91 cm (originally 65 x 68.5 cm)
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv. 231 Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1696
At the center of the scene the patriarch vessels of wine and an additional basket of bread,
Abraham, returning from his victories over while a page attends to the general’s charger at
Cherdorlaomer, ascends the steps of a palace to the left. The scene is treated as a Active tapestry
meet Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem or held aloft by three putti and fastened with
Jerusalem, as described in Genesis 14:17-20. festoons of fruit to architecture consisting of an
Melchizedek wears the golden, ermine-lined antique-styled architrave with a Doric column
robes of a king as well as a red papal camauro on the right. On the low proscenium in the
adorned with a laurel wreath, while Abraham foreground rests a sculpted base decorated
has military armor and attire inspired by antique with winged cherub heads and festoons.
examples and a general’s short red mantle. This is one of the oil sketches for the tapestry
Abraham receives two loaves of bread from series known as the Triumph of the Eucharist that
Melchizedek, and the latter’s retinue distributes was commissioned by the pious Infanta Isabella
additional bread to the helmeted legions with for the Convent of the Poor Clares, the Descalzas
spears who follow their conquering general. Reales in Madrid. The convent was famous for its
Muscular servants at the right bring forth large magnificent celebration of the Blessed Sacrament
Catalogue 163
Fig. 3.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek
Canvas transferred from panel, 204 x 250 cm
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Caen, inv. 172
on Good Friday and during die octave of the Old Testament prefigurations were regularly
feast of Corpus Christi. Rubens’s tapestry series marshaled by defenders of Catholic doctrine,
was designed in about 1626, woven by the best especially the Jesuits, during the Counter-
craftsmen in Brussels, and covered the entire Reformation. However, in the Triumph of the
interior of the convent’s chapel on these high Eucharist series there are no New Testament
holy days, embodying in its iconography and stories, only allegorical subjects that represent
complex design a universe of Counter- the fulfillment of the prefigurations and Christ’s
Reformation belief. The program included symbolic presence in sacramental form. The
four Old Testament subjects that prefigure the series was designed to be hung in two mutually
Eucharist: in addition to the present work, these referential rows one above the other, with
include the Gathering of the Manna (see the scenes with Tuscan columns on the bottom and
modello in the Los Angeles County Museum of Solomonic columns on the top, as if the entire
Art, cat. 17), Elijah and the Angel (Musee Bonnat, church interior were hung with fictive tapestries
Bayonne), and The Sacrifice of the Old Covenant before an illusionistic architectural screen. In
(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston). Only the last working out this complex arrangement Rubens
mentioned is an exceptional thematic choice; executed a group of bozzetti, including a small
the other three are traditional prefigurations sketch in the Fitzwilliam Museum (fig. 1) that
of the Eucharist in Northern art; Dirck Bouts’s seems to have been his first conception for the
altarpiece of The Last Supper of 1464-67 in Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek. That work
St. Peter’s church in Louvain, for example, has a square format and, unlike the present work,
includes all three of these subjects on its wings. features Solomonic columns, while orienting the
In addition to the Old Testament subjects, the scene in the opposite direction (with Abraham
series included scenes of the triumphal procession on the right and Melchizedek on the left), as it
of the Blessed Sacrament. would appear in the final tapestry. As with the
Melchizedek was generally regarded as a Chicago sketch (cat. 18, fig. 1), the Fitzwilliam
precursor of Christ, and his offer of bread and sketches, which number six in total, were all
wine an obvious metaphor for Holy Communion. once part of a single panel that was then cut into
Fig. 4. Fig. 5.
Peter Paul Rubens after Peter Paul Rubens
The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek Abraham and Melchizedek
Oil on panel, 49 x 65 cm Tapestry
Musee du Louvre, Departement des Peintures, Paris, Patrimonio Nacional, Convent of Descalzas Reales,
inv. M.I. 963 Madrid, inv. 00610324
individual scenes, perhaps to help the artist work collection (cat. 22), with the Meeting of Abraham
out their placement, the fall of light, perspective, and Melchizedek on the first tier of tapestries.
and harmonious use of wall space (see de Poorter Among the six modelli from the Eucharist
1978, pp. 83-88). However, unlike the five series that feature the Tuscan order, only the
tapestries depicted in the Chicago sketches, the Washington modello is completely finished in all
larger scenes for the horizontal walls depicted details of the architecture—the gilded wreaths
in the Fitzwilliam bozzetti were reversed only below, the fluting of the lower half of the shaft
when Rubens proceeded to the modelli stage. of the column, the pittings of the rustication, the
The subject of the Washington sketch is capital and its bands and rosettes, the egg-and-
unique among the sketches for the Eucharist dart molding, and the beading of the cornice.
series in existing in a second modello in the Many of the features of the modelli in Madrid
Prado (fig. 2). While that work has later additions and Washington (e.g., the figures facing each
extending the architecture on all four sides, it too other in profile and the burly servants on the
originally employed a narrower, almost square right) were first worked out by Rubens in his
composition and included the Solomonic own earlier, large-scale treatment of the theme
columns. In this scene, as in the Washington of about 1616 in the museum in Caen (fig. 3).
sketch, Abraham and Melchizedek face each Yet another iteration of the subject with a more
other in profile on the steps of a palace and are radically foreshortened design appeared in
viewed from below. The Prado sketch’s design is Rubens’s decorations for the Jesuit Ceiling of
elaborated and extended in the composition of about 1620-22, which were destroyed by fire
the Washington sketch, which adds more soldiers, in 1718; the composition is known through a
exchanges the flanking Solomonic columns with modello in the Louvre (fig. 4). Initials on the
an asymmetrical architectural design featuring a back of the Washington panel record that it was
single Doric column, and adopts a lower point of manufactured by the artist’s favorite panel maker
view. As both Charles Scribner (1975) and Nora in Antwerp, Michiel Vriendt. As evidence of the
de Poorter (1978) independently concluded, popularity of the composition, de Poorter (1978)
Rubens undoubtedly made these changes when lists seven copies and engravings after the design.
he decided to replace The Triumph of Hope, for -PCS
which there is a bozzetto in Richard Feigen’s
20
Peter Paul Rubens
Charity Enlightening the World
c. 1627-28
Oil on panel
36.8 x 29.4 cm
Mead Art Museum, Amherst College,
Museum Purchase, acc. no. AC 1961.142
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) sale F. Boucher, Paris, February Wearing a red bodice that exposes one breast
18-March 9, 1771, lot 14 (as Jacob Jordaens); (possibly) and a gray skirt, Charity is seated with three
sale Le Brun, Paris, April 11-23, 1791, lot 78 (as Rubens
small children. One lies in her lap, another in
and coming from the F. Boucher sale); (possibly) sale
blue drapery clings to her thigh, while the third
Brian, Paris, December 12, 1808, lot 104; (possibly)
K. Bengsten, Stockholm, 1927 (cat. by K. Madsen, 1925), is led by Charity’s guiding hand toward a sphere
no. 41 (as School of Rubens [Theodore van Thulden?]); that she illuminates with a torch.
comte Louis d’Ursel, Chateau de Oostkamp, Brussels, This painting is a modello for one of the
1956; T. P. Grange, London, 1956; Thomas Agnew & tapestries constituting the Triwnph of the Eucharist
Sons, London, 1960; purchased from them in 1961 by
series that Rubens executed in about 1627-28
Amherst College.
designed for and preserved in the Convent of the
Literature: Held 1968, p. 8, fig. 7; Muller-Hofstede
Descalzas Reales in Madrid (on the series, see
1969, p. 204; Scribner 1977/82, p. 185, fig. 37; de Poorter cat. 19). It is one of three studies for smaller
1978, vol. 1, pp. 399-401, no. 20b, vol. 2, fig. 217; Held tapestries, all of which have the same egg-and-
1980, vol. 1, PP- 164—65, no. 118, vol. 2, pi. 119; M. Jaffe dart frame, dealing with allegorical subjects that
1989, p. 296, no. 860. have alternatively been seen as complementing
the Eucharist theme (see de Poorter 1978,
pp. 42-45, 384-401, nos. 18-20) as “marks or
characteristics of the True Church“ (ibid., p. 398)
or as “doubtful additions to the original cycle,
perhaps constituting later commissions by or
gifts to the Infanta” (Scribner 1977/82, p. 105, a
judgment earlier voiced at least in part by Ludwig
Burchard, Elias Tormo, and Julius Held; for a
Catalogue 167
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
Historiography or Allegory of Sacred Wisdom
Sale Fritz Hess of Berlin, Lucerne (Cassirer
and Fischer), September 1, 1931, lot 12
review of their various opinions, see de Poorter

1978, pp. 42-45). According to the latter theory,
the three images have no connection within the
original iconography and, given their smaller
proportions, can only be explained as “fillers”
within the larger original tapestry cycle.
However, Nora de Poorter has made a
persuasive case for the three allegorical works
being integral to the original commission that
would have consisted of twenty tapestries, the
sketches for which were all completed about 1626
and the tapestries delivered to the convent in after Rubens, de Poorter argued that the figure
1628. The first of these, The Succession of the Popes personifies History or, rather, Historiography.
(Successio Papalis) in San Diego (cat. 21), presents The dove represents the Holy Spirit that imparts
few interpretative challenges. It depicts an elderly divine inspiration to the writer, and the cherub
seated female figure looking up at an angel who with the inkstand is derived from the angel who
holds a snake biting its own tail to form a hoop, often is represented inspiring St. Matthew the
the symbol of Eternity. Beneath them are three Evangelist. However, she allowed that there
putti who hold a long chain that the angel has was no certainty about the subject in this case,
handed to the old woman. While the chain is which has been identified by others as Holy
inexplicably strung with roses in the sketch in Wisdom Inspired by God (Tormo), Theology
San Diego, in the final tapestry it is decorated (Muller Hofstede), and the Allegory of Sacred
with a string of small portrait medallions Wisdom (Held).
embodying the successio papalis (succession of The present work also undoubtedly has a
popes). This concept was central to the Counter- strong theological message. Since the thirteenth
Reformation argument that the unbroken line of and fourteenth centuries, Charity had been
popes was the legacy of an apostolic succession depicted as a maternal figure with children, often
that proved that Catholicism was the one true three in number, and sometimes in conjunction
Church. The second, for which there is a bozzetto with a flame (ignis caritatis, the fire of love).
in the museum in Tournai (de Poorter 1978, Charity also came to be associated with both love
no. 19a and fig. 212) and a modello that was sold of God and love of man (see R. Freyhan, “The
in 1931 (fig. 1), depicts a seated female figure Evolution of the Caritas Figure in the Thirteenth
with a quill pen in her hand, a book in her lap, and Fourteenth Centuries,” Journal of the Warburg
and an angel at her side holding an inkwell. She and Courtauld Institutes 11 [1948], pp. 68ff; and
places her right foot on a square stone and looks Edgar Wind, “Charity: The Case History of a
over her shoulder at a dove. Citing Cesare Ripa’s Pattern f Journal of the Warburg Institute 1 [1938],
emblematic representations as well as similarities pp. 322ffi). However, the torch and globe have
to personifications on frontispiece engravings been interpreted variously. Torme (1943, p. 301
Catalogue 169
Left: Fig. 2.
CoRNELIS Galle I, after Peter Paul Rubens
Frontispiece for Luitprandus, Works, Antwerp 1640
Engraving on paper
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute Library,
Williamstown, Massachusetts, Acquired with funds
donated by Stephen D. and Susan W. Paine, 1982.75
Right: Fig. 3.
Historiography and the Enlightenment of the World
Pen and ink drawing with red chalk, 9.7 x 17.5 cm
Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museums Braunschweig,
Kunstmuseum des Landes Niedersachsen,
pSSMB inv. KK114. No. Z.2069
P^HiacSot tol£|
'• nlC*l NK.NSI.'- 1>I ACO]
CRJEMONENiSIS ERJjg
|gp£R A qv& KXT$

Ipmoyiccrx et Am’ erJ!
!§&£ PtUM VM UN LVCEM E?j§
H^JiRoxYMI DELA HK^f

B^CIET. IE.SV PRE5BYlS
gMVRF.NlI RAMIREZ BE 39
EIA RI r RSW
**°T 1 s ILLV5TR ATiUj
;-B*4*»* u*r*x*.
AyTVERPI^.EX OFFICINA PI.ANTIXIAXA BALTHASARIS MORETI, M DC.X],.
[see de Poorter 1978]) concluded that the scene globe. Thus in the present context Charity may
depicts the Allegory of Charity Enlighted by be seen as illuminating and possibly warming the
Dogma, while Burchard (in a letter sent to T. P. world with the dual aspects of her love for both
Grange in 1956 [de Poorter 1978]) suggested God and man.
dubiously that the torch symbolized the In discussing the tapestry in Descalzas Reales,
enlightenment of pre-Christian Caritas by the Elias Tormo (Los tapices: la apoteosis eucharistica de
institution of the Eucharist. More plausibly, Rubens [Madrid, 1945], p. 63) mistakenly rejected
both de Poorter (1978, p. 397) and Held (1980, Rubens’s authorship of the design, assigning it to
vol. 1, p. 165) suggested that the key to the a pupil. Although it has been lost, there once
interpretation of the image is in the large sphere existed a bozzetto that preceded the present work.
toward which the nude child walks. Both noted It is recorded, with its pendant, Historiography, in
independently that a similar sphere, again a drawn copy in the museum in Braunschweig
illuminated by a female personification with a (fig. 3). The drawing depicts a woman seated in
torch, appears in Rubens’s title-page designs for the clouds holding a torch and resting her other
volumes 1 and 2 of F. Haraeus’s Annales Ducum hand on a globe that rests on her knee rather
seu Principum Brabantiae totmsque Belgii (Antwerp, than beside her. Rubens left space all around
1623) (see Julius Held, Rubens and the Book: Title the present composition for the framing with
Pages by Peter Paul Rubens [Williamstown, 1977], egg-and-dart ornamentation that appears in the
figs. 27-28) and for the Opera by Luitprandus final tapestry. A narrow strip has been added at
(Antwerp, 1640) (fig. 2). In the prints, the the left; the size of the actual image is 32.9 by
woman holding the torch embodies History or 25.7 centimeters.
Faith, while the sphere is clearly a terrestrial -PCS
21
Peter Paul Rubens
The Succession of the Popes
(Allegory of Eternity)
c. 1626
Oil on panel
66 x 34.3 cm
San Diego Museum of Art (Gift of Anne R.
and Amy Putnam, 1947; funds for Nazi-era
restitution settlement provided by the estate
of Walter Fitch III, 2004), inv. 1947:8
PROVENANCE: Anonymous print seller, London, 1835; Apollo 13 (1931), p. 268, ill. (as Garland of Roses)-,
Prince Vladimir Bariatinsky, St. Petersburg, by 1864 Christopher Norris, “The Rubens Exhibition at
until c. 1920; State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Amsterdam,” The Burlington Magazine 61 (1933), p. 230,
c. 1920-31; sale Stroganoff et al., Berlin (Lepke), May ill.; (possibly) Leo van Puyvelde, Skizzen des Peter Paul
12-13, 1931, lot 73 (as Der Rosenkranz)-, Blumenreich and Rubens (Frankfurt, 1939), p. 31, no. 12; Ellas Torino, “La
Benedict, Berlin, May 1931; sale Galerie van Diemen, apotheosis eucarlstica de Rubens: La subserie segunda de
Berlin (Graupe), January 25-26, 1935, lot 51; Arthur los tapices eucarlsticos de las Descalzas,” Archivo Espahol
Goldschmidt/J. S. Goldschmidt, Berlin, 1935; Conrad deAne 15 (1942), pp. 299-301; Ellas Torino, En las
Bareiss, Salach, Germany, c. 1938-39; art market, New Descalzas reales: Estudios histdricos, iconograficos y artlsticos,
York (possibly Frederick Stern?), 1940; Frederick A. vol. 3, Los tapices, laApoteosis eucarlstica de Rubens (Madrid,
Stern, New York, 1942; Zinser Collection, New York, 1945), pp. 60-62; Valentiner 1946, p. 167, no. 127;
c. 1946; Jacob M. Heimann, New York, 1946-47; (possibly) van Puyvelde 1947, p. 33, no. 12; Julia
purchased by Anne R. and Amy Putnam for the San Gethman Andrews, A Catalogue of European Paintings,
Diego Fine Arts Gallery (now San Diego Museum of 1300-1870 (San Diego, 1947), p. 113; Goris and Held
Art), April 30, 1947. 1947, p. 35, no. 59 (as Allegoiy of Eternity})-, Larsen 1952,
p. 219, no. 100; The Fine Ans Gallery of San Diego,
EXHIBITIONS: Amsterdam 1933, not in cat.; New York, Catalogue (San Diego, 1960), pp. 38, 43, ill.; Held 1968,
New York World’s Fair, Masterpieces of An: European and p. 8; Agnes Mongan and Elizabeth Mongan, European
American Paintings, 1500—1900, 1940, no. 64; New York Paintings in the Timken Art Gallery Acquired by the Putnam
1942, no. 25 (as Allegory of Eternity)-, Los Angeles 1946, Foundation, Including Paintings Loaned by the Fine Art
no. 36 (as Allegory of Time)-, Cambridge/New York 1956, Society of San Diego (San Diego, 1969), pp. 58, 118-20;
no. 46. Julius S. Held, “Some Rubens Drawings—Unknown or
Neglected,” Master Drawings 12 (1974), p. 258 n. 11; de
Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 9 (1842), p. 319, Poorter 1978, vol. 1, pp. 43, 44, 388-91, no. 18b (as The
no. 271 (as The Origin and Destination of Man)-, G. F. Succession of the Popes)-, Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 161-63,
Waagen, Die Gemtildesammlung in der Kaiserlichen no. 114, vol. 2, pi. 118 (as Allegory of Ecclesia Aeterna})-,
Ermitage zu St. Petersburg nebst Bemerkungen liber andere Scribner 1977/82, pp. 103-5 (as The Allegory of Apostolic
donige Kunstsam?nlungen (Munich, 1864), p. 436 (as Succession)-, Wolfgang Brassat, “Fur die Einheit der
Verschiedene Kinder); Rooses 1886-92, vol. 4 (1892), katholischen Liga. Zum politischen Gehalt des
p. 98 (as Enfants); Rooses 1904, vol. 2, p. 432; H. Eucharistie-Zyklus von Peter Paul Rubens,” Idea:
Mohle, “Versteigerungen, Berlin, Kunstchronik und Jahrhuch der Hamburger Kunsthalle 1 (1988), pp. 53—56;
Kunstliteratur,” Zeitschrift fur bildende Kunst (Beilage) 65 M.Jaffe 1989, pp. 294-95, no. 856 (as Allegoria
(1931-32), p. 10, ill. (as Parze); “Art News and Notes,” delPeternitd della Chiesa).
Catalogue 171
Fig. l.
Jan Raes and Hans Vervoert
The Succession of the Popes, c. 1628
Wool and silk, c. 490 x 250 cm
Patrimonio Nacional, Convent of Descalzas Reales,
Madrid
Seated in a landscape on a rocky formation is The San Diego painting is the modello for
an older woman wearing a pale rose dress with one of the smaller tapestries belonging to the
a white drapery wrapped over her left shoulder Triumph of the Eucharist cycle, commissioned by
and across her lap; her head and shoulders are the Archduchess Isabella for the Convent of the
covered by a thin yellow veil. She turns her Descalzas Reales in Madrid in about 1625 (see
worried face to the genius that hovers overhead also cats. 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22). The modello
in a swirl of drapery. The genius holds in his left differs from the woven tapestry (fig. 1) in several
hand a large hooplike form and with his right key respects that affect our understanding of
extends the end of a cord held also by the old the subject: in the tapestry, the hoop held by the
woman. The cord crosses the woman’s lap and is genius is more clearly rendered as a snake biting
grasped by the putto standing at her knee; two its tail; and the cord connecting the figures is
additional putti carry the cord in the foreground decorated with portrait medals of the popes,
of the scene. Pink roses are strung along the rather than roses. Partly because of an imperfect
middle segment of the cord’s length. understanding of the subject represented, and a
Catalogue
Fig. 2.
Jan COLLAERT after Peter Paul Rubens
Title page of Dionysis Mudzaert, De Kerkelycke Historic
(Antwerp, 1622)
Engraving
L TUT. ANTWERPEN
it' -n 4e .Kjs*v*»tlr»rf m irn Uw»

M• DC- XXII
difference in size between the tapestry made as a matronly woman with a veil covering
from this design and the “major” pieces in the her head and shoulders, with her attribute a
series, some authors have questioned whether snake biting its tail, symbolizing time without
this design was part of the original Triumph of the beginning or end: this identification underlies all
Eucharist commission, one of three subjects added subsequent interpretations of the scene. Although
to the project at a later date, possibly about 1630 in the modello the figure is shown holding a cord
(as in Goris and Held 1947) or even as late as strung with roses, the string of papal portraits
1635 (Burchard, in catalogue of sale 1935), or depicted in the tapestry appears to identify her
whether it should be connected with the series more specifically as a personification of successio
at all (for a summary of scholarly opinion, see papalis, the uninterrupted succession of the popes
de Poorter 1978, pp. 42-45, and cat. 20). Nora (de Poorter 1978, pp. 385-86). In de Poorter’s
de Poorter (1978), however, has convincingly interpretation, the airborne genius passes the
demonstrated that The Succession of the Popes and cord to the old woman, entrusting her with
two other “problematic” designs—Charity (cat. “paying out” the vicars of Christ in an unbroken
20) and Historiography (cat. 20, fig. 1)—were not progression. The string of medallions is caught
only part of Rubens’s original conception but in up and carried forward by putti whose youth
fact central to its interpretation. represents the future. Rubens had earlier treated
Erwin Panofsky (in New York 1942) identified the subject in his design for the title page of
the central figure as an allegorical representation Dionysis Mudzaert’s De Kerkelycke Historic
of Eternity (Aeternitas), described by Cesare Ripa (Antwerp, 1622; fig. 2), which exhibits much of
the same iconography. The idea of the successio Rubens seems to have conceived The
papalis was, of course, a major thrust in the Succession of the Popes, along with the related
Catholic Church’s efforts to counteract the allegories Historiography and Charity (cat. 20 and
Protestant heresy in the age of the Counter- cat. 20, fig. 1), as an adjunct to the Triumph of
Reformation. To defenders of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist tapestry series, although the exact
the unbroken succession of popes from St. Peter relationship of these designs to the cycle may
to the present day was proof that theirs was the never be clear. De Poorter has reasonably
one true Church, while Protestants, by contrast, suggested that the pieces may express the Marks
denied that the popes embodied a true apostolic of the True Church, emphasizing the apostolic
succession. The rock on which the woman so lineage of the Catholic Church and the spread
solidly sits in Rubens’s composition may be of the Catholic faith through written doctrine
a further reference to Peter, the metaphoric and acts of charity (de Poorter 1978, p. 212).
rock on which the Church was built. As de Poorter (1978, p. 390) has remarked,
Although de Poorter assumed the cord the San Diego sketch “presents a curious problem
passed from the genius, through the hands of the in that its composition agrees with the final
old woman, to the putti representing the future of tapestry but its subject does not.” The
the Church, the positioning of the putti suggests substitution of roses for papal medallions in the
that they are progressing toward, rather than modello prompted purely secular interpretations of
away from, the old woman. This lends support the composition—ranging from “The Origin and
to Charles Scribner’s description of the cord as Destination of Man” (Smith 1842) to H. Mohle’s
passing from Youth to Old Age to Eternity, suggestion (1931-32) that it represented one of
representing the doctrine of apostolic succession the Fates and was connected to Rubens’s designs
“as a continuous line connecting the past, present for the Life of Henry IV cycle—which further
and future of the Church and as our one link to obscured its relation to the Triumph of the
Eternity” (Scribner 1977/82, p. 104). Eucharist cycle. It is unclear why Rubens did not
Julius Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 162) preferred a depict the papal portraits in the modello. He may
slightly broader interpretation of the image as An have originally intended a more generic allegory
Allegory of Ecclesia Aeterna, seeing in the matronly of eternity in relation to the Church and only
figure a representation of the Church itself, “not later decided to address the more specific theme
in the state of triumph but as the body that has of apostolic succession (compare a similar
passed through periods of suffering and strife.” transformation in the conception of Charity,
Rather than receiving the cord representing the cat. 20), or it may have been a more pragmatic
succession of popes from the genius (as proposed choice, opting for the simpler floral elements
by de Poorter), she offers up to this heavenly so as not to belabor the swiff execution of this
messenger the symbolic line of ecclesiastic vibrant modello.
continuity, represented by a string of images -MEW
of popes and saints.
22
Peter Paul Rubens
The Triumph of Hope
c. 1625
Oil on panel
16x19 cm
Collection Richard L. Feigen
PROVENANCE: Victor Wollvoet, Antwerp, inventory of In a fictive tapestry suspended from rusticated
his estate, October 24-26, 1652, no. 424: “Een schetsken Tuscan columns, a two-masted ship with
van Rubens daer Engelkens in een schipken varen op
billowing sails and oars travels a dark and
paneel in ebben lystken” (A small sketch by Rubens
choppy blue-green sea. In the stern a winged
in which small angels travel in a boat, on panel, in an
ebony frame); Samuel Woodburn; the Reverend female figure in white with a gold nimbus about
Thomas Kerrich (d. 1828), purchased from Woodburn her head turns to look back at the viewer. She
on September 29, 1825; the Reverend R. E. Kerrich (by holds the tiller in one hand and a white flower,
inheritance); Albert Hartschorne (grandson of the Rev. probably a lily, in the other. Four winged figures,
Thomas Kerrich); bequeathed by Hartschorne to his
presumably angels, strain at the oars on the
cousin, Mrs. Wyatt; by bequest to her son, Oliver E. P.
starboard side of the boat that is decorated below
Wyatt, his sale London (Sotheby’s), April 19, 1967, lot 13;
purchased by Weitzner; David Koetser, Zurich; Brod
the gunnel with four oval shields. Three putti
Gallery, London; Dr. A. B. Ashby, London, who lent it to clamber about the mast and attend to the sail. In
the Ferens Art Gallery, Kingston-upon-Hull; Dr. Michael the bow is a golden lantern atop the figurehead.
Ashby, FRCP, London; his sale London (Sotheby’s), Originally Rubens painted two columns on the
December 11, 1974, lot 29, ill. right. Only their capitals now emerge above the
tapestry; however, the shafts of the overpainted
Exhibitions: Antwerp 1977, pp. 178-79, no. 75, ill.;
columns and the horizontal architrave at the top
New York 1995, pp. 63-66, ill. p. 64.
are plainly visible in pentimenti. The master’s
Literature: Denuce 1932, p. 150; Held 1968, pp. 13, light and delicate touch is especially effective
21 n. 31; Muller Hofstede 1969, pp. 202-5; Jacques in intimating the atmosphere of the sea and
Thullier and Jacques Foucart, Rubens, La Galerie Medicis the freshness of the breeze. Despite the panel’s
au Palais de Luxembourg (Milan, 1969), p. 90; Scribner
diminutive dimensions, the scene achieves a
1975, pp. 524-25; Scribner 1977/82, p. 193; de Poorter,
monumental and dramatic effect.
vol. 1, 1978, pp. 401-8, no. 21, fig. 220; Held 1980,
vol. 1, pp. 165-66, no. 119, vol. 2, pi. 122; Jeremy Wood, Although the meaning of the painting is
“Rubens as a Thief: His Use of Past Art and Some not altogether clear, in the two sales in which
Adaptations from Primaticcio,” in Vlieghe et al. 2000, it appeared in 1967 and 1974 as well as in the
p. 161 n. 64, fig. 10. inventory of Thomas Kerrich’s collection, the
subject was identified as the Triumph of Hope.
It is generally accepted to be an allegory of Hope
Catalogue 177
Thus in this little bozzetto Rubens followed

the tradition of Triumphs in his Eucharist
tapestry series, which also featured allegorical
representations of the Church, Divine Love,
and Faith all riding in triumphal cars.
Julius Held observed (1980, vol. 1, pp. 165-66)
that it is unusual for the angels to be rowing-
facing the prow rather than the stern of the
boat and suggested that Rubens might have
been unfamiliar with the mechanics of rowing.
However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that a
man of Rubens’s extensive travels at sea would
not have observed how vessels powered by oars
are propelled. David Freedberg (in exh. cat.
New York 1995, p. 66) also questioned Held’s
Fig. l.
assumption and further insisted that Rubens
Theodore van Thulden never invented pictorial ideas arbitrarily. Thus,
after Francesco Primaticcio there must be a reason for this curious detail,
Ulysses and His Companions Arriving on the Shores of the albeit one that still eludes us today. Jeremy
Underworld Wood (in Vlieghe et al. 2000, p. 161) plausibly
Etching
suggested that the oddly unseaworthy boat
could be the result of Rubens’s use of a motif
he observed at Fontainebleau in the Galerie
originally conceived but never executed on a large d’Ulysse by Francesco Primaticcio (fig. 1), which
scale for The Triumph of the Eucharist tapestry he undoubtedly would have visited while in Paris
series commissioned in 1625-26 by Archduchess working on the Medicis cycle between 1622 and
Isabella for the Convent of the Descalzas Reales 1625. Both Held and Freedberg also noted the
in Madrid. However, opinions vary on the specific oddity of the backward glance of the female
iconography. While winged female figures could figure assumed to be Hope, since she surely
represent many concepts (Fortune, Victory, should be looking forward with optimism.
Time, Peace, and Memory, to name but a few), in Freedberg correctly allowed that he might be
conjunction with the ship and the lily, the present reading too much into the expression of this
scene conforms to traditional personifications sketchy figure in suggesting that she “seems less
of Hope (see Muller Hofstede 1969, p. 203; to suggest a lingering on the past as a sense of
Scribner 1975, p. 193; de Poorter 1978, p. 403). leaving it reflectively behind, and moving on”
In a tapestry depicting the Triumph of Hope (ibid.). Had the final work been executed on the
from a series of Seven Virtues, Hope was seated large scale, the oval shields on the side of the
in a ship with the accompanying inscription: boat might have been decorated with emblematic
“Spes est certa expectation futurae beatitudinis designs in the manner of a similar maritime
ex meritis et gratia proveniens,” thus stressing the scene, the Majority of Louis XIII by Rubens for
need for good works as well as divine grace for the earlier Marie de Medicis cycle (fig. 2). The
salvation (see Scribner 1975, p. 193). De Poorter latter decorations assist in the interpretation in
observed (1978, p. 404) that sixteenth-century the scene; they represent Fortitude, Religion,
tapestry series on the theme of the Triumph of Justice, and Concord, whose efforts in the Ship
Virtues often featured a maritime or amphibious of State are guided by the young king, the trusted
variant of the terrestrial chariot of Triumph helmsman. However, the shields are blank in the
specifically in scenes of the triumph of Hope present work. Nonetheless, Charles Scribner
(see the anonymous design for a tapestry of (1975, p. 193) speculated that the four angelic
c. 1550-60 in the collection of the Societe de oarspersons might represent the cardinal Virtues
Credit a l’Industrie, Brussels, de Poorter, fig. 78). that are guided by the light of the large lantern
Moreover, the ship itself could be a symbol of on the bow. The lantern is undoubtedly symbolic
Hope, conveying its mariners to a safe harbor. because it is not depicted “realistically”; lanterns
Catalogue 179
Fig. 2. Fig. 3.
The Majority of Louis XIII (October 20, 1614), 1622 The Triumph of the Church, c. 1626
Oil on panel, 64.9 x 50.1 cm Oil on panel, 87 x 106 cm
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, (originally 63 x 106 cm)
Alte Pinakothek Munich, inv. 104 Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1698
on seventeenth-century ships were not hung Triumphs in the series, namely of Faith, Divine
on the bow but on the stern, above the taffrail. Love, and the Church. Why the scene was
Virtually all authors agree that the lantern bears a ultimately abandoned is unknown. But Scribner
resemblance to the monstrance of the Eucharist. (1975, p. 193) was undoubtedly correct when he
Thus the virtues would be guided by the light of first suggested that the Triumph of Hope was
Christ (John 8:12, “I am the light of the world: replaced in the cycle’s overall design by the
he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, traditional Old Testament prefiguration of
but shall have the light of life”). Nora de the Eucharist, The Meeting of Abraham and
Poorter (1978, p. 406) even points to two Autos Melchizedek (see cat. 19). His further theory that
Sacramentales by Lope de Vega and Calderon de the allegory of Hope was fused iconographically
la Barca, which identify a ship’s lantern with the with the Triumph of the Church (fig. 3; Hope, after
host of the Eucharist. all, is found in the Church) finds some support in
If the scene was originally conceived as the resemblance of the chariot of Ecclesia (who
accompanying Faith and Charity (see cat. 20, holds high the Eucharist’s monstrance) to the
fig. 1, and cat. 20), Held noted that it would design of Hope’s boat and the fact that her
complete the triad of theological virtues. car is drawn by four horsemen, the possible
However, de Poorter was right to stress the counterparts of the Virtues with their oars.
precedent of earlier tapestry series, suggesting -PCS
that it was designed to complement the other
23
Peter Paul Rubens
Three Nymphs with a Cornucopia
1625-28
Oil on panel
30.9 x 24.4 cm
Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, inv. DPG43
PROVENANCE: Sale P. J. Snyers, Antwerp, May 23, 1758,

lot 11; N. J. Desenfans (listed in the ms. catalogue of
Desenfans’s pictures of July 6, 1804); Sir Francis
Bourgeois; bequeathed by him to the museum in 1811.
EXHIBITIONS: London, National Gallery, Some Pictures

from the Dulwich Gallery, 1947, no. 44; Rotterdam
1953-54, no. 70; London 1977, no. 185; Houston,
The Museum of Fine Arts, and Louisville, J. B. Speed
Museum, Rembrandt to Gainsborough: Masterpieces from
Dulwich, 1999-2000, no. 39.
Literature: G. Hoet, Catalogus of naamlyst van

schilderijen (The Hague, 1752), vol. 2, p. 201; J. P. Richter
and J. C. L. Sparkes, Catalogue of the Pictures in the
Dulwich Picture Gallery (London, 1880), no. 171; Rooses
1886-92, vol. 3 (1890), p. 133, no. 651; Oldenbourg 1921,
p. 459; Fritz Grossmann, “Rubens et Van Dyck a la
Dulwich Gallery,” Les Arts plastiques 2 (1948), pp. 53-54;
Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 344-45, vol. 2, pi. 256; M. Jaffe
1989, pp. 230-31, no. 440.
Catalogue 181
Opposite: Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens and Frans Snyders
Three Nymphs with a Cornucopia
(Ceres and Two Nymphs?), c. 1625-28
Museo del Prado, Madrid
Three blond nymphs fill a large cornucopia. reminiscent of those of Helene Fourment. Julius
The nymph seated on the left is nude to the waist, Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 344), who titled the present
wears blue drapery, and turns to raise her right work Nymphs Filling the Horn of Plenty, disputed
hand to the top of the horn. A second seated the identification of the figure in the Madrid
nymph is also nude with red drapery and extends painting as Ceres, pointing to the source of its
her left hand down to gather fruit from a basket pose in a Roman marble (now in the Uffizi,
on the ground. The third nymph is dressed in a Florence), which in Rubens’s day was believed to
grayish blue gown and stands at the back right depict the naiad Cymothoe, mentioned by Virgil
supporting the horn of plenty. The abundant fruit (Aeneid, 1.144). Michael Jaffe (1989, p. 231) also
is accented with color, and a large melon and two observed that the source for the seated nymph on
apples appear in the immediate foreground. The the right is a classical sculpture, now preserved in
origins of the cornucopia were explained by Ovid the Musee du Louvre, Paris, depicting Aphrodite.
(.Metamorphoses, 9.87-88). Achelous recounted at a The Madrid painting probably is to be identified
banquet that he had fought Hercules three times, with the painting described as “Three Nymphs
finally transforming himself into a bull, one of with a Horn of Plenty [Een stuk van dry Nymphen
whose horns Hercules broke off; it was filled by met den home des Overvloeds] ” that was in Rubens’s
naiads with fruits and flowers, thus creating the studio at the time of his death (see Denuce 1932,
horn of plenty. Rubens’s painting Achelous's Meal p. 163). It presumably was acquired for Philip IV
of about 1614-15 (The Metropolitan Museum from the artist’s estate; another (lost) version
of Art, New York; M. Jaffe 1989, no. 286) depicts of the theme mentioned in the Spanish royal
two nymphs carrying the cornucopia. inventory of 1636 was ordered by the king in
This sketch is the modello for a large painting- 1628 and included a satyr and a tiger. Yet another
in the Museo del Prado, entitled Ceres and Two design by Rubens depicting three female nudes
Nymphs, that also depicts three nymphs with a with a cornucopia is the so-called Coronation of
cornucopia (fig. 1). In that work the pose of the Abundance of about 1620-22 in the Galleria
nymph on the left has been changed; she drops dell’Accademia Nazionale di San Luca, Rome
her right hand into her lap and holds ears (see M. Jaffe 1989, no. 696).
of corn—Ceres’ symbol as the goddess of Max Rooses (1890, p. 133) dated the sketch
agriculture and earth-mother of fertility. In and the Prado’s painting about 1628, but R.
the Prado’s painting, the fruit and newly added Oldenbourg (1921, p. 459) and Jaffe (1989,
animals (a bird, parrot, and monkey) were p. 231) both dated the works a decade earlier, or
probably executed by Rubens’s collaborator, about 1617. Held (1980, p. 345) proposed a date
Frans Snyders. A large tree is also introduced at of 1625-27, following Ludwig Burchard (whose
the back left, and the nymph at the back right opinion was quoted in exh. cat. Rotterdam
assumes a more static pose than her counterpart 1953-54, no. 70), who favored 1625-28.
in the Dulwich sketch and has features somewhat -PCS
Catalogue 183
24
Peter Paul Rubens
The Three Graces
c. 1625-28
Oil on panel
39.9 x 39.9 cm
Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, inv. DPG264
PROVENANCE: Jean J. Bertels, Brussels; his sale,

London, May 9, 1783, lot 43; sale Isaac Jermineau,
London (Christie’s), February 27, 1790, lot 16; London,
European Museum, no. 264; sold by private contract,
1792; Sir Francis Bourgeois, London; bequeathed by
him to the museum, 1811.
Exhibition: Houston, The Museum of Fine Arts,

and Louisville, J. B. Speed Museum, Rembrandt to
Gainsborough: Masterpieces from Dulwich, 1999-2000,
no. 39.
Literature: J. P. Richter and J. C. L. Sparkes, Catalogue

of the Pictures in the Dulwich Picture Gallery (London,
1880), no. 240; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 3 (1890), pp.
100-101, under no. 616 (as doubtful); Edward Dillon,
Rubens (London, 1909), p. 215; London, Dulwich Picture
Gallery, A Brief Catalogue (1953), no. 264; Justus Muller
Hofstede, “Zeichnungen des spaten Rubens,” Pantheon 23
(1965), p. 169; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 326-27, no. 239,
vol. 2, pi. 249; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 351, no. 1224.
Catalogue 185
In a landscape setting distinguished by a circular Opposite: Fig. 1.

colonnaded temple in the distance at left, three Peter Paul Rubens
The Three Graces, c. 1635
women are linked in a lithe and spontaneous
dance. The figure at left holds a tambourine in Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. 1670
her upraised left hand, providing rhythm for the
dance. Her right arm is grasped by the figure
at the center, whose gracefully twisted pose is
accentuated by the weightless undulations of the
veil encircling her arm and thighs. The central
figure’s right hand just brushes the hip of the
third figure, who gently and affectionately rests
her own right hand on her companion’s shoulder.
The three graces—Aglaia (Radiance), theme in the Museo del Prado, Madrid (fig. 1).
Euphrosyne (Joy), and Thalia (Blossom)— On a more modest scale, the Dulwich sketch
were the daughters of Zeus and the sea nymph displays the same loving touch in the fluent
Eurynome; they are often depicted as the delineation of the generous, supple curves of the
companions of Venus. The Graces had the women’s bodies. Equally evident is Rubens’s great
capability to bestow on mortals wisdom, pleasure, skill and understanding of the grisaille technique,
joy, kindness, and happiness; as the goddesses revealed in the subtle contrast between milky
of physical grace and beauty, they imparted to gray and warm brown tones, and in his sensitive
women especially those enchanting qualities use of the imprimatura—especially in the figure
that encouraged love and pleasure. They are on the right—to create the middle tones of
shown naked because they were without deceit; the composition.
frequently, the central figure has her back turned No work based on this sketch survives, and its
while her companions face the viewer, a reference final function is not known. The absence of color
to the philosophy that whatever one gives freely suggests that it might have been a design for a
is returned twofold (on classical interpretations print (compare cats. 29, 30, and 39), although the
of the Three Graces, see Edgar Wind, Pagan technique is rather sketchier than in other oil
Mysteries in the Renaissance [New York and sketches used as engraver’s models. Alternatively,
London, 1968], pp. 26-35). The dancing Graces The Three Graces might have been made as a
were introduced by Horace as the joyous design for a piece of silver, like Rubens’s great
companions of Venus in his description of the modello for a silver basin depicting the Birth of
transition from winter to spring (Odes, 1.4, 6-7); Venus (The National Gallery, London, inv. NG
Botticelli’s Primavera elegantly represents the 1195), although the landscape setting here creates
Graces in this context (c. 1478; Galleria degli a greater impression of spatial recession than
Uffizi, Florence). would be appropriate for such a context. At an
Rubens painted or drew the Three Graces unknown date, an irregular piece at the upper
on several occasions, undoubtedly attracted to portion of the panel (above the heads of the
the Stoic philosophy of liberality imputed to the Graces) was cut away and replaced by another
theme as much as the opportunity it presented hand with a piece of wood prepared with a
to depict beautiful nude women from a variety brown, rather than gray, imprimatura.
of angles. In addition to a grisaille oil sketch now Julius Held dated the Dulwich sketch to
in the Galleria Palatina, Florence (Wieseman about 1625-28, which seems most plausible
essay, fig. 4), there are finished compositions stylistically. Justus Muller Hofstede (1965)
depicting the Graces supporting a flower basket connected The Three Graces to a drawing in
(c. 1620-24; Gemaldegalerie der Akademie der a private collection, London, and dated both
bildenden Kiinste,Vienna) and as guardians works to about 1631-32. Michael Jaffe (1989)
supervising the education of the young Marie dated the oil sketch even later, to about 1636,
de Medicis (c. 1621-25; Musee du Louvre, the same period as Rubens’s paintings for the
Paris, inv. 1771). The most deservedly famous Torre de la Parada (compare cats. 34-37).
of Rubens’s depictions of the Graces is his -MEW
surpassingly voluptuous, life-sized version of the
Catalogue 187
25
Peter Paul Rubens
Two Prisoners
c. 1628
Oil on panel
31.7 x 49.8 cm
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Steinhardt
(Courtesy Richard L. Feigen + Co.)
Provenance: Said (see Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 365) to

have been “purchased by Mr. Day in 1829, who had it
from Rome”; Sir Abraham Hume, Baronet, sale, London
(Christie’s), June 1, 1876, lot 162; Adelbert Wellington,
third earl Brownlow (d. 1921), sale Ashbridge, London
(Christie’s), May 4—5, 1923, lot 84; countess van Inger
Wedell, Wedellsborg; with Richard Feigen, New York.
Exhibition: Brussels 1965, no. 219.
Literature: Van Puyvelde 1940, p. 36, no. 9; Burchard

and d’Hulst 1963, p. 159, under no. 94; Ingrid Jost,
“Bemerkungen zur Heinrichs Galerie des P. P. Rubens,”
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 15 (1964), p. 190 n. 41;
Muller Hofstede 1969, p. 227 and n. 167; Julius Held,
“On the Date and Function of Some Allegorical Sketches
by Rubens,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
38 (1975), p. 220; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 365-66, no. 271,
vol. 2, pi. 264; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 306, no. 917.
Catalogue 189
Two bound, seminude captives, one seated and Shakespeare’s Richard II, the doomed king
the other kneeling on the ground, are arranged intones, “let us sit on the ground, and tell sad
with their backs to one another, possibly tethered stories of the death of Kings,” and the pose is
together. Behind and to either side of them traditional for depictions of the Lamentation
are piles of armor and weapons—breastplates, and images of Job on the dung hill.
helmets, shields, and spears. Framing the scene Max Rooses (Rubens: Sa Vie et ses oeuvres [Paris,
on either side are two tree trunks(P), and in 1903], p. 529) believed that the Vienna sketch was
the distance under swirling clouds, possibly the related to Rubens’s plan for the proposed gallery
smoke of battle, is the line of a horizon. Most of in the Luxembourg Palace dedicated to the Life
the scene is drawn with quick black strokes and of Henry IV. He related it to a series of three
brushed veils of grayish green and blue paint, sketches containing large cartouches accompanied
but the musculature of the two men is carefully by allegorical figures in the foreground and a
modeled with flesh tones, and they wear white narrative subject framed in the upper half (see
and gray drapery. Held 1980, vol. 1, nos. 258, 259, 272). The first
The subject of this handsome and freely two seem to depict alternative solutions to the
executed sketch has been much disputed, but no same problem, namely, an illustration of the
fully persuasive explanation of its function has theme of Occasio, which represents a hero who,
yet been advanced. The only virtual certainty aided by allegorical figures, appears to grab the
is that it is closely related to a sketch of similar proffered opportunity to make peace. Leo van
dimensions and executed in a similar style in Puyvelde (1940, p. 36) added to this hypothetical
the collection of the princes of Liechtenstein decorative scheme the present sketch of the two
in Vienna (fig. 1). It depicts a woman seated prisoners. However, Ingrid Jost (1964) and Justus
disconsolately on the ground with corpses behind Muller Hofstede (1969, pp. 227ff.) both rejected
her, cannons to her left, and an equestrian battle the connection with the Henry cycle; the latter
raging in the distance. Both of these sketches published another sketch in Besanqon (Held
seem to offer a somber commentary on the 1980, no. 278) that he connected with the
suffering produced by war. In the Vienna sketch, cartouche sketches of the Occasio theme,
the vanquished figure seated on the ground with suggesting that the entire group had to do with
her head in her hand has been related by Julius the celebration of the victory at Calloo in 1638.
Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 364, no. 270) and others to Held (1975, pp. 218ff.) rejected Muller Hofstede’s
ancient Roman types of the sorrowing captive on theory; while admitting Jost’s point that there
classical reliefs (specifically of the personification is no documentary evidence directly linking the
of Captured Dacia—a Roman province in the sketches with the project for the second gallery in
Balkan area), coins, and gems. The pose of sitting the Luxembourg Palace, he still maintained that
on the ground had a long literary and pictorial they were executed in about 1628 when Rubens
tradition as a topos of grief and melancholy; in was working on the Henry cycle and proposed
Catalogue 191
that, with the exclusion of the Besangon sketch, Fig. 1.

they might have been part of a never-realized Peter Paul Rubens
The Victims of War, c. 1628
tapestry group for an antechamber of the main
gallery. Rooses (1903) had already suggested that
Sammlungen des Fiirsten von und zu Liechtenstein,
they might have been for a tapestry series that Vienna, inv. 59
never progressed beyond the painted sketches.
While the motif of bound prisoners sitting
or crouching on the ground occurs frequently
in Rubens’s work beginning with the Obsequies
of Decius Mus (Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 4, vol. 2,
pi. 5), there is no reason to connect the present
work with the Decius Mus tapestry series, as van
Puyvelde did when the picture was exhibited in
Brussels in 1965. Held observed that the motif
of prisoners seated at the foot of trophies of
war originated on ancient coins. They fittingly
occur in the design that Rubens conceived for the
title page of J. Biaeus’s Numismata Imperatorum
Rom,anorum (Antwerp, 1617; see Burchard and
d’Hulst 1963, no. 94).
-PCS
26
Peter Paul Rubens
The Reconciliation of King Henry III
and Henry of Navarre
1628
Oil on panel
22.5 x 18.4 cm
Memorial Art Gallery of the University
of Rochester: Marion Stratton Gould Fund,
acc. no. 44.24
PROVENANCE: Sale Chevalier Frangois-Xavier de Burtin, LITERATURE: F.-X. de Burtin, Traite theorique et pratique
Brussels (Godfurneau), July 21 and ff., 1819, lot 149 des Connaissance qui sont necessaires a tout amateurs de
(bought in at 200 florins); sale Charles Leon Cardon, tableaux, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1808; Valenciennes, 1864),
Brussels, June 27-30, 1921, lot 109; sale Joseph de p. 482; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 3 (1890), p. 273, no. 760;
Winter of Antwerp, Brussels (Giroux), March 12, 1928, Emile Michel, Rubens, His Life, His Work, and His Time
lot 43, ill.; Paul J. Heinemann, New York; with Caesar R. (London, 1899), vol. 2, p. 155; “A Sketch by Rubens,”
Diorio, New York; purchased by the Gallery in 1944. The Burlington Magazine 11 (1907), pp. 44-45; Alfred
von Wurzbach, Niederldndisches Kiinstler-Lexikon, 3 vols.
Exhibitions: Brussels 1910, no. 295; Antwerp 1914; (Vienna, 1906-11), vol. 2 (1910), p. 137; M. Rooses,
Detroit 1936, no. 49; Brussels 1937, no. 84; New York review of Brussels 1910, Onze Kunst 19 (1911), pp. 1-12;
1942, no. 21; New York 1951, no. 22, ill.; Utica, NY, Henry B. Wehle, “The Triumph of Henry IV by Rubens,”
Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute, European Paintings Bulletin-Metropolitan Museum of An 1, no. 7 (March
from the Rochester Memorial Art Gallery, 1967; Providence 1943), p. 213; “The Gallery’s New Rubens,” Gallery
1975, no. 8; New York, Wildenstein Galleries, Treasures Notes (Rochester Memorial Art Gallery), 10, no. 2
from Rochester, 1977; Birmingham, AL, Birmingham (November-December 1944); Goris and Held 1947,
Museum of Art, Rubens and Humanism, 1978, pp. 20, 56, p. 39, no. 85; Rochester Memorial An Gallery of University
fig. 45; New York, Salander-O’Reilly Galleries, Inc., of Rochester Handbook (Rochester, 1961), p. 72, ill.; Ingrid
Eugene Delacroix: Paintings and Drawings, Peter Paul Jost, “Bemerkungen zur Heinrichsgalerie des P. P.
Rubens: Three Oil Sketches, 1989, no. 32. Rubens,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 15 (1964),
p. 184 n. 30, fig. 11; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 126-27,
no. 81, vol. 2, pi. 84.
Catalogue 193
In 1621 Rubens was first approached by the had begun work on the sketches for the Life of
queen mother, Marie de Medicis (1573-1642), Henry. Nine oil sketches related in various ways
to decorate two large galleries in the new to the gallery’s decorations have survived (see
Luxembourg Palace, one with the glorious Held 1980, nos. 80-89), and five of the large
military career of her late husband, King Henry canvases that he began after returning from
IV (1553-1610), the other with scenes from her England in March 1630 are known (see Jost 1964,
own stormy life. While a contract formalizing pp. 184-92, with ills.). Several depict Henry’s
the commission was signed on February 26, actual battles, such as the Battle of Ivry, for which
1622, and the Life of Marie de Medicis cycle there is a sketch in the museum in Bayonne as
(Musee du Louvre, Paris) became one of the well as a large version in the Uffizi, Florence,
greatest triumphs of Rubens’s career, the Life of while others are allegorical celebrations of the
Henry IV was an ill-fated project, which remained monarch’s life.
unfinished as late as February 1631, when the The present work depicts an actual event,
queen mother was banished, ending her life in namely the meeting of King Henry III and
exile. The approval of Rubens’s program for the Henry of Navarre at the Chateau of Plessis-les-
Henry Gallery was repeatedly delayed by the Tours on April 30, 1589, but in allegorical terms.
French court, and Cardinal Richelieu sought to The event was significant for Henry’s ascent
have the artist replaced by an Italian painter. The to the throne of France. Since the death of the
cardinal’s motivations probably were political, duke of Anjou, the brother of the childless and
since Rubens’s diplomatic missions in these years homosexual King Henry III (1551-1589), Henry
sought to bring about a rapprochement between of Navarre had been the heir apparent but
Spain and England, thus running counter to had been denied succession by a papal bull of
Richelieu’s ambitions for France. Nonetheless, September 9, 1585, that also excommunicated
a letter from Rubens to Pierre Dupuy dated him. In protest he had begun the war known as
January 27, 1628 (Rooses and Ruelens the War of the Three Henrys. When King Henry
1887-1909, vol. 4 [1904], p. 357), states that he III was driven from Paris for having instigated
Catalogue 195
the murder of the duke of Guise, he decided to ocher gown and laurel wreath. The actual
reconcile with Henry of Navarre and recognize transfer of power did not take place until several
him as the heir. Although he did not know the months after the meeting, when Henry III was
monarch’s intentions, with characteristic bravery assassinated on August 1, 1589, but Rubens
Henry of Navarre went to the meeting virtually depicts a putto lifting the crown from the
unprotected. Contemporary reports cited by P. monarch and looking down toward the bowed
de Vaissiere {Henri IV [Paris, 1928], p. 321) profile of the future Henry IV. The latter is
record that the meeting between the two men bareheaded, ready to receive the crown; a page
took place, not in a throne room as depicted by standing behind him holds his white plumed
Rubens, but in the garden of the palace in the helmet—the personal badge of Henry of Navarre,
presence of throngs of people. However, the who wears pink drapery over his armor. While
artist accurately depicts eyewitness accounts of two courtiers stand accompanying Henry III at
the actions ot the two figures: as soon as Henry the left, the two hectoring figures at the back
of Navarre saw Henry III, he reportedly bowed right are probably personifications of Fraud
down and the king moved to embrace him. (who removes a mask) and Discord. Their evil
Rubens creatively enhances the symbolism of intentions are rebuffed by the outstretched hand
the meeting by having the monarch drape part of the genius of Concord. The dog at Henry
of his blue royal mantle over Henry of Navarre’s of Navarre’s feet seems to reiterate his bowing
shoulder and depicting the two men jointly gesture and was a traditional symbol of Fidelity.
clasping the scepter of France. As Julius Held No painting based on the sketch is known,
observed, this motif is probably derived from the and Held was probably correct in suggesting
Roman symbol of Concord, two clasped right that it is unlikely that one ever existed.
hands holding a caduceus. In Rubens’s sketch, the -PCS
clasped hands are repeated inside a wreath atop a
pole held by the genius of Concord, who stands
at the back between the two men wearing a gold-
27
{Exhibited in Greenwich and Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
Briseis Returned to Achilles
1630-31
Oil on panel
45.4 x 67.6 cm (without the added strips)
The Detroit Institute of Art, Bequest of Mr.
and Mrs. Edgar B. Whitcomb, acc. no. 53.356
PROVENANCE: Possibly Daniel Fourment, Antwerp; Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), p. 251,
(probably) Jean-Henry Gobelinus, Brussels (d. 1681); no. 854; J. Guiffrey, Histoire de la tapisserie (Paris, 1886),
Joan Baptista Anthoine, Antwerp, until 1691; Dr. Richard pp. 323, 484-88, no. 17; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 3 (1890),
Mead, by 1724, until sale, London, March 21, 1754 p. 43; W. Heil, “The Edgar B. Whitcomb Collection
(£106.1 to Johnson [all eight]); Fulke Greville, until sale, in Detroit f Art in America 16, no. 2 (1928), pp. 50-51;
London (Christie’s), November 18, 1794, lot 49 (£57.15 van Puyvelde 1940, p. 36, no. 7; Valentiner 1946, p. 164,
to Sandilands [all eight]); private collection or art market, no. 113; Goris and Held 1947, p. 36, no. 70, pi. 86;
Rome, by 1829, when acquired by George John Vernon, Egbert Haverkamp Begemann, in exh. cat. Rotterdam
his sale, London (Christie’s), April 16, 1831, lot 27 1953-54, pp. 77-78; Julius S’. Held, “Drawings and Oil
(withdrawn or bought in); Baron Vernon, Sudbury Hall Sketches by Rubens from American Collections,” The
near Derby; his sale, London (Sotheby’s), June 14, 1922, Burlington Magazine 98 (1956), p. 123; Julius Held,
lot 63, ill.; Henry Reinhardt & Son Galleries, New York; “Le Roi a la Ciasse,” The Art Bulletin 40, no. 21 (1958),
purchased from the latter by Mr. Edgar B. Whitcomb, p. 147; H. Gerson and E. H. ter Kuile, Art and
1926-27; bequeathed by Mr. and Mrs. Whitcomb to Architecture in Belgium, 1600-1800 (Harmondsworth,
the museum in 1953. 1960), p. 93; Haverkamp Begemann 1975, pp. 126-28,
no. 6a, figs. 54, 56; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 178-79,
Exhibitions: London, British Institution, 1835, no. 95 no. 124, vol. 2, pi. 128; Held 1982, pp. 90-91, pi. IX;
(as The Death of Ulysses); Detroit, The Detroit Institute Logan 1981, p. 516; Scribner 1977/82, p. 141, fig. 49;
of Arts, Loan Exhibition from Private Collections, 1926, no. O. von Simpson, “Rubens und Homer,” Spiegelungen 12
33; Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts, Loan Exhibition (1986), pp. 116-17, pi. 7;M. Jaffe 1989’, p. 325, no. 1036;
of Old and Modern Masters, 1927, no. 54; Detroit 1936, McGrath 1997, p. 119, fig. 39.
no. 45, ill.; New York 1939, no. 330; Detroit, The Detroit
Institute of Arts, Masterpieces of An, 1941, no. 50; New
York 1942, no. 23, ill.; Los Angeles 1946, no. 33; Detroit,
The Detroit Institute of Arts, Paintings and Scidpture
Given by Edgar B. Whitcomb and Anna Scripps Whitcomb,
1954, pp. 61-62; Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 37,
pi. xxv; Detroit, The Detroit Institute of Arts, Homage
to Rubens, 1978, no. 4; Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4,
pp. 108-10, no. 5A, ill.
Catalogue 197
In Homer’s Iliad, the Greek campaign to subdue Concord (two clasped hands) within a second
Troy and avenge the abduction of Helen was wreath. In the immediate foreground are two
jeopardized when Achilles angrily withdrew horns of plenty and crossed palm branch and
from the field and retired to his tent. Achilles’ caduceus, both symbols of peace. Above, swags
wrath was provoked by Helen’s husband, of fruit are held up by four putti and attached
Agamemnon, the leader of the campaign, who at a central cartouche. As Egbert Haverkamp
took away his favorite slave, Briseis; the latter Begemann showed (1975, pp. 15-19), the
had been consigned to Achilles when the town of framing devices in the Life of Achilles are derived
Lyrnessus was conquered by the Greeks and her from Rubens’s earlier Triumph of the Eucharist
husband killed. Achilles only agreed to resume tapestry series but do not include Active tapestries
fighting to avenge the death of his best friend, as in the Eucharist series. However, they are not
Patroclus, who had been killed by Hector, the merely decorative or illusionistic elements,
most valiant of the Trojans. To placate Achilles, underscoring as they do the allegorical concepts
Agamemnon returned Briseis to him along encoded therein or the gods that affect the
with gifts of seven tripods, ten bars of gold, scenes that they border.
twenty cauldrons, twelve stallions, and seven The Life of Achilles was the last of the four
women {Iliad 9.148-56). At Ulysses’ suggestion, tapestry series that Rubens undertook. All the
Agamemnon further solemnly swore to several other seven sketches for the series are preserved
deities that he had not slept with Briseis. in the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen,
At the right of Rubens’s oil sketch Achilles, Rotterdam. No documents relating to the series
wearing lavender and a red cape, rushes forward are known. It can be dated on stylistic grounds
enthusiastically with arm outstretched. At the to about 1630-35. (Scholars have differed on the
center of the composition, Briseis, in white and dating; for a discussion of the confusion created
gold, stands in the traditional pose of female by the copies of the series in Pieter van Lint’s
modesty, with hand raised to her bosom and notebook, see Friso Lammertse in exh. cat.
head slightly bowed. Between them two muscular Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 12 n. 3.) It is
attendants place a tripod, gold cauldron, ewer, unknown whether Rubens was commissioned to
and a bowl full of gold. At the left are three of make the series, but several royal patrons, namely
Achilles’ twelve horses, one held by a groom, and Charles I of England and Philip IV of Spain, have
five of the seven women, one carrying a basket been proposed as possible candidates. Rubens’s
with her belongings on her head. Behind Briseis, father-in-law, the tapestry merchant Daniel
old Nestor in a long white beard and blue and Fourment, owned a set of the tapestries as
red drapery holds her by the waist gently urging well as the eight “sketches” (schetsen) in 1643.
her forward. At the back right the figure with It is conceivable that Fourment undertook the
raised hand pointing upward (a gesture that project for his own stock, but unlikely, given the
would be reversed, hence properly delivered high cost of producing tapestry series, especially
with the right hand, in the final tapestry) has the first edition of the Achilles series that was
been identified as Ulysses (Haverkamp Begemann woven by the workshop of Daniel Eggermans
1975, p. 123; Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 179; McGrath using not only silk and wool but also rare and
1997, p. 120), who supervised the transfer of expensive silver thread (see the discussion by
the gifts, but may be Agamemnon himself (see Guy Delmarcel, in exh. cat. Rotterdam/Madrid
Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 108) swearing 2003-4, p. 35). Fourment may have served as
his honorable treatment of Briseis. In the an agent for an unknown patron.
background on the right, the dead body of The subject is unusual. The only earlier
Patroclus is laid out on a canopied bed and treatment of the Life of Achilles was a cycle,
mourned by two women. Masts and the furled now lost, by Vicente Carducho executed in 1608
sails of ships appear in the background. Framing for the Palace of El Pardo outside Madrid. The
elements surround the scene. On the left is a scenes depicted are unknown, as is whether
herm of Hermes/Mercury holding a caduceus Rubens knew the cycle. The unknown patron
as the Mercurius Pacifier (bringer of peace), while of Rubens’s Life of Achilles may have selected the
on the right is the herm of Peace with a laurel subject, but in all likelihood the learned painter
wreath and, hanging below, the emblem of chose the individual scenes. As Elizabeth
Catalogue 199
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens and Studio
The Return ofBriseis
McGrath (1997, pp. 118-29) and Fiona Healy (in the Rotterdam/Madrid exhibition catalogue
exh. cat. Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 45) have observed (2003-4, p. 112), it is curious that the
shown, Rubens did not portray Achilles as he basket of clothes painted out in the sketch is
appears in Iliad (indeed only three of the eight also painted out again in the modello (see their
scenes in his series are described in detail in illustration of the X-ray, fig. 5.1), perhaps
Homer’s text) but chose incidents from his life indicating that it had not been removed in the
that convey both his humanity and heroism. For earlier version before the modello was begun.
example, in Homer’s account Briseis is merely a Rubens himself seems to have retouched some
spoil of war, given a passing reference when she details in the Madrid panel, such as the slightly
is returned to Achilles (19.247) and when they lie elaborated cornucopia in the foreground. The
together (24.675-77), but Rubens transforms the first edition (editio princeps) of the tapestry seems
scene into a triumphant story of love and desire. to have been in the estate of King Louis-Philippe
McGrath has convincingly shown that the artist’s of France and was sold in 1852; four of the scenes
inspiration in his rendition of the tale came from including the Return of Briseis were purchased
Ovid, who developed the story of Briseis and shortly before 1954 by the house of Braganga
Achilles in his Heroides (3), in an epistle in the for the Pago Ducal at Vila Vigosa, Portugal,
Ars amatoria (1.9.33), and in the Remedia Amoves and Haverkamp Begemann 1975, p. 124, no. 6,
(777-84). In Ovid’s version of the story, Achilles is fig. 52). Another version of the tapestry by Frans
consumed with jealousy when Briseis is returned Raes is in the Musees Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire,
to him. He doubts that Agamemnon restrained Brussels (Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4, p. 113,
from touching her (as does Ovid): unlike in no. 5D, ill.). There are etchings after the present
Homer’s account, Ovid claims Agamemnon only work by F. Ertinger, 1679, and B. Baron, 1724
swore by his scepter, not by the gods. McGrath (C. G. Voorhelm Schneevogt, Catalogue des
further observed (1997, p. 120) that Rubens was estampes gravees cVapres P. P. Rubens, avec Vindication
courting Helene Fourment when he conceived des collections ou se trouvent les tableaux et les
the Achilles series, so Ovid’s love poems might gravures [Haarlem, 1873], p. 218, nos. 15.6, 16),
well have been in his thoughts. and Julius Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 179) lists three
The present sketch reveals several pentimenti, copies including a drawing by Antoine Watteau
including a second basket of clothes held aloft at formerly in the A. Scharf collection. The painting
the back that was painted out with blue sky, and has been assumed to have been owned by the
the paint fdm is finely scored as if for transfer. A painter Joshua Reynolds, but the works he owned
larger modello, mostly executed by assistants (fig. were all probably copies (see Francis Broun, “Sir
1) in fact exists. It clarifies details of the framing Joshua Reynolds’ Collection of Paintings,” Ph.D.
devices and makes minor changes, for example to diss., Princeton University, 1987).
the two putti at the upper left. As the authors of -PCS
27 bis
(Exhibited, in Berkeley and Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
Studies for Figures in a Larder

c. 1630-33
Oil on panel
20.3 x 28.2 cm
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,
Antwerp, inv. 5146
PROVENANCE: W. L. Bell, Woolsington Hall, Newcastle- Frits Lugt, 1972, pp. 126-27; M.-L. Hairs, Dans le sillage
upon-Tyne; sale Rt. Hon. Lewis Fry, London (Christie’s), de Rubens. Les peintres d’histoire Anversois au XVIIe siecle
March 31, 1922, lot 126 (85 guineas, to Rothschild); (Liege, 1977), p. 84; exh. cat. London, Agnew’s, Dutch
Baron Emmanuel Descamps, Brussels; sale London and Flemish Pictures from Scottish Collections, 1978,
(Christie’s), July 6, 1990, lot 108, ill.; sale London p. 56, under no. 30; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 411-12, no.
(Christie’s), December 16, 1998, lot 28, ill. 301, vol. 2, pi. 301; H. Lahrkamp, “Der ‘Lange Jan.’
Leben und Werk des Barockmalers Johann Boeckhorst
Literature: Ludwig Burchard, quoted in exh. cat. aus Munster,” Westfalen Hefte fur Geschichte, Kunst und
Amsterdam 1933, under no. 127; Edith Greindl, Les Volkskunde 60 (1982), p. 145, under no. 96; Held 1986,
peintres flamandes de nature morte au XVlIe siecle (Brussels, p. 147, under no. 199; Hella Robels, Frans Snijders,
1956), p. 52; Held 1959, vol. 1, p. 141, under no. 116; Stilleben- undTiermaler, 1597-1657 (Munich, 1989),
Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, pp. 271-72, under no. 176 pp. 378, under no. 283, 381, under no. 286; M. Jaffe
(as Jan [Johannes] Boeckhorst); Irina V. Linnik, “Tableaux 1989, p. 367, no. 1354; Hans Vlieghe, “Jan Boeckhorst
de Frans Snyders, executes d’apres une esquisse de als medewerker,” in exh. cat. Antwerp, Rubenshuis, and
Rubens,” Etudes du Muse'e de VErmitage 8 (1965), p. 179, Munster, Westfalisches Landesmuseum fur Kunst und
fig. 1; Edith Greindl, Les peintres flamandes de nature Kulturgeschichte, Jan Boeckhorst, 1604-1668, Medewerker
morte au XVIIe siecle, 2nd ed. (Brussels, 1983), pp. 75, 327 van Rubens, 1990, pp. 75-77; Susan Koslow, Frans Snyders,
n. 116; Muller Hofstede 1966, p. 453, no. 176; Hella The Noble Estate: Seventeenth-Century Still Life and Animal
Robels, “Frans Snyders’ Entwicklung als Stillebenmaler,” Painting in the Southern Netherlands (Antwerp, 1995),
Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 31 (1969), p. 71; Michael Jaffe, p. 339, no. 205, ill. 444; Natalia Gritsai, in exh. cat.
“Rubens and Snijders: A Fruitful Partnership,” Apollo 93 Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, Rubens and His Age:
(1971), pp. 192, 196 n. 49; Carlos van Hasselt, in exh. cat. Treasures from the Hermitage Museum, Russia, 2001,
London, Victoria and Albert Museum, and other venues, p. 114.
Vlaamse Tekeningen uit de zeventiende Eewvo, Verzameling
Catalogue 201
t
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens and Frans Snyders
Kitchen Still Life with Maid and Child, c. 1636-38
Private Collection
With swift, delicate strokes and a few well-placed projects with Snyders, The Recognition of
dabs of color, Rubens sketched three figures—a Philopoemen of about 1609 (Musee du Louvre,
woman, a boy, and a man—at opposite sides of Paris, inv. M.I.967; ill. p. 63, fig. 16), Rubens
this small panel. At left, a robust young woman himself sketched in the still life elements.
stands with a large serving dish propped against Several years later, in a sketch painted in about
her hip, her red-lined overskirt rucked up behind 1616 (collection earl of Wemyss, Gosford House)
it. She reaches out with her left hand to arrest for a jointly executed painting of Cimon and
the forward lunge of the young boy seated on the Iphegenia, Rubens left blank those areas that
table, who twists to grab some invisible object. At were to be filled in with still-life elements by
the opposite edge of the quickly outlined table is Snyders, indicating a growing level of confidence
a man in doublet and breeches, cap on his head in Snyders’s powers of invention. The present
and apron and knife sheath tied around his waist. sketch, painted some fifteen years later,
With a rather fierce expression, he gestures documents the evolving dynamics of a successful
toward the table and brandishes a knife aloft partnership between two professional colleagues.
in his right hand. The large painting that developed from the
This lively sketch is Rubens’s preliminary left portion of the sketch, showing the maid and
design for figures in two monumental paintings young boy facing an abundant still life of fruit,
executed in collaboration with the animal and exists in three versions: a version with nearly
still-life painter Frans Snyders (1579-1657) in square dimensions at Cumnock, Dumfries House,
the 1630s: Kitchen Still Life with Maid and Child collection Lady Bute (fig. 1); and two horizontal
(fig. 1) and Cook at a Kitchen Table with Dead Game variants (in a private collection, Brussels; and J.
(fig. 2). Rubens and Snyders had worked together Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. 78.PA.207
regularly even before the magnificent Prometheus [dated c. 1650]). The Bute picture is regarded as
Bound of about 1611-12, the first documented the primary version; the others were executed by
instance of their collaboration (Philadelphia Snyders, with Jan (or Johannes) Boeckhorst likely
Museum of Art, Philadelphia, inv. W50-3-1). to have painted the figures (see Vlieghe 1990,
In his modello for one of his earliest collaborative p. 76). The painting that developed from the
Catalogue 203
Fig. 2.
Frans Snyders and Jan Boeckhorst(P)
Cook at a Kitchen Table with Dead Game, c. 1636-38
The State Flermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
inv. GE 608
right half of Rubens’s sketch, with the knife- become protagonists in a moralizing tale of
wielding cook now confronting a pile of dead thievery and its consequences. The maid gently
fowl and a larcenous cat, exists in a single version remonstrates the child as he tries to filch grapes
now in the Hermitage (fig. 2). This is presumably from the basket of succulent fruit on the table,
the pendant to the Bute picture, although the while the punishment for thievery in the pendant
figure of the cook has recently also been is potentially far more severe. Poised to sever
attributed to Boeckhorst, working from Rubens’s the wing from the peacock lying resplendently
design (Gritsai 2001, p. 114). A cleaning of the across the table, the cook’s gaze—and perhaps
Bute picture (c. 1970) revealed that Snyders first the downward slice of his knife as well—is
painted the still-life elements on and around the suddenly distracted by the cat which, having
table, and that Rubens’s figures were painted in snared his avian prize, is about to drag it quickly
later, on a broad strip of canvas added at the left off the table.
for just that purpose (Jaffe 1971, p. 192). This The large paintings by Snyders and Rubens
suggests that unlike the several instances of (and perhaps Boeckhorst) have been dated by
collaboration cited above, the initial idea (or several scholars to about 1636-38, based on the
commission) for these paintings probably perceived likeness of the young boy in the Bute
originated in Snyders’s studio, with Rubens picture—aged perhaps about four or five—to
brought into the project as it developed. After Rubens’s son Frans, who was born in July 1633
executing the oil sketch indicating his proposed (principally Robels 1969 and Jaffe 1971). Julius
figural additions to the still lifes, Rubens also Held, on the other hand (1980, vol. 1, p. 411),
made more detailed drawings from life in argued that the young boy did not bear sufficient
preparation for the final painting, such as the resemblance to Frans to allow this identification
Young Woman Holding a Tray (black, red, and to drive the dating of the picture, and on stylistic
white chalk, 46.8 x 30 cm; Institut Neerlandais, grounds proposed a date of about 1630-33 for
Paris, Fondation Custodia Collection Frits Lugt). the paintings as well as the oil sketch. Susan
In the final paintings, the two seemingly Koslow (1995) dated the pendants to 1635.
unrelated figure groups in Rubens’s oil sketch -MEW
28
Peter Paul Rubens
Sketch for a Portrait of a Family (Peter

Paul Rubens and Helene Fourment, with
Nicolaas and Clara Johanna Rubens)
c. 1632
Oil on panel
35.5 x 38.2 cm
Philadelphia Museum of Art: John G. Johnson
Collection, 1917, inv. J#622
Provenance: (Possibly) collection earls of Darnley,

Cobham Hall, Kent (by 1876); (possibly) Ivo Francis
Walter Bligh, eighth earl of Darnley, Cobham Hall, Kent
(until c. 1909); (possibly) Marcus Kappel, Berlin, 1910;
Julius Bohler, Munich, from whom purchased by John
G. Johnson, 1912.
Exhibition: (Possibly) Brussels 1910, no. 399 (“The

Family of Rubens,” panel, 34 x 38 cm, lent by M. Kappel,
Berlin).
Literature: (Possibly) F. G. Stephens, Esq., “On the

Pictures at Cobham Hall,” Archaeologia cantiana 11 (1877),
p. 165 (“a silvery sketch of‘Rubens and his Family,’ which
has some of the characteristics of a Van Dyck”); Wilhelm
R. Valentiner, Catalogue of a Collection of Paintings and Some
An Objects, vol. 2, Flemish and Dutch Paintings (Philadelphia,
1913), p. 163; Valentiner 1914, p. 236; Valentiner 1946, p.
164, no. Ill; Goris and Held 1947, p. 47, no. A 18
(attribution doubtful); Barbara Sweeny, John G. Johnson
Collection, Catalogue of Flemish and Dutch Paintings
(Philadelphia, 1972), p. 76 (as imitator of Rubens); Frances
Perry Daugherty, The Self-Portraits of Peter Paul Rubens:
Some Problems in Iconography (Ann Arbor, 1978), pp.
348-49 (as follower of Rubens, compiled with the aid of
several designs by Rubens); Held 1980, vol. 1, pp.
399M01, no. 296, vol. 2, pi. 296; Logan 1981, p. 514;
Jacques Foucart, in Paris, Musee du Louvre, Nouvelles
Acquisitions du Depanement des Peintures, 1983-1986, 1987,
p. 90, ill.; Vlieghe 1987, pp. 31, 169-70, no. 140, fig. 194;
Justus Muller Hofstede, “Pieter Paul Rubens 1577-1640:
Selbstbildnis und Selbstverstandnis,” in Cologne/
Antwerp/Vienna 1992, p. 110; Paintings from Europe
and the Americas in the Philadelphia Museum of An:
A Concise Catalogue (Philadelphia, 1994), p. 92
(as attributed).
Catalogue 205
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 163?
At the center of this family grouping is a young of Rubens’s Garden of Love (oil on canvas,
mother, seated in a low chair and clasping a 198 x 283 cm; Museo del Prado, Madrid,
sleeping infant to her lap. She wears a short inv. 1690), and on the left in the right half
jacket over a voluminous skirt; her crimped hair of the preparatory drawing Rubens made for
is demurely covered by a coif. The child sprawls Jegher’s woodcut of the subject (fig. 2) are also
heavily in its slumbers, its head and left hand clearly derived from the central figure in this
nestled sweetly at the mother’s breast. Standing sketch. Related figures also occur in Rubens’s
behind and to the left is a boy, who leans over charming Hagar in the Wilderness (oil on
the back of the chair with legs casually crossed. panel, 71.5 x 72.6 cm; Dulwich College Picture
To the right is a bearded man wearing a hat, Gallery, London, inv. 131) and (reversed)
seen in three-quarter view; the cloaked mass in the more problematic Allegory of Music oil
of his body is summarily indicated with a few sketch in the Musee du Louvre (oil on panel,
strokes of the brush. 18.5 x 28 cm; inv. R.F. 1985-24).
The figure of the young woman, seated in Based on the similarity of the head of the
profile on a low chair with her head turned to man in the sketch with Rubens’s Self-Portrait of
the viewer, with her impossibly long legs tucked 1623 at Windsor Castle, Held suggested (1980,
beneath her, appears in several other works by vol. 1, p. 400) that this sketch may have been
Rubens from the 1630s. Again sheltering a made as a study for a portrait (never executed)
sleeping infant on her lap, she is the central of Rubens’s own family. The woman thus
player in Rubens’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt in undoubtedly represents Helene Fourment,
the Museo del Prado (fig. 1), as well as Christoffel although the poor state of preservation of her
Jegher’s woodcut after this composition. Julius face does not allow us to read Helene’s features.
Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 400) proposed that the The naked child sprawled on her lap has been
Philadelphia sketch preceded both the Prado identified by both Held and Hans Vlieghe as
painting and Jegher’s print. The voluptuous Clara Johanna, Rubens and Helene Fourment’s
young woman seated on a low stool at the center first child, born on January 18, 1632. (Clara
Catalogue 207
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Garden of Love (right portion)
Pen, brown ink, and gray-green wash
over traces of black chalk, touched with
indigo, green, yellow, and white paint on
paper, 46.3 x 70.5 cm
The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Fletcher Fund, 1958, inv. 58.96:2
Johanna appears again in Rubens’s unfinished in a finished painting, the Philadelphia sketch
portrait of Helene with two children, of c. 1636 is an expressive indicator of Rubens’s attitude
[Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1795]). The boy toward family.
standing to the left must be Nicolaas, Rubens’s The panel’s somewhat abraded surface and
son by Isabella Brant, who was fourteen years the later addition of a layer of gray paint in the
old in 1632. Although Held questioned why left background to offset the figures have caused
Nicolaas’s older brother Albert was not included some scholars to question the attribution to
in the sketch, Vlieghe pointed out that Albert Rubens. Held (in Goris and Held 1947) initially
had left the family home in 1630 at age sixteen, had “serious doubts” about the painting but
to assume a post as secretary to the Conseil Prive subsequently reversed his opinion (1980), judging
du Roy in Brussels (Vlieghe 1987, pp. 166, 170). it “an impaired original rather than a pastiche
Justus Muller Hofstede (in exh. cat. done by a follower.” Following Held’s earlier
Cologne/Antwerp/Vienna 1992, p. 110) has noted view, Frances Daugherty’s (1978) attribution of
the conspicuously hieratic nature of Rubens’s the panel to a follower of Rubens, composed
composition. The young mother and the sleeping from individual designs by the master, rests
infant evoke clear and intentional parallels with largely on the admittedly disproportional relation
traditional imagery of the Madonna and Child; between the figures. It is indeed possible that
they are protectively flanked by the watchful the sketch may be Rubens’s working composite
figures of Rubens and Nicolaas (who was, of figure studies (compare cat. 31) rather than
incidentally, just four years younger than Helene). a fully worked-out compositional study, which
Rubens has included Nicolaas in this intimate would then account for the imperfect transitions
portrayal of a close-knit family group as the between the figures.
living representative of his first marriage to -MEW
Isabella Brant, drawn into the warmth and unity
of his new family. Although the idea formulated
in this composition was apparently never realized
29
Peter Paul Rubens
The Road to Calvary

(Christ Carrying the Cross)
c. 1632
Oil, emulsion paint on panel

59.7 x 45.7 cm
University of California, Berkeley Art Museum,
inv. 1966.16
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) sale Jacques Vlietinck, Bruges Gray Is the Color: An Exhibition of Grisaille Painting,
(Vincent), May 10, 1728, lot 201 (“Un Christ tombant XHIth-XXth Centuries, 1973-1974, no. 22.
sous le poids de la Croix, peint en grisaille de P. P.
Rubbens. 2 pieds 2 pouces sur 1 pied 7 pouces et demie”); Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), p. 224,
(possibly) sale Bruges (Vandenberghe), October 20-21, no. 797; A. van Hasselt, Histoire de P P Rubens (Brussels,
1734, lot 94 (“Een Cruys-draginghe in grisalie [m'J van 1840), p. 240, no. 139; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 2 (1888),
P. P. Rubens”); (possibly) sale Jacques de Roore, The no. 66; A. Rosenberg, Die Rubensstecher (Vienna, 1893),
Hague (Verheyden), September 4, 1747, lot 37 (“Een p. 90; L. Antal, “Zwei flamische Bilder der Wiener
Kruysdraghing Christi, door dito [Rubens], 2 voet 1/2 Akademie,” Jahrbuch der Koniglichen Preussischen
duim x 1 voet 7 duim”; 200 florins, to van der Marck); Kunstsammlungen 44 (1923), p. 71 (print only); M.
(possibly) Johan van der Marck, Leiden; (possibly) his Delacre, “Essai sur quleques esquisses de Rubens,”
sale, Amsterdam (de Winter and Yver), August 25, 1773, Academie royale des sciences, des letttres et des beaux-arts de
lot 275 (250 florins, to van Leyden); van Schorel, Heer Belgique (Bulletin de la classe des beaux-arts), 1937, p. 51;
van Wilryck (and former burgemeester of Antwerp), Jan Zarnowski, “Une esquisse nouvellement trouvee de
Antwerp; his sale, Antwerp, June 7, 1774, lot 3 (“une la Montee au Calvaire de Rubens,” Annuaire des Muse'es
des plus belles & des plus nombreuses que le genie de Royaux des Beaux-Ans Bruxelles 1 (1938), p. 164 (print
Rubens ait produites, est la meme que celle du grand only); Hans Gerhard Evers, Peter Paul Rubens (Munich,
Tableau qui se voit a l’Abbaye d’Afflighem pres d'Alost. 1942), pp. 361-62 (print only); Michael Jaffe, “Rubens at
C’est une Grisaille qui a servi de modele a Pontius, Rotterdam,” The Burlington Magazine 96 (Lebruary 1954),
lorsqu’il en grava l’estampe sous les yeux de Rubens: p. 57, fig. 27; J. Bruyn, “Rubens’ schets voor de
ainsi, l’on peut concevoir que tout y est correct, exprime, Kruisdraging,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 7, no. 1
fini, & du plus bel effet”; 360 florins, to van Merlen or (1959), pp. 5-6, fig. 3; Leo van Puyvelde, Rubens, 2nd ed.
Remy); Isaak L. de Thelusson, Paris, by 1777? but not in (Brussels, 1964), p. 261 n. 255; van Puyvelde, in exh. cat.
the sale of his collection, December 1, 1777; sale Paris Brussels 1965, p. 176; Svetlana L. Alpers, “A Rubens Oil
(Le Brun), March 23, 1784, lot 7; sale due d’Alberg Sketch,” An Journal 27 (1967), p. 68; Egbert Haverkamp
(Emmerich Joseph von Dalberg [1773-1833]), London Begemann, “Purpose and Style: Oil Sketches of Rubens,
(Christie’s), June 13-14, 1817, lot 20 (£89.15); acquired Jan Brueghel, Rembrandt,” in Stil und Uberlieferung in
by Lord Belper in 1829; by descent to sale Lord Belper der Kunst des Abendlandes. Akten des 21. Internationalen
(Nottingham), London (Sotheby’s), May 23, 1951, lot 99 Kongresses fur Kunstgeschichte in Bonn 1964, III: Theorien
(£5,000, to Hallsborough); with William Hallsborough, undProbleme (Berlin, 1967), p. 107, pi. 16, fig. 2; exh.
London; Mrs. M. Q. Morris, London, by 1953, and by cat. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Ackland Art Center,
descent to J. C. Morris; sale London (Sotheby’s), University of North Carolina, Prints after Rubens, 1968,
November 29, 1961, lot 44 (bought in); sale Mrs. Gerald pp. 33-34, under no. 26; Hans Vlieghe, “Erasmus
Lyndall (Aylesbury) et ah, London (Sotheby’s), March 24, Quellinus and Rubens’ Studio Practice,” The Burlington
1965, lot 75 (£18,000); Osborne Gallery, New York, Magazine 119 (1977), p. 639, fig. 49; Bodart, in exh. cat.
from whom acquired by the museum in 1966. Rome, Villa Larnesina, Rubens e Pincisione nelle collezione del
Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe, cat. by Didier Bodart,
Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1953-54, no. 81; London, 1977, p. 104; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 473-78 passim,
Regional Museum Council for the South-West, The no. 345, vol. 2, pi. 339; Bodart 1985, p. 195; Pohlen 1985,
Morris Loan Collection, 1959-60, no. 16; King’s Lynn, pp. 77-81, 232-33, no. 24; M. Jaffe 1989, pp. 330-31,
Guildhall of St. George, Exhibition of Oil Sketches and no. 1072; exh. cat. Cambridge 1990, pp. 17, 20; Judson
Small Pictures by Sir Peter Paul Rubens, 1960, no. 19; 2000, pp. 77-79, no. 18, fig. 53; Christopher White,
London, Agnew’s, Oil Sketches and Pictures by Sir Peter review of Judson 2000, Master Drawings 40 (2002), p. 172.
Paul Rubens, 1961, no. 31; Houston, Rice Museum,
Catalogue 209
Fig. l.
PAULUS PONTIUS after Peter Paul Rubens
The Road, to Calvary, 1632
Engraving, 59 x 45.3 cm (image)
The British Museum, London, inv. R-4-74
Prodded by the butt of a soldier’s lance, steep and rocky grade. At left, Veronica moves
wrenched forward with a sharp tug on his forward to tenderly wipe Christ’s face with her
hair, Christ stumbles beneath the weight of the veil, which was to become miraculously imprinted
cross carried to his Crucifixion atop Calvary. At with his image: the vera icon. The Virgin and
right, the elderly Simon of Cyrene and a heavily St. John look on from the left, forming a tightly
muscled young man struggle to relieve Christ of drawn oasis of compassion. Rubens enhances
his burden. The placement of a muscular figure the pathetic impact of the scene by having
viewed from the rear in the foreground of the Christ turn his head to direct a piercing gaze
composition was a device Rubens had already at the viewer, encouraging (in accordance with
used to great effect in The Elevation of the Cross Counter-Reformation dogma) a more personal
painted in 1610 for the Antwerp Cathedral (see identification with Christ’s suffering. The
cat. 39, fig. 1). Another conceit borrowed from emphasis placed on Veronica and her veil
the earlier painting is the introduction of an similarly reflects the crucial role accorded
anecdotal figure in the immediate foreground: images as objects of veneration following the
there, a dog, and here, two infants. Council of Trent.
Just above and to the right of Christ in The meticulous detail and limited palette
Carrying the Cross are the two thieves also bound of the Berkeley sketch (predominantly gray
for crucifixion at Calvary. Farther up the hill, at and brown, with a few vibrant touches of color
the head of the procession, are a standard-bearer, intended to draw attention to Christ’s halo or
a trumpeter, and a man wearing a turban; almost to accentuate the leaden sky) as well as the fact
hidden behind a turn in the road is a small figure that most figures are acting with their left hands
carrying a ladder. indicate that the sketch was intended as a model
Christ’s fall creates a brief caesura in a march for a print. Indeed, Rubens’s composition was
that otherwise winds slowly, inexorably, up the reproduced, with great fidelity, in an engraving
Catalogue 211
Fig. 2.
Pietro Monaco after Peter Paul Rubens
Christ Carrying the Cross, 1763
Engraving, 50.8 x 36.1 cm
Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin
C Rid T 0 CONUOTTO AL CALVARIO.

Sejfuzbaiur aulesii ilium multa turbo appuli el me. dierurn tju.r ptasujehnnt, el lamenlubalur aim- tomrersus aule/ji ad. ilLoj Jesus.
dixit Fiber. Jerusalem nolilr Jlere sup, • ipscs fleLL. el super Jdioj vestros Lm.e*f XXII » *j.
METRO PAOLO RUBENS PIAMMINGO, EO.WEDUTA DAL LA A'Ml GLIA MANFROTT3 A «. SAMUELS.
by Paulus Pontius, dated 1632 (fig. 1). Although the earliest version, there are significant
the print has almost exactly the same dimensions differences. The movement of the figures up and
as the oil sketch, the power and pathos of back into space is much more gradual than the
Rubens’s original are somewhat diluted in the precipitous climb presented in the Berkeley sketch
print because the figural elements are pushed and subsequent versions of the theme, and, as in
back from the picture plane and a comfortable the Antwerp Raising of the Cross, there is an
margin of space is introduced at the top of the inquisitive dog in the foreground, rather than
composition. the two infants.
The Berkeley sketch is one of several closely A considerably repainted sketch of The Bearing
related works by Rubens that depict the Bearing of the Cross in the Gemaldegalerie der bildenden
of the Cross. Probably the earliest of these is Kiinste in Vienna has most often been described
a painting formerly (1763) in the Manfrotti as either a copy after a design by Rubens (Judson
collection, Venice, and now presumably lost; 2000, pp. 75-76, no. 17, with further references)
the composition is recorded in a print by Pietro or an unfinished sketch by Rubens subsequently
Monaco (fig. 2), and an oil sketch—probably a completed by another (workshop?) hand (Held
copy—formerly in the Muzeum Narodowe, 1980, vol. 1, pp. 474-76, no. 344). This sketch
Warsaw (inv. 35794; see Held 1980, vol. 1, p. is also generally dated to about 1614-16. In the
473, and Judson 2000, pp. 73-75, no. 16, with Vienna composition, the massive cross has been
farther literature). The composition has been completely lifted from the fallen Christ; Veronica
dated to the mid-1610s by Leo van Puyvelde, has already wiped Christ’s brow and now
Egbert Haverkamp Begemann, J. Richard Judson, displays the miraculously imprinted veil to the
and others, while Julius Held preferred a date of wonderment of the two women beside her. The
“not before 1620.” Although many key features of two thieves and their captors have been relocated
the Berkeley composition are already in place in to the immediate foreground, where they are seen
Opposite: Fig. 3.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Bearing of the Cross
inv. 163
at half-length, as if on a proscenium. This detail, Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 5057; Held 1980,
which has its roots in Italian Mannerist art, is not vol. 1, no. 346, Judson 2000, no. 19b) reverses the
featured in the Berkeley sketch of about 1632 but movement from left to right (thus echoing the
is otherwise retained by Rubens in his subsequent orientation of Pontius’s print); the upward sweep
development of the theme. so marked in both the Berkeley sketch and the
In 1634 Rubens was commissioned by Jacob Afflighem altarpiece is here less unified, more
Boonen, archbishop of Mechelen and abbot confused. A highly finished modello in Amsterdam
of the Benedictine abbey of Sts. Peter and Paul (c. 1634, oil on panel, 74 x 55 cm, Rijksmuseum,
at Afflighem, to paint for the abbey church an inv. A344; Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 347, Judson
altarpiece representing Christ Carrying the 2000, no. 19c) reverts to many of the design
Cross. The massive painting, now in the Musees elements present in the Berkeley grisaille, with
Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels a greater emphasis on Veronica’s compassionate
(fig. 3), was installed over the church’s high and reverential ministrations. The precise
altar on April 8, 1637 (on the history of the function of a large oil sketch in Copenhagen
commission, see most recently Ulrich Heinen, (c. 1634-37, oil on panel, 104.5 x 74.2 cm; Statens
“Meliori forma. Quellenstudien zum Auftrage Museum for Kunst, inv. 1856; Held 1980, vol. 1,
fur Rubens’ Afflighemer Kreuztragung,” Jaarboek no. 348, Judson 2000, no. 19d) in relation to the
van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Afflighem altarpiece is not entirely clear. Thinly
Antwerpen, 1993, pp. 135-63, and Judson 2000, drawn in shades of gray, brown, and vermilion,
pp. 79-83). it records further refinements to the Amsterdam
While obviously indebted to the Berkeley sketch and compresses the composition into a
Carrying the Cross—indeed, it has been more vertical format. It seems likely that the
conjectured that Pontius’s engraving was Copenhagen sketch may have been painted in
created with the intent of publicizing Rubens’s response to the patrons’ desire, documented in
composition and thus tipping the balance in a meeting with Rubens in November 1634, for
favor of his winning the commission (Held 1980, a painting of a “better shape \meliori forma\f In
vol. 1, p. 476)—the Afflighem composition was part because of its large size, Held ventured that
nonetheless preceded by at least one drawing the Copenhagen sketch might also be regarded
and a series of oil sketches that document independently as an unfinished small painting
progressive adjustments to the composition. A (compare cat. 39).
largely monochrome sketch in Brussels (c. 1634, -MEW
oil on panel, 58.2 x 46.4 cm; Musees Royaux des
Catalogue 213
30
(.Exhibited in Greenwich and Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
Last Supper
c. 1632
Oil on panel
61.8 x 48.5 cm
Private Collection
PROVENANCE: Jacomo de Wit (c. 1650-1721), Antwerp; fur den Abendmahlsstich des Boetius a Bolswert,”
his sale, Antwerp, May 15, 1741, lot 102 (265 florins to Pantheon 38, no. 2 (1970), pp. 110-15; Held 1980,
Bostraeten; sold with pendant, The Raising of Lazarus vol. 1, no. 341, pp. 468-69, vol. 2, pi. 335; Bodart 1985,
[lot 103, 350 florins to Bostraeten]); sale Jeronimus p. 194, no. 790c; Pohlen 1985, pp. 89-93, 190-91; M.
Tonneman, Amsterdam, October 21, 1754, lot 7 (1,350 Jaffe 1989, p. 330, no. 1067; Xenia Yegorova, in Peter
florins to Braamcamp [with pendant, lot 8]); sale Gerrit Paul Rubens: Paintings from. Soviet Museums (Leningrad
Braamcamp, Amsterdam, July 31, 1777, lot 196 (1,700 [St. Petersburg], 1989), pp. 144, 145; David Freedberg,
florins to de Bruin [with pendant]); sale Jacob J. de in exh. cat. New York 1995, pp. 80-84; K. S. Egorova,
Bruyn, Amsterdam, September 12, 1798, lot 44 (944 Niderlandy XV-XVI veka, Flandriia XVII-XVIII veka,
florins to Beekman [with pendant]); William Troward; BeTgiia, XLX-XX veka: sobranie zhivopisi, Pushkin
his sale, London (Christie’s), May 5, 1826, lot 49 (with Museum (Moscow, 1998), p. 247; Judson 2000,
pendant; bought in at 95 guineas); purchased by John pp. 52, 54, fig. 13 (as The Institution of the Eucharist,
Smith at an anonymous sale in London (1849) and sold under no. 6A, as after Rubens).
by him to Thomas Gambier Parry, London, 1850; sale
London (Christie’s), June 17-18, 1864, lot 90 (“The Last
Supper—in grisaille”; £45, to Smith); collection Sieland,
Leipzig (c. 1880-1922); Th. Patscher, Dusseldorf, from
1922; Wassily Mertens, Leipzig, from 1937; sale London
(Sotheby’s), June 25, 1969, lot 14 (withdrawn); Peter
Mertens, Frankfurt am Main; sale London (Sotheby’s),
December 12, 1984, lot 47.
Exhibition: New York 1995 (no no.).
In 1631 Rubens was commissioned by Catherine

LITERATURE: Gerard Hoet, Catalogus of naamlyst van
Lescuyer to paint an altarpiece for the chapel of
schilderyen met derzelver pryzen. . . . , 3 vols. (The Hague,
the Confraternity of the Holy Sacrament in the
1752-70), vol. 2 (1752), p. 39; Smith 1829-42, vol. 2
(1830), p. 180, no. 624; Charles Blanc, Le tre'sor de la church of St. Rombout (Romuald) in Mechelen,
curiosite, tire des catalogues de vente. ... ,2 vols. (Paris, which would also serve as an epitaph for her
1857-58), vol. 1, p. cxxi; P. J. Mariette, Abecedario de P. J. deceased father, Pauwels Lescuyer. The large
Mariette et autres notes inedites . . . sur les arts et les artistes, finished painting of the Last Supper (Pinacoteca
ed. P. de Chennevieres et A. de Montaiglon, Archives de
di Brera, Milan; fig. 1) was the central focus of an
Vartfranqais (Paris, 1851/52-1858/60), vol. 5 (1855/56),
ensemble that also included two predella panels
p. 70; Rooses 1886-92, vol. 2 (1888), p. 48, under no. 265
bis; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 462; van Puyvelde 1940, p. 97,
by Rubens (Musee des Beaux-Arts, Dijon) and
under no. 78; Clara Bille, De Tempel de Kunst ofhet Kabinet several sculptures mounted above the main
van den Heer Braamcamp, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1961), vol. image. (On the history of the altarpiece, see
2, pp. 47-47a; Justus Muller Hofstede, “Rubens’ Grisaille Judson 2000, pp. 48-52, with further references.)
Catalogue 215
Rubens first developed the composition of

the Last Supper in an oil sketch now in Moscow
(Pushkin Museum, inv. 653; fig. 2). Although the
proportions of the finished painting are more
attenuated and the setting more elaborate,
apart from some minor alterations—greater
prominence given to the wine cooler in the right
foreground, expanding and opening up the upper
register to admit a more complex play of light
and shadow—most of the basic elements are in
place in the sketch. In a cavernous space lit by a
few candles, Christ sits at table surrounded by
his disciples and blesses their humble meal of
bread and wine. The positioning of the apostles
around a square table (as opposed to a long table
placed parallel to the picture plane) had a strong
tradition in the Netherlands: a painting of the
Last Supper made in 1593-94 for Antwerp
Cathedral by Rubens’s former teacher, Otto
van Veen, shows a similar configuration in a
nocturnal setting and probably influenced
Rubens’s conception of the subject (see Justus
Muller Hofstede, “Zum Werke des Otto van
Veen 1590-1600,” Bulletin des Muse'es Royaux des Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens and Workshop
Beaux-Arts de Belgique 6 [1957], pp. 138ffi, and
Last Supper, 1631-32
Sutton, “Introduction,” fig. 1).
Immediately to Christ’s right is St. Peter, and Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, inv. 679
to the left, St. John. The young apostle in the left
foreground, impatiently straddling his stool, first
occurs in a sheet of sketches for a Last Supper
that Rubens had drawn in Italy nearly thirty
years earlier (pen and ink, 293 x 435 mm; J. Paul
Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. 84.GA.959). bone, a symbol of greed or covetousness.
The evident source for this figure is the similarly In his earlier rendering of the Last Supper for
posed young cavalier in Caravaggio’s Calling of the Jesuit church in Antwerp (cat. 10), Rubens
St. Matthew for the church of S. Luigi dei had focused on the communion of the apostles
Francesi, Rome; Caravaggio (as well as van as the dominant message of the eucharistic
Veen) also provided inspiration for the dramatic sacrament. As Muller Hofstede first observed
nocturnal setting of Rubens’s composition. (1970), the present composition presents a
Seated at the near side of the table is Judas, far more complex and emotionally charged
his twisted pose an outward expression of his interpretation of the theme: it combines the
agitated mental state. Wild-eyed and fearful, he moment of the institution of the Eucharist, as
turns away from Christ, for the first time fully Christ blesses the bread that is his body with a
aware of the magnitude of his betrayal. Yet, as growing awareness among the apostles that one
David Freedberg has noted (in exh. cat. New of them will betray Christ—note the apostle’s
York 1995, p. 83), Judas’s dark, brooding form hand signaling Judas as the guilty one. In the
cannot completely block the light of the candle Gospel of St. Matthew, the identification of
that fulfills both a symbolic and a scriptural Judas as the betrayer immediately precedes the
function in Rubens’s painting by illuminating the blessing of the bread (Matt. 26:25-26). Conflating
sacramental bread and the wine chalice, and by these two nearly simultaneous events allowed
symbolizing Christ as lux mundi, the light of the Rubens to explore a full range of emotions and
world. Beneath Judas’s feet is a dog gnawing on a expressions, from reverential wonder and
Catalogue 217
Rubens made several adjustments in

translating the painted altarpiece of the Last
Supper into a design for a print. The figures
are pushed farther back into the space, and the
composition is extended at the top to include a
grand view of dimly lit arches. The apostle at the
far right, who previously laid a gentle hand on
his companion’s back, now balances his urgent
forward-leaning stance with the strut of a
muscular forearm. The positions of the apostles
to either side of Christ—Peter and John—are
reversed, presumably so that they would appear in
the same positions in the finished engraving as in
the altarpiece (Peter to Christ’s right and John to
his left; see Judson 2000, p. 54). It is conceivable
that Rubens may have altered the proportions of
his original composition to conform to standard
formats for copper printing plates or paper (on
standard paper sizes in the seventeenth century,
see Jan-Piet Filedt Kok, Erik Hinterding, and
Jan van der Waals, “Jan Harmensz. Muller
as Printmaker II,” Print Quarterly 11 [1994],
pp. 36T-71).
Fig. 2. While nearly all scholars have accepted the
Peter Paul Rubens
grisaille of the Last Supper as by Rubens’s hand,
The Last Supper, 1631
Ludwig Burchard felt that the paint was too dense
Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, inv. 653
and the execution too careful to be by Rubens and
suggested Erasmus Quellinus as the author of the
sketch (in a letter of 1932; see Judson 2000, p. 54).
However, Rubens obviously understood the need
to precisely distinguish light and dark tones in an
engraver’s modello, and—as in cat. 29—was able to
excitement to suspicion and fear. Julius Held’s adapt his style to meet these requirements.
insistence (1980, vol. 1, p. 468) that the act of Identifying certain details in the grisaille modello
blessing the bread alone would have had this that are present in preliminary sketch but not in
profound an impact on the apostles undercuts the finished altarpiece, Judson (2000, pp. 52-54)
the exquisite tension created in Rubens’s painting. catalogued the present work as a copy (not by
After completing the Last Supper altarpiece Rubens) after the Moscow sketch. It seems
for St. Rombouts, Rubens painted this extremely simpler and more plausible, however, to view the
detailed grisaille sketch as a modello or modeletto modello as an opportunity for Rubens himself to
for the engraver Boetius a Bolswert to work select from his two earlier versions of the
from in creating a print of the composition. As composition those details that would convert most
Bolswert died on March 25, 1633, the sketch was effectively to the printed medium.
almost certainly completed by 1632. Although From as early as 1722 the Last Supper was
technically a grisaille, the predominantly gray and paired with a grisaille sketch by Rubens of the
black tonalities of the Last Supper are modulated Raising of Lazarus (oil on panel, 61 x 48 cm;
by a subtle range of blue, purple, and lavender formerly Adolphe Schloss collection, Paris) that
hues and enlivened by creamy white highlights. was also reproduced in a print by Bolswert. The
More thinly painted areas, such as the floor in paintings were separated sometime after 1826.
the foreground, deliberately allow the golden -MEW
brown imprimatura to show through, extending
the coloristic effects of the limited palette.
31
Peter Paul Rubens?
Two Figure Studies

(Mercury and a Yeoman)
c. 1632-33
Oil on panel
63.5 x 53 cm (2.5 cm strip added at right)
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Ernest Wadsworth
Longfellow Fund 42.179
Provenance: (Possibly) sale Francois Pauwels, Brussels,

August 22, 1803, lot 68 (bought in); (possibly) sale
Pauwels, Brussels, Aug-ust 25, 1814, lot 15, to Leandre
Dacosta; with Charles Sedelmeyer, Paris; sale baron de
Beurnonville, Paris (G. Petit), May 9-16, 1881, lot 441, to
baron d’Eder; sold to private collection, U.S.A.; (possibly)
Galerie Haberstock, Berlin, 1920; (possibly) with Spink,
London, 1924; acquired from Arnold Seligmann, Rey
and Co., New York, by the MFA in 1942.
Exhibition: Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 45.
Literature: Rooses 1886-92, vol. 3 (1890), p. 123,

under no. 644; W. G. Constable, “Mercury and Argus
by Rubens,” Bulletin of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts 40
(1942), pp. 88-90; Goris and Held 1947, no. 75, pi. 88;
W. G. Constable, “Rubens in the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston,” Miscellanea Leo van Puyvelde (Brussels, 1949),
pp. 132-33; Edward Croft-Murray, Decorative Painting
in England, IS37-1837 (London, 1962), vol. 1, p. 208;
Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 188, 208-9, no. 139, vol. 2,
pi. 145; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 321, no. 1014, ill.
Catalogue 219
In the upper left, the figure of Mercury, depicted 1920 (as reported by Held) and possibly Spink
nude save for billowing blue drapery and a red Gallery in London in 1924 (photo at Witt
winged cap, leans forward on his bended left leg Library, Courtauld Institute, London), additions
to extend his caduceus in his right hand. In the by a later hand—a cow, a dog, and indications of
lower right a bearded yeoman in red drapery a landscape-—had transformed it into the Ovidian
and bare feet, cradling a mace, sits on a stone. legend of Mercury and Argus (Metamorphoses
Although these two figures are conceived 1.668ff.). These retouchings were removed before
in approximately the same scale and apparently the picture was sold to the Museum of Fine Arts
were once even repainted by a later hand to in 1942. It is possible that the partially visible
misrepresent them as participants in a single flute lying before Mercury and the sword in his
narrative, they are in fact independent studies left hand (its blade peeking beyond his left ankle),
for two different scenes in the decorations for as well as the extensions to the yeoman’s mace
the Whitehall Ceiling. The bearded figure is a that convert it to a shepherd’s staff, are also
study for the yeoman seated in the shadows at remnants of these overpainted passages; the bulb
the lower right of the Union of the Kingdoms, for of the mace was also effaced at the time of these
which there is an oil sketch in St. Petersburg later changes. Held suggests (1980, vol. 1, p. 209)
(fig. 1). The figure of Mercury is one of the that there may be traces at the lower left of the
studies for The Peaceful Reign of James I (cat. 32, still life of flags, a shield, and a drum that appears
fig. 1); another sketch related to this painting is before the yeoman in the final design, although
also included in the present exhibition (cat. 32). these are not evident to the present author. In
In the Peaceful Reign, Mercury appears in the the light of Rubens’s impeccable knowledge of
lower left, using his caduceus to assist Minerva to classical literature, he would never have depicted
defeat personifications of the forces of rebellion Mercury using his caduceus to bewitch Argus; the
and discord. As Julius Held has shown (1980, god lulled the shepherd-sentinel to sleep with a
vol. 1, p. 188), Rubens combined two different flute before cutting off the latter’s head with his
studies in several of his oil sketches for the sword. Although Rubens treated the subject of
Banqueting Hall (ibid., nos. 136, 134); this is the Mercury and Argus several times (see especially
case, for example, in catalogue 32, albeit the two the painting in Dresden, M. Jaffe 1989, no. 1216,
studies there relate to the same final composition. and the sketch in Brussels, Held 1980, no. 203),
If the present work is identical with a work that he certainly did not intend its depiction in this
was with the Galerie Haberstock in Berlin in panel of studies, nor was it, as William G.
Catalogue 221
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
Union of the Kingdoms (King James Designates the Infant
Charles as Heir to the United Kingdoms of England and
Scotland), c. 1632-33
The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg,
inv. GE-513
Constable (1949) and others believed (see exh. the handling is similar to that for the sketches
cat. Cambridge/New York 1956), a study for one for Moses’ Song of Praise and Miriam's Dance at
of the Ovidian subjects in the Torre de la Parada. Karlsruhe and David with the Head of Goliath at
Like the other studies for individual figures in Forth Worth (respectively, Held 1980, vol. 2,
the Peaceful Reign, the present work probably did pis. 489, 490), which Hans Vlieghe has recently
not precede the study of the overall design in the attributed to Jan van den Hoecke (see Vlieghe,
Akademie in Vienna (cat. 32, fig. 1). However, “Nicht Jan Broeckhorst, sondern Jan van den
Held (ibid.) probably was correct in suggesting Hoecke,” Westfalen 68 [1990], pp. 167-72,
that the study of the yeoman here preceded the figs. 13, 14).
final modello in St. Petersburg (fig. 1), where the The provenance for the picture has been
figure’s costume is elaborated with the trimming confused in the past, according to Victoria
it would have in the final ceiling. Reed, a research fellow at the Museum of Fine
The attribution of the present work to Arts, Boston. The descriptions in the Pauwels
Rubens has been questioned by Gregory Martin sales conform to the overpainted state, but the
(see “Rubens’s Paintings for the Banqueting dimensions differ (97 x 78 cm). According to a
House: A Talk Partially Recaptured,” in Vlieghe representative of Seligmann, Rey and Company,
et al. 2000, p. 172), who is preparing the volume when the picture was acquired by the museum,
on the Banqueting Hall Ceiling for the Corpus the painting passed from baron d’Eder directly
Rubenianum. He also has questioned the Hercules into an American private collection, but it may
Overcoming Discord, also in Boston (Held 1980, be identical with the picture reported to be
vol. 1, no. 141, vol. 2, pi. 147) and the Apotheosis with Haberstock and Spink in the 1920s.
in the Hermitage (ibid., vol. 1, no. 135, ill. -PCS
Wieseman essay, fig. 1). Martin suggests that
32
Peter Paul Rubens
Peace Embracing- Plenty
c. 1632-34
Oil on panel
62.9 x 47 cm
Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon
Collection, B1977.14.70
PROVENANCE: SaleTrouard, Paris, February 22ff., 1779,

lot 93 (also said to be in the Le Rouge sale, Paris); sale
Lebrun et al., Paris, December llff., 1780, lot 35; sale
Morel et al., Paris, April Iff., 1786, lot 35; sale Lebrun,
Paris, April 11-23, 1791, lot 75; Philip Panne; Dawson
Turner, Yarmouth, his sale, London (Christie’s), May 14,
1852, lot 68; Leopold Koppel, Berlin and Zurich; H. P.
Klotz, Monroe, NY; D. P. Lewis Family Trust, London.
Exhibitions: Brussels 1937, no. 98; New York 1939, no.

336; San Francisco, Masterpieces of Five Centuries, Golden
Gate Exposition, 1939-40, no. Y 45; Los Angeles 1946,
no. 35; New York 1951, no. 26; Brussels 1965, no. 230;
New York 1967, no. 49.
Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), p. 189,

no. 669; Outlines in Lithography from a Small Collection
of Pictures [The Dawson Turner Collection] (Yarmouth,
1840); Rosenberg 1905, p. 336, right; van Puyvelde
1940, pp. 39, 90, nos. 8, 77; Goris and Held 1947, p. 44
(addendum); Oliver Millar, Rubens: The Whitehall Ceiling
(London, 1958), pp. 16-17; Susan B. Shapiro, in exit,
cat. New York 1967, pp. 66-68; R. Baumstark,
“Ikonographische Studien zu Rubens’ Kriegs- und
Friedensallegorien,” Aachener Kunstblatter 45 (1974),
pp. 146f£; exh. cat. Providence 1975, no. 1; Yale Center
for British Art, Yale University, New Haven, Yale Center
for British An: Selected Paintings, Drawings and Books
(New Haven, 1977), p. 6; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 195-97,
no. 131, vol. 2, pi. 136; Logan 1981, p. 516; Edmund P.
Pillsbury, “Paul Mellon as Collector and Patron of British
Art: Selected Painting Acquisitions, 1976-80,” Essays in
Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor (Washington,
D.C., 1986), pp. 264-65, p. 265, fig. 6; White 1987,
p. 254, ill. p. 255, no. 278; Bauer 1992, pp. 231-32,
ill. p. 240, fig. 9-5; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 320, no. 1008, ill.;
Kristin Lohse Belkin, Rubens (London, 1998), p. 259,
ill. p. 257, fig. 172.
Catalogue 223
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Peaceful Reign of King James I
Gemaldegalerie der Akademie der bildenden Kiinste,
Vienna, inv. 628
The personification of Peace tenderly embraces

her counterpart embodying Plenty or Abundance.
Plenty is seated and holds Peace tightly about the
waist as if about to be lifted up. Wearing a pink
gown with blue drapery, Plenty is identified by
an S-shaped cornucopia overflowing with green
apples, grapes, and heads of wheat. Peace wears
a yellow gown that covers her only to the waist;
her blond hair is tied with a red ribbon. Peace’s the Akademie der bildenden Kiinste in Vienna
identity was once underscored by a caduceus (fig. 1). Representing the Peaceful Reign of
that she held in her right hand and which is still James I, it depicts the sovereign seated on a
partially visible in the passages of overpaint, but throne in a niche in the center of soaring
this was edited out by the artist and only the architecture, gesturing toward Peace and Plenty
bottom of its shaft is now fully visible. Behind and surrounded by other allegorical figures.
the two figures rises in steeply foreshortened While the personifications represented by the
perspective architecture with a niche surmounted present pair are generally accepted, as is the
by a putto’s head and flanked by two undulating figure of Mercury kneeling below and recorded
Solomonic columns on the left and one on the in one of the figures in the sketch in the Museum
right. The former are painted in shades of gray of Fine Arts, Boston (cat. 31), the identities of
with white highlights, while the latter are the combative, tumbling figures in the bottom
executed more summarily in tones of brown. right of the design have been disputed (see Held
The present work is a study for two figures 1980, vol. 1, pp. 190-93, and Gregory Martin
and sections of the architecture in the ceiling forthcoming). Rubens’s oil sketch of this detail is
decorations in Whitehall in London, specifically now preserved in the museum in Brussels (fig. 2).
for the painting glorifying King James’s devotion Although the consensus accepts that the principal
to the cause of Peace. The final painting is combatants represent the traditional adversaries
situated directly above the Chair of State in Mars and Minerva, their precise meaning is not
the southern end of the hall and is dramatically clear. As he is assaulted by Minerva from above,
revealed to the visitor entering from the north. Mars steps on a prostrate figure with conspicuous
The present work corresponds to details on the attributes of evil, vipers about his head and a
left and at the top in both the final mural and in snake in his hand. Moreover, he brandishes a
an oil sketch of the overall composition now in torch as he attempts to approach the regent, only
Catalogue 225
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Wisdom (Minerva) Keeping Armed Rebellion (Mars) from
the Throne of King James I
inv. 3283
to be rebuffed by Minerva. Because he triumphs final composition for the Peaceful Reign, it is of
over evil, Mars’s actions have sometimes been a different scale and less steeply foreshortened,
interpreted as an offering of homage to the king, and the figures are situated before the two
while Minerva’s rebuff is seen as an expression columns on the left, not before the niche. Thus,
of the king’s rejection of bellicose ways and his as Held took pains to point out, the two studies,
commitment to peace. However, Julius Held though related to the same final scene, are
(1980, pp. 193-94) and others have rejected the essentially independent and not directly linked
notion that Mars might be well intentioned, as foreground figures would be to their setting.
albeit misdirected; the fact that Minerva’s lance Behind Peace and Plenty Rubens first painted
is replaced in the final version by a thunderbolt the two columns on the left and part of the niche
leaves little doubt that Minerva is defeating Mars with the putto’s head to help visualize these
and that James’s gestures to the left are meant to elements in the final composition and probably
protect and welcome Peace and Plenty. Seated to enable his assistants to begin the scale
on high and determining the ascendancy of enlargement. The lighter brown architecture
the good and the plummeting descent of the on the right may, as Held speculated, have been
wicked, James has rightly been compared to the added at a slightly later date to make the design
adjudicating, divinely orchestrating figure of read as more “complete”; it was at this time that
Christ in Rubens’s scenes of the Last Judgment. the caduceus was partially obscured (see the
As Susan Shapiro speculated (exh. cat. New York detail illustrated in Held 1980, vol. 1, fig. 7).
1967, p. 67), in depicting Peace and Plenty in Held farther suggested that Rubens probably
such an affectionate embrace, Rubens may have consulted Italian sources for his Solomonic
recalled the words of the 84th Psalm (85 th in the columns, perhaps Cristoforo Sorte’s woodcut in
King James version): “Mercy and truth are met the Osservationi nella Pictura (Venice, 1594), or G.
together; righteousness and peace have kissed Viola Zanini’s copy of it in Della Architettura . . .
each other.” (On the tradition of the conceit “ex libre due (Padua, 1629). However, Rubens made
pace ubertas,” especially in emblematic literature, the undulating bulges of his columns more
see Baumstark 1974, pp. 148ff.) prominent and exchanged a composite capital
As in the sketch in Boston of Mercury for Ionic ones in the prints.
attributed to Rubens (cat. 31) and other sketches A drawn copy of the sketch is in the Frits
for the Whitehall decorations, Rubens combined Lugt Collection, Fondation Custodia, Institut
two scenes in the present panel. While Peace and Neerlandais, Paris (Held 1980, vol. 1, fig. 36).
Plenty appear before stately architecture in the -PCS
Leopolds Verkaufe,” Der Cicerone 1 (1909), p. 334; W.

33
Roberts, “The King of the Belgians’ Collection of Old
Peter Paul Rubens Masters,” Connoisseur 24 (1909), pp. 204-5; Oldenbourg
The Glorification of the Eucharist 1921, pp. 291, 467; Josephine L. Allen, “The Paintings
in the Ogden Mills Bequest,” Bulletin of The Metropolitan
c. 1633-35
Museum, of Art 33 (1938), pp. 34-36; Valentiner 1946,
p. 164, no. 103 (as c. 1625-28); Goris and Held 1947,
Oil on panel p. 34, no. 56; Ludwig Burchard, “On a Rubens Drawing-
71.1 x 48.3 cm after Mantegna,” The Burlington Magazine 98 (1956),
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest p. 415; Ludwig Burchard and R.-A. d’Hulst, in exh. cat.
Antwerp 1956, p. 115, under no. 142, and Addenda and
of Ogden Mills, 1929. (37.160.12)
Corregienda, p. 14, under no. 142; Burchard and d’Hulst
1963, pp. 223-25, under nos. 143-44 (date sketch and
related drawings c. 1627-30); Muller Hofstede 1966,
p. 452 (as c. 1630-32); N. Ayala Mallory, “El Altar Mayor
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) Hans van Mildert, Antwerp de la Iglesia de San Ignacio, en Amberes,” Goya 79
(d. 1638), and mentioned in the estate inventory of (1967), pp. 3-4; J. de la Croix, “La Glorification de
his widow, Elizabeth Waeyens, March 16, 1657 (as l’Eucharistie de Rubens et les Cannes,” Metropolitan
“Een schets van Rubens van de aultaer van de Museum Journal 1 (1969), pp. 179, 185-91; F. Baudoin,
Vrouwenbroeders”); John Campbell, fourth duke of “Altars and Altarpieces before 1620,” in J. R. Martin
Argyll (d. 1770); his estate sale, London (Langford and 1972, pp. 88-89 n. 80 (as c. 1625-28); Julius S. Held,
Son), March 22, 1771, lot 71 (as “A remarkable fine “A Protestant Source for a Rubens Subject,” in Liber
sketch of the ascension”); (possibly) John Pratt, Bayham Amicorum Karel G. Boon (Amsterdam, 1974), p. 86 n. 8
Abbey, Lamberhurst, Kent (d. 1797); John Jeffreys Pratt, (as c. 1630); John B. Rnipping, Iconography of the Counter
second earl and first marquess Camden, Bayham Abbey Reformation in the Netherlands: Heaven on Earth
(d. 1840); his estate sale, London (Christie’s), June 12, (Nieuwkoop, 1974), vol. 2, p. 303; Anthony Blunt,
1841, lot 65 (42 guineas, to Bredel); Charles A. Bredel, “Rubens and Architecture,” The Burlington Magazine 119
London (d. 1851); his daughters, the Misses Bredel, (1977), p. 613; Anne-Marie Logan, “Rubens Exhibitions
London, 1851-75; sale, London (Christie's), May 1, 1875, 1977,” Master Drawings 15 (1977), p. 404 (rejects
lot 123 (£430, to Grant); Leopold II, king of Belgium, supposedly related drawings); B. Magnusson, in exh. cat.
Brussels (by 1879); Kleinberger, Paris, from 1909; sold Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, Rubens i Sverige, 1977, p.
to August de Ridder (d. 1911), Schonberg, Lrankfurt 117, fig. 94; B. Magnusson, “Some Drawings by Rubens
(for 150,000 francs); his wife, Frau August de Ridder, in Nationalmuseum,” Nationalmuseum Bulletin 1 (1977),
1911—at least 1913; on loan to Stadelsches Kunstinstitut, pp. 81-82; E. Mitsch, in exh. cat. Vienna, Graphische
Frankfurt (cat. 1913, pi. 74); sale de Ridder, Paris (Galerie Sammlung Albertina, Die Rubenszeichnungen der Albertina,
Georges Petit), June 2, 1924, lot 57; Pietro Stettiner, 1977, pp. 76, under no. 32, 110, under no. 47, 114, under
Rome, from 1924; Ogden Mills, New York (d. 1929); no. 48; de Poorter 1978, vol. 1, pp. 195, 303; A. Serullaz,
life interest to his son, Ogden L. Mills (d. 1937). in exh. cat. Paris, Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins,
Rubens, ses maitres, ses eleves, 1978, p. 85, under no. 81;
EXHIBITIONS: London, British Institution, Catalogue of Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 149, 529-31, no. 392, vol. 2, pi.
the Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, Together with a Selection 383; Frans Baudouin, “Het hoogaltaar in de kerk der
of Pictures by Ancient, and Deceased English Masters, 1843, Geschoeide Karmelieten te Antwerpen, ontworpen door
no. 98; Manchester, Art Treasures of the United Kingdom., Rubens,” in Essays in Northern European Art Presented to
no. 567; Frankfurt, Stadelsches Kunstinstitut, 1911-13 Egbert Haverkamp Begemann on His Sixtieth Birthday
(lent by Frau A. de Ridder); Washington, D.C., Phillips (Doornspijk, 1983), pp. 27-32; David Freedberg, Rubens:
Memorial Gallery, Emotional Design in Painting, 1940, The Life of Christ after the Passion, Corpus Rubenianum
no. 60; New York 1951, no. 20; Cambridge/New York Ludwig Burchard, pt. 7 (London, 1984), pp. 72, 73,
1956, no. 38. 75-77, no. 17a, 78-81 passim; Walter A. Liedtke, Flemish
Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York,
Literature: Franqois Mols, “Etat des tableaux de 1984), vol. 1, pp. 146-51, vol. 2, pi. 60; Erik Duverger,
Pierre Paul Rubens,” ms., 1775 (Brussels, Koninklijk “Inventaris van het sterfhuis can Elisabeth Waeyens
Bibibliotheek, Handschriftenkabinet, nr. 5735), p. 71; (t 1657), weduwe van Hans van Mildert,” Jaarboek van het
Smith 1829-42, vol. 9 (1842), p. 245, no. 7; Waagen Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerpen, 1989, pp. 387,
1854—57, vol. 2 (1854), p. 292; W. Burger [Theophile 414; Frans Baudouin, “Het door Rubens ontworpen
Thore], Tresors d'art exposes a Manchester en 1851 (Paris, hoogaltaar in de Kerk der geschoeide Karmelieten te
1857), p. 197; C. Tardieu, “Le Cabinet de S. M. Leopold Antwerpen,” Academiae Analecta. Mededelingen van de
II, Roi des Beiges,” LArt 17 (1879), pp. 111-12; Rooses Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren, en
1888-92, vol. 2 (1888), pp. 203-4, no. 380 (as 1615-20, Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 51,
identifies it [erroneously] as having been brought from no. 1 (1991), pp. 25, 27, 29 nn. 25, 26, pp. 30, 48, 50-53;
Spain by Joseph Bonaparte); Rooses 1904, vol. 1, p. 252; Bauer 1992, pp. 230, 232; Duverger 1984-2002, vol. 7
C. J. H., “Notes on Various Works of Art,” The Burlington (1993), p. 320.
Magazine 15 (1909), p. 238, ill. p. 242; F. M., “Konig
Catalogue 227
Fig. 1.
Gaspar Moens
High Altar of the Church of the Carmelite Church
in Antwerp, Decorated for a Feast Day, 1732
Pen and ink with wash
Museum Vleeshuis, Antwerp, inv. AVI232
pilaster at left, and a twisted Solomonic

column to the right. Above the arched top
of the altarpiece are strapwork scrolls and
remnants of the legs of two angels, flanking
the vestigial base of a niche.
Rubens’s portrayal of Christ shares some
iconographic elements with depictions of the
Resurrected Christ Triumphant over Sin and
Death (as represented by the globe, serpent,
and skeleton beneath Christ’s feet) but places
particular emphasis on the Eucharist as the
primary agent in the Redemption. The two Old
Testament figures to Christ’s right—Melchizedek
and Elijah—were commonly invoked as
prefigurations of the eucharistic sacrifice (see cat.
19), while the saints to his left were celebrated for
Christ, wearing a rose mantle, stands atop a their steadfast defense of the sacrament. At far
globe encircled by a serpent, crushing beneath it left, Melchizedek holds a loaf of bread in his left
a human skeleton. In his right hand he holds aloft hand and an amphora in his right, representing
a chalice with the Host; in his left is a banner. In the bread and wine given to celebrate Abraham’s
the sky to either side are several putti bearing victorious return from battle. The prophet Elijah
symbols of the Eucharist: cross, candle, ewer and receives bread and water from the angel who gave
napkin, missal, censer, and a paten with cruets of him succor during his exile in the desert. Elijah
water and wine. God the Father is seated in the was especially revered by the Carmelite order
clouds at the top of the composition, and the (Held [1980, vol. 1, p. 530] calls Elijah their
dove of the Holy Spirit hovers between him “pretended founder”) for his triumphant defense
and Christ. To Christ’s right are Melchizedek, in of Judaism against the prophets of Baal at Mount
yellow and red, and Elijah, wearing olive green; Carmel. St. Paul, immediately to Christ’s left, was
to his left, St. Paul and St. Cyril of Alexandria, the among the first to bear withess to the eucharistic
latter wearing the white habit of the Carmelite sacrifice (I Cor. 10:16) and also outlined the
order. Although the panel has been reduced at the parallels between Christ’s pastorate and that
top and to either side (by about 30 cm in height of the priest Melchizedek (Heb. 5-7; see de
and 15 cm in width, sometime after 1771), La Croix 1969, p. 190). St. Cyril of Alexandria
portions of the altar surround framing the (c. 380-444), kneeling at lower right with his
composition are still visible. Sketched in thin cardinal’s hat and archbishop’s staff on the ground
brown paint are Rubens’s different options for before him, is best remembered for his defense
the design of the altar: a Corinthian column and of the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist at the
Catalogue 229
Fig. 2.
Peter Paul Rubens
Sketch for the Crowning Section of an Altar Frame,
c. 1617-18
Rubenshuis, Antwerp, inv. SI94
Council of Ephesus in 431. He had recently been Cornelis. The central painting, The Glorification
claimed by the Carmelites as an early member of the Eucharist, was executed from Rubens’s
of their order, a claim disputed by many during design by Gerard Seghers (1591-1651); given
the early seventeenth century (among them the that the altar structure was completed only
ecclesiastical historian Cardinal Cesare Baronius). in 1638, the painting may not even have been
Cyril’s inclusion in this august company was begun until after Rubens’s death (see Baudouin
intended to emphasize the illustrious role of the 1991, pp. 46-47).
Carmelite order (described by its adherents as the The Carmelite church and cloister in
oldest monastic order, traced all the way back to Antwerp were abandoned in 1795 following the
Elijah) as historic defenders of the faith. Finally, dissolution of monasteries during the French
nimbly filling the space between figures rooted in Revolution. The buildings, as well as the marble
the earthly realm and God the Father in heaven, altar designed by Rubens and the painting it
putti bearing accoutrements of the Eucharist contained, were destroyed in 1798 (see Baudouin
present a graphic message of the indispensability 1991, pp. 22-23). Unfortunately, we do not have
of that sacrament in achieving redemption. complete information about the final appearance
As Ludwig Burchard (exh. cat. New York of the altar. A drawing by Gaspar Moens dated
1951) was the first to observe, the present sketch 1732 shows the high altar in the Carmelite
represents Rubens’s design for the high altar of church decorated for a feast day; the decorations
the church of the Calced (Shod) Carmelites in (including a painted canvas draped over the
Antwerp, located just a short distance from central image) alas obscure much of the structure
Rubens’s home on the Wapper. The altar was (fig. 1). Nonetheless, it can be seen that of the
commissioned by Sibilla vanden Berghe to fulfill two options presented by Rubens in his oil
the request of her late husband, Filips de Godines sketch, the Corinthian columns were selected
(d. 1633), lord of Cantecroy and receiver general for the altar, and that they were flanked by
of finances in Antwerp (on the history of the altar, figures of women bearing baskets on their heads
see especially Baudouin 1983 and 1991). Although (canephorae). The slim remnant of such a figure
scholars have suggested dates ranging from as can be seen at the left edge of the oil sketch,
early as 1615 to 1635 for The Glorification of the indicating that it figured in Rubens’s original
Eucharist, the sketch is unlikely to predate conception of the ensemble. Surmounting the
Godines’s death. The building of the marble altar altarpiece was an aedicula containing a statue
was begun in 1637, completed by Easter 1638 at of the Virgin and Child, flanked by two angels
a cost of 6,500 guilders, and concecrated in 1642. bearing palms. The design of this feature
The sculptural decoration of the altar was begun closely resembles Rubens’s sketch for analogous
by the sculptor Hans van Mildert (1588-1638), a elements on the high altar of the Jesuit church
close friend and neighbor of Rubens who worked in Antwerp, a design created almost twenty
with him on numerous occasions (see cat. 13), and years earlier (fig. 2).
completed after van Mildert’s death by his son -MEW
34 toward her, is seated in profile holding a spear

with sleeping dogs beneath a tree. She is clad in
Peter Paul Rubens
reddish ocher drapery with yellow highlights,
Aurora and Cephalus
and Cephalus has a red tunic and ocher drapery.
1636
While the landscape is treated in muted browns,
the morning sky is bright with blue-gray, purple,
Oil on panel
and pink hues.
30.8 x 48.5 cm
With the exception of the Diana and Her
The National Gallery, London, no. NG2598
Nymphs Hunting (Alpers 1971, no. 20a), this is the
largest of all the oil sketches for the Torre de la
Parada decorations. The goddess of the dawn fell
in love with a succession of mortal youths, but
her greatest passion was for Cephalus, who at
least initially spurned her. Her obsession with this
young man became so fixed that she neglected
her duties in leading her sister, Helios the sun
goddess, across the skies, thus threatening the
universe. However the story of Aurora and
Cephalus is recounted variously by classical
PROVENANCE: Duke of Infantado; sale duke of Osuna, authors. Ovid (Metamorphoses 7.700ff.) stressed
Madrid, May 11, 1896, lot 135, bought by Colnaghi, that Cephalus did not return Aurora’s love and
London; George Salting, London (1835-1909); was faithful to his wife, Procris. His steadfast
bequeathed by him to the National Gallery in 1910.
fidelity angered the goddess, who as she departed
EXHIBITIONS: London, Agnew & Sons, The Collection of
intimated the couple’s tragic end. Since Rubens’s
Pictures and Drawings of the Late Mr. George Salting, 1910, treatment of the scene scarcely suggests resistance
no. 141; London, National Gallery, 2003-4. on Cephalus’s part, Julius Held (1980, vol. 1,
p. 262) concluded that Rubens consulted other
Literature: Rooses 1886-92, vol. 3 (1889), p. 15, classical sources for the tale: such as Hesiod
no. 516 (as Diana and Endymion)-, Narciso Sentenach y
(Theogony, 985), which was adopted by Pausanius
Cabanas, Catdlogo de los quadros, esculturos, grabada, y otros
(Attica, 3.1), which stated that two became lovers
objectos artisticos de la antique casa ducal de Osuna, espuestos
en el Palacio de la industria y de las artes (Madrid, 1896), and the parents of Phaeton; or the account of
no. 135 (as Venus and Adonis)-, Narciso Sentenach y Apollodous (3.C.15), who distinguished between
Cabanas, La pintura en Madrid desde sus origenes hasta el two different characters named Cephalus, the
siglo XIX (Madrid, 1907), p. 82 (as Echo and Narcissus or one who was the son of Mercury and Herse and
Diana and Endymion)-, Oldenbourg 1921, p. 395 (as Diana
fathered Tithonus; and the second, the son of
and Endymion)-, van Puyvelde 1940, pp. 40, 92, 93, pi. 98;
Deioneus, who married Procris. Rubens probably
M. Jaffe 1964, p. 319, fig. 12 (as Aurora and Cephalus)-,
John Rupert Martin, The Farnese Gallery (Princeton, was also familiar with modern adaptations of
1965), p. 105 n. 96 (as Aurora and Cephalus)-, Gregory the Greek myth, such as the popular play by
Martin, The Flemish School, c. 1600-1900, National Gallery Gabriello Chiabrera (1552-1637), 11 rapimento
Catalogues (London, 1970), p. 197 (as Aurora Abducting di Cephalo, in which Cephalus, however, resists
Cephalus)-, Alpers 1971, pp. 184-85, no. 6a, fig. 71; Held as he was swept away by Aurora in her chariot.
1980, vol. 1, pp. 261-62, no. 173, vol. 2 pi. 181; M. Jaffe
The final full-scale painted version for the
1989, pp. 354—55, no. 1247.
Torre de la Parada is lost but may be identical
with a painting presumably misidentified as
Endymion and Diana, sometimes attributed
to Willeboirts Bosschaert (hidnnien y Diana by
Villebors) in the Spanish royal inventories of 1700,
1747, and 1794 (see Alpers 1971, no. 6). A copy
Having descended from her chariot drawn by two (31 x 47 cm) of the present work in a private
rearing white horses, Aurora, the goddess of the collection in Paris was exhibited in Brussels
dawn rushes in from the left reaching toward the (1965, no. 234), as the original.
youth Cephalus, who, extending his right arm -PCS
Catalogue 231
35
Peter Paul Rubens
Clytie Grieving
1636
Oil on marouflaged panel

15.6 x 14.8 cm (painted surface: 14 x 13.3 cm)
Private Collection
Provenance: (Possibly) the duke of Infantado, Madrid,

by 1800; possibly by descent to Pedro Alcantara de
Toledo y Salm-Salm, thirteenth duke of Infantado
(1768-1841); (possibly) his natural son, the duke of
Pastrana (d. 1888); Michel van Gelder, Uccle, by 1910;
sold in 1930 to August Neuerberg (d. 1944), Hamburg;
Knoedler & Co., New York, 1952; William Surh, Mount
Kisco, N., from 1952; sale New York (Sotheby’s), June 7,
1984, lot 41; P. & D. Colnaghi, London and New York;
sale New York (Sotheby’s), January 30, 1998, lot 75;
Salomon Lilian, New York.
EXHIBITIONS: Brussels 1910, no. 373 (as Penitent

Magdalen, 31x31 cm); London, Dowdeswell Galleries,
A Loan Exhibition of Sketches and Studies by Peter Paul
Rubens, 1912, not in cat.; New York 1995, no no.
Literature: Hippolyte Fierens-Gevaert, ed., exh. cat.

Tresor de Part beige au XVIle siecle (Brussels and Paris,
1912), vol. 1, p. 92, pi. 39; Larsen 1952, p. 219 no. 94; M.
Jaffe 1964, pp. 320, 322 (as Ariadne Abandoned)-, Alpers
1971, pp. 73, 193, no. 1 la; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 254,
265-66, no. 178, vol. 2, p. 187; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 355,
no. 1250; David Jaffe, “Rubens Back and Front: Samson
and Delilah in the National Gallery,” Apollo 152 (August
2000), pp. 22,25.
Catalogue 233
Ovid recounts the tragic tale of Clyde, daughter Despite the compelling pathos of her plight,
of the Babylonian king Orchamus, who loved Clyde’s story was not among the commonly
the sun god Phoebus Apollo beyond all measure illustrated episodes from the Metamorphoses,
(Metamorphoses, 4.256-70). Ignoring the extremity and, as Svetlana Alpers notes, the images in those
of Clyde’s devotion, Apollo turned his amorous editions of the book that do depict the scene have
attentions to her sister, Leucothoe. In a fit of little to do with Rubens’s interpretation (Alpers
jealousy Clyde denounced her sister to their 1971, p. 193). Rubens has not depicted Clyde’s
father, who punished Leucothoe by burying transformation into a flower—Julius Held (1980,
her alive (she was subsequently transformed by vol. 1, p. 266) notes Rubens’s disinclination to
Apollo into a frankincense tree). Distraught over render hybrid forms—or indeed even alluded
Apollo’s continued disregard, Clyde sat unmoving to the transformation, as did Annibale Carracci
on the bare ground for nine days, taking neither by showing Clyde holding a sunflower, another
food nor drink, but merely turning her head heliotropic plant, in her hand (Carracci’s painting
to follow the movements of the sun across the is known through several early copies, one of
sky. She was ultimately transformed into the which is now in the Cincinnati Art Museum,
heliotrope, a flower that rotates to follow the acc. no. 1952.199). Consistent with the thematic
rays of the sun throughout the day. thread that runs throughout his designs for the
Rubens’s diminutive panel is a masterfully Torre de la Parada, in Clytie Grieving Rubens
economical expression of Clyde’s anguish and places the emphasis on love as part of the
despair: the yearning tilt of her head toward the human condition rather than on heroic action
sun’s rays streaming over the treetops (and away or dramatic transformation. He teases out the
from our gaze), the tight knot of her clasped emotional kernel of Ovid’s tale, the all-too-
fingers, the careless drift of clothes and hair human tragedy of Clyde’s single-minded and
that evoke Ovid’s description of her as “naked, inherently doomed love for the god Apollo.
bareheaded, unkempt” in unrequited love. Clytie Grieving is one of several small, fluidly
Catalogue 235
painted sketches—each measuring approximately the composition, Alpers was the first to suggest
14 centimeters square—that Rubens made for correctly that the painting depicted Clyde.
the decorations of Philip IV’s hunting lodge at Although the early provenance of this sketch
the Torre de la Parada in 1636. (See also cats. 36 is not securely documented, it was apparently in
and 37; as well as sketches of Cupid on a Dolphin Spain by the late eighteenth century and among
[Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, a group of forty-six sketches of mythological
Brussels, inv. 4124]; The Abduction ofEuropa, The subjects by Rubens that were first recorded in
Harpies Driven Away by Zetes and Calais, and The the collection of the duke of Infantado in 1800
Death of Hyacinth [Museo del Prado, Madrid, (see J. A. Cean Bermudez, Diccionario historico
invs. 2460, 2458, 2461], and Narcissus [Museum de los mas ilustres professores de las Bellas Artes en
Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. 2518]). Espaha [Madrid, 1800], vol. 4, pp. 272-73). On
The large version of this sketch, recorded in the death of the thirteenth duke of Infantado
the 1700 inventory of the Torre de la Parada in 1841, the majority of the sketches passed to
as hanging in the cubierto (dining room), is no his natural son, the duke of Pastrana, with the
longer extant. Ludwig Burchard was the first to remainder going to his great-nephew, the duke
recognize this work as a study for the decorations of Osuna. When the painting was subsequently
of the Torre de la Parada, although he identified in the Neuerburg collection (1930), it was noted
the subject as Ariadne Abandoned (letter to A. that strips of wood covered with black paint had
Neuerburg, dated 1930; see Alpers 1971, p. 192). been added to the painting on all sides (noted by
The painting had previously been identified Burchard; see Alpers 1971, p. 193). The black
as the Penitent Magdalen; such confusion is paint was removed in 1972.
understandable, given Rubens’s focus on -MEW
emotional content rather than anecdotal detail.
Noting the young woman’s plaintive upward
gaze and the prominent role given the sun in
36
Peter Paul Rubens
The Abduction ofDejanira by Nessns

1636
Oil on panel
18.7 x 14 cm (with approximately 2 mm additions
on right and left edges)
Ivor Foundation
PROVENANCE: Probably bought in Spain by Giorgio

Augusto Wallis of Florence and London (1770-1847)
who was serving as an agent for the dealer William
Buchanan; sale Berlin, May 24, 1895, lot 86, there
purchased by the grandfather of the anonymous
consignor to sale New York (Sotheby’s), January 28,
2000, lot 50.
LITERATURE: M. J. Friedlander, “Versteigerung der

Gemaldesammlung von Giorgio Augusto Wallis,”
Repenorium fur Kunstwissenschaft 18 (1895), p. 241;
M. Jaffe 1964, no. 6, p. 321; Alpers 1971, pp. 199-200,
no. 16a, fig. 93; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 269-70, no. 183;
M. Jaffe 1989, no. 1257.
Catalogue 237
The scene depicts the centaur Nessus’s attempted then covered with blood, would bring Hercules
rape of Dejanira, the wife of Hercules, a subject back to her from any illicit love. When Dejanira
derived from Ovid’s Metamorphoses (9.11-126). subsequently heard of Hercules’ tryst with Iole,
When Hercules and his wife were stopped by she sent him the poisoned tunic, unwittingly
a swollen river, the ferryman Nessus offered to causing his death.
carry them across, but after delivering Dejanira The sketch was the model for a larger canvas
to the opposite bank the centaur attempted to (now lost, but listed in a royal inventory of 1794
violate her. Hercules thwarted the attack by as a work by Erasmus Quellinus) for the Spanish
shooting Nessus with a poisoned arrow. Hercules king Philip IV’s hunting lodge, the Torre de la
is not depicted in the present work, but the Parada, near Madrid. The sketch is also related to
scowling Dejanira, wearing rose drapery which two larger treatments of the theme by Rubens’s
she holds tightly about her thigh, rides sidesaddle studio that are preserved in the Niedersachsisches
on the centaur’s back, her legs tightly crossed Landesmuseum, Hannover (fig. 1) and recorded
to emphasize her rejection of the creature’s in a sale in London, July 29, 1949, lot 39. These
advances. The bearded Nessus grabs her arm two studio variants differ from the present design
with one hand while placing his other hand on in including Hercules firing the poison arrow in
his heart as if declaring his love. Behind them the lower left-hand corner and adding a river
are flourishes of billowing drapery suggesting the god (Evenus) and nymph in the lower right. Both
speed of the abduction, and beneath the centaur also include a flying cupid holding the torch of
a few rapid strokes intimate the shallows of the matrimony and tugging at the centaur’s hair in an
riverbank, thus correctly implying that Nessus’s effort to dissuade him. As Julius Held observed
assault occurred only as they approached the far (1980, vol. 1, p. 270), the pulling of the centaur’s
bank. As with many of Ovid’s tales, the story of hair to subdue his lust was an iconographic topos
Nessus and Dejanira had a cruel twist. As he lay formulated in antiquity and revived in the
dying, Nessus told Dejanira that his tunic, by Renaissance by Sandro Botticelli and others. The
Catalogue 239
Opposite: Fig. 1.
Studio of Peter Paul Rubens
The Abduction ofDejanira by Nessus
Oil on panel, 70.5 x 110 cm
Niedersachsisches Landesmuseum,
Hannover, inv. PAM 859
Fig. 2.
Antonio Tempesta
The Abduction of Dejanira by Nessus
Engraved illustration from Metamorphoseon, sive
Transformationum Ovidianarum Libri quindecim
(Amsterdam, 17th century), 10.5 x 12.1 cm
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Mr. and Mrs.
Marcus Sopher Collection, 1989.1.210
amplification of the theme in the studio variants by contemporary Rubens specialists, including
suggests that the present work was an early Hans Vlieghe. The little sketch has all the
conception of the theme that was followed by compacted vitality, painterly verve, and economy
one or more intervening studies (now lost or of Rubens’s conceptual genius and is surely
unidentified) that added the subsidiary figures. autograph.
Svetlana Alpers (1971, p. 199) first observed There is a panel now generally recognized
that Rubens’s inspiration in his design was as a copy of the present sketch in the Museo del
probably the engraving by Antonio Tempesta in Prado, Madrid (inv. 2460; see Held 1980, vol. 1,
an illustrated edition of Ovid s Metamorphoses, pi. 92). It is noteworthy that the present sketch
which depicts the rearing centaur turning back was probably acquired in Spain by the English
to embrace Dejanira as Hercules fires from the landscape painter Giorgio Augusto Wallis (aka
distant shore (fig. 2). Rubens also executed the George Augustus Wallis) in the years 1807-13,
Death of Nessus (canvas, 78.5 x 62.5 cm, present during which time he served as an agent for the
location unknown; see M. Jaffe 1989, no. 1110; renowned dealer William Buchanan (see W.
engraved by Paulus Pontius; studio versions in Buchanan, Memoirs of Painting (London, 1824),
the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, vol. 2, pp. 202-50). At some moment the Nessus
and Sanssouci, Potsdam), with Dejanira climbing as well as the Atlas (see Alpers 1971, no. 5, the
off the centaur’s back as he expires. original, her fig. 69, is now in Count Seilern’s
For more than a century the present work Collection in the Courtauld Institute, London;
was only known through the reproduction in the Prado’s copy is her fig. 70) from the Torre
the 1895 sale catalogue. It was accepted by de la Parada series were replaced in the Spanish
Ludwig Burchard and Alpers (1971, p. 199, no. royal collections by copies.
16a) but questioned by Max J. Friedlander and -PCS
Held (1980, vol. 1, p. 269). When the picture
resurfaced before the sale in 2000, it was accepted
31
Peter Paul Rubens
Nereid and Triton

c. 1636
Oil on panel
14.5 x 14 cm
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam,
inv. St. 32
PROVENANCE: (Possibly) the duke of Infantado, Madrid

(by 1800); (possibly) by descent to Pedro Alcantara de
Toledo y Salm-Salm, thirteenth duke of Infantado
(1768-1841); private collection, southern France, until
1927; Franz Koenigs, Haarlem, from 1927; on loan to the
Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, 1935-40; purchased from
Koenigs by D. G. van Beuningen, Vierhouten, and given
by him to the Boymans Museum Foundation, 1940.
EXHIBITIONS: Amsterdam 1933, no. 29; Rotterdam,

Museum Boymans, VerzamelingF. Koenigs, Haarlem, 1935,
no. 28; Brussels 1937, no. 127; Rotterdam 1953-54,
no. 111.
LITERATURE: (Possibly) Narciso Sentenach y Cabanas,

La pintura en Madrid desde sus origenes hasta el siglo XIX
(Madrid, 1907), p. 81 (as “el Robo de Andromeda”);
Jakob Burckhardt, Rubens (Vienna, 1938), fig. 118; Leo
van Puyvelde, Skizzen des Peter Paul Rubens (Frankfurt,
1939), pp. 46, 102, no. 100; van Puyvelde 1947, pp. 43,
94, no. 100; E. Haverkamp Begemann, Museum
Boymans-Gids Schilderkunst en Beeldhouvowerken
(Rotterdam, 1951), p. 139, no. 388c; J. C. Ebbinge
Wubben, Catalogus Schilderijen tot 1800, Museum Boymans
Van Beuningen Rotterdam (Rotterdam, 1962), no. St. 32;
R.-A. d’Hulst, Olieverfschetsen van Rubens uit Nederlands
en Belgisch openbaar bezit (n.p., 1968), no. 51; Alpers 1971,
pp. 76, 242-43, no. 44a; Museum Boymans-van Beuningen
Old Paintings, 1400-1900 (Rotterdam, 1972), pp. 120 ill.,
220; A. P. de Mirimonde, “Rubens et la musique,”
Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten
Antwe?pen, 1977, p. 143; Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 288,
no. 205, vol. 2, pi. 214; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 361, no. 1304;
Nora de Poorter, Guido Jansen, and Jeroen Giltaij,
Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Eigen collectie: Rubens
en zijn tijd (Rotterdam, 1990), pp. 126-27.
Catalogue 241
With a few swift strokes, Rubens has delineated composed for the project, Nereid and Triton
the powerfully muscled figure of a triton does not illustrate a specific mythological tale.
skimming over the waves as he sounds a mighty Tritons, half-human and half-fish, and their
blast on his conch. The triton’s right arm is beautiful female companions, the nereids, were
wrapped around the waist of the plump young among the lower orders of sea gods dwelling in
woman perched comfortably on his piscine the Mediterranean Sea. They were frequently
back. Legs crossed, she gazes out unconcernedly, conscripted as Neptune’s escorts—compare
combing the fingers of her left hand through the figures at the lower left of Rubens’s sketch
her long hair. for The Duke of Buckingham (cat. 15)—and are
Nereid and Triton is one of a number of tiny, often present at the Birth of Venus (Venus
fluidly painted sketches that Rubens made as Anadyomene). Rubens’s detailed modello for an
part of his designs for the decorations of Philip oval silver basin or platter depicting the Birth
IV’s hunting lodge at the Torre de la Parada in of Venus, painted just a few years before the
1636 (on the commission, see Alpers 1971; and in Torre de la Parada sketch, shows three nereids
the present catalogue, cats. 35 and 36, the latter accompanying the goddess while another trails
entry noting additional sketches sharing the same the group, reclining gracefully on the back of a
format). Unlike the majority of scenes Rubens triton (fig. 1). As Svetlana Alpers noted (1971,
Catalogue 243
Opposite: Fig. 1. Fig. 2.

The Bath of Venus, c. 1632-33 The Birth of Venus, c. 1636
Black chalk and oil on oak panel, 61 x 78 cm Oil on panel, 26.5 x 28.3 cm
The National Gallery, London, inv. NG1195 Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels,
inv. 4106
p. 243), Rubens seems to have adopted the pose several small designs were cut from a single large
of this triton for his counterpart in the present panel. More puzzling are the ruled lines running
sketch, although the nereid’s pose is somewhat vertically through several sketches for the project
different. Nereids and tritons figure also in (as, for example, The Birth of Venus, fig. 2).
Rubens’s Triumph of the Sea-Born Venus, a modello These markings appear only in sketches for
for an ivory saltcellar carved by Georg Petel the Torre de la Parada, and their apparently
(Welbeck Woodhouse, coll. Bentinck [Held 1980, arbitrary placement bears no relation to the
vol. 1, no. 266]); and in his rendering of the Birth painted composition. A convincing explanation
of Venus for the decorations of the Torre de la for these lines has yet to be proposed (see
Parada, where they are joined by Neptune (fig. 2). Alpers 1971, p. 67).
Near the right and lower edges of the Nereid The large version of Nereid and Triton based
and Triton panel are ruled lines drawn in black on this sketch, mentioned in the 1700 and 1747
chalk. A number of Rubens’s oil sketches for the inventories of the Torre de la Parada, appears
Torre de la Parada show similar marks, which to be lost, nor is it known who among Rubens’s
may have been used to indicate the boundary of studio assistants might have painted it.
an individual sketch when (as was probably the -MEW
case with the smaller Torre de la Parada sketches)
38
(Exhibited in Berkeley and Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
The Martyrdom of St. Paul

c. 1637
Oil on panel
38 x 22.9 cm
Private Collection
PROVENANCE: Mr. Wallace, from whom purchased Literature: Waagen 1854-57, vol. 2 (1854), p. 200
in Florence in 1847 by Sir Robert Staynor Holford (as A. van Dyck, “the beheading of a saint”); Rooses
(1808-1892) and housed at Russell Square, and from 1886-92, vol. 2 (1888), pp. 333-35, no. 478; Rosenberg
1856 at Dorchester House, Park Lane, London; Sir 1905, p. 418; R. Benson, The Holford Collection, Dorchester
George Lindsay Holford, Dorchester House, London; House (London, 1927), vol. 2, no. 116, pi. 104; W. Gibson,
his sale London (Christie’s), May 17-18, 1928, lot 38 “The Holford Collection,” Apollo 7 (May 1928),
(650 guineas to Knoedler’s, London); with Scott and pp. 198-99; Goris and Held 1947, p. 36, no. 67; F. van
Fowles, New York, 1937; Joseph J. Kerrigan, New York, Molle, “Nieuwe Notas bij een verloren werk van P. P.
by 1947; Charles E. Roseman, Cleveland Heights, OH; Rubens,” in Revue Beige d’Archeologie et d’Histoire de I’Art
with Frederic Mont, New York, c. 1963; with Newhouse 21 (1952), pp. 127-33; Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, vol. 1,
Galleries, New York, from whom purchased in 1963 by p. 311; H. Vlieghe, “De marteldood van der H. Petrus,
Thomas Mellon Evans, Greenwich, CT; his sale, New een olieverschets door Gaspar de Crayer,” Bulletin
York (Christie’s), May 22, 1998, lot 32. Museum. Boym.ans-van Beuningen 17 (1952), p. 18, fig. 12;
J. S. Held, “Jan van Boeckhorst as Draughtsman,” Bulletin
EXHIBITIONS: Winston-Salem, Public Library, Collectors’’ des Muse'e Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 16 (1967),
Opportunity, 1963, pp. 38-39 (lent by Newhouse Gallery); p. 142; Hans Vlieghe, Saints, I-II, Corpus Rubenianum
Worcester, MA, Worcester Art Museum, The Collectors’ Ludwig Burchard, pt. 8 (Brussels, 1972-73), vol. 2,
Cabinet, cat. by James Welu, 1984, no. 29, ill. pp. 133-34, no. 137a, pi. 91; John Rowlands, in exh.
cat. London 1977, under no. 190; Held 1980, vol. 1,
pp. 582-83, no. 423, vol. 2, pi. 412; G. Langemeyer,
“Kunsthistorische Nachbemerkungen zum Katalog
der Werke des Johann Boekhorst,” Westfalen 60 (1982),
p. 194, fig. 13.
Catalogue 245
The story of St. Paul’s martyrdom is told in likelihood was installed in 1638 because that year
Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend (Legenda Rubens was paid 1,500 Rhenish florins by the
Aarea) for June 30. Condemned to death by monastery. Thus the modello is logically dated
Emperor Nero, Paul was taken to the place of his about 1637. Unfortunately, the final painting
execution outside the Ostia Gate in Rome, hence was destroyed during the French bombardment
the appearance of Pyramid of Cestius in the of Brussels in 1695. The altarpiece probably
background. On his way he not only converted resembled the sketch closely. It too had an arched
three of the Roman soldiers who were his captors top, conformed according to early descriptions
(here represented by the soldiers in armor at the to the sketch, and to judge from its architectural
bottom and to the left of the scene) but also frame that survives in Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-ten-
drew the sympathy of a Roman matron named Poel in Tienen, Brabant, measured no less than
Plautilla, or Lemobia, who was a Christian. She 420 by 270 centimeters; the frame was acquired
asked him to pray for her and he responded by at auction when the Rood Kloster was suppressed
asking her for her veil with which to cover his by Joseph II, the Austrian emperor, in 1784.
eyes, assuring her that she could have it back The sketch was acquired in the nineteenth
when the grisly execution was over. The century by Sir George Lindsay Holford, one
executioners mocked her, saying, “How canst of the most distinguished collectors and
thou give this precious object to such an connoisseurs of his day, as a work by Anthony
imposter.” In depicting the story, Rubens has van Dyck. Its attribution was changed to Rubens
taken creative license for dramatic effect in by Max Rooses in 1888 and has never since
having the saint already kneeling and bound been challenged. The dispersal of the Holford
with rope so that Plautilla must blindfold him collection in 1927 and 1928 was one of the most
herself. At the center of the composition, St. Paul important sales of old masters of the twentieth
is in gray-violet drapery, Plautilla extends her veil century and held the record for the total value
while wearing deeper purple drapery, and the of a single sale for more than two decades. When
powerful executioner seen from the rear wears the curator of the National Gallery in London,
an olive green tunic. At the bottom are soldiers William Gibson, reviewed the sale in 1928 he
and women and children, and at the left two was especially flattering in his praise of this work,
centurions, one in red with a helmet, holding- commending the picture’s “very great pictorial
spears witness the event. Over the brow of the idea,” and added that “in a study like this one
hill, a mounted soldier in rose on a white steed is sees what profundity, what subtlety Rubens was
glimpsed beyond the executioner. A genius hovers capable of, that he was not merely an amazingly
in the air above, poised to award Paul the martyr’s powerful rhetorician, and perhaps the greatest
laurel wreath, while two putti carry his palm. executant [sic\ in paint, but a very great artist.”
This modello is the only complete study for The altarpiece in the Rood Klooster
the large painting for the high altar of the church inspired another large altarpiece originally in the
of the Augustinian priory of Rood Klooster (also Dominican church of Antwerp and now in the
Rooklooster) near Brussels, of which St. Paul was Madeleine at Aix-en-Provence (Vlieghe 1972-73,
the patron saint. (The monastery is where the vol. 2, no. 138). It was originally attributed in
great Northern Renaissance painter, Hugo van early descriptions to Rubens’s pupil Theodor
der Goes, spent his final days.) The painting was Boeyermans (1620-1678), then assigned to
probably commissioned by Adriaan van der Reest Gaspar de Crayer and at times promoted to
(d. 1648), who became the twenty-fifth prior of Rubens himself, before being plausibly assigned
the monastery in 1635. The altarpiece in all once again by Leo van Puyvelde (“La Decollation
Catalogue 247
Fig. l.
Peter Paul Rubens and an Assistant(sP)
The Martyrdom of St. Paul
Black chalk and brush with oil colors,
71 x 51.5 cm (arched top)
British Museum, London, inv. N.G. 853-E. 1973 U.1357
de Saint Paul d’Aix en Provence, non de Rubens Aix. Clearly, Rubens’s original conception
mais de Boeyermans,” Revue Beige dArcheologie documented in the present sketch was a work
et dHistoire de VArt 27 [1958], pp. 29ff.) to of enduring influence.
Boeyermans, an attribution supported by Hans As Vlieghe (1972-73), Held (1980), and others
Vlieghe (1972-73), and dated 1670, the date have pointed out, Rubens recycled several figural
that appears on the frame. The chief difference motifs in the present work: the executioner’s pose
between the altarpiece in Aix and the composition appeared in the Martyrdom of St. Catherine of
of the present sketch is that in the former the 1615 (Musee des Beaux-Arts, Lille) and in reverse
figures in the foreground are viewed full-length. in the Judgment of Solomon of about 1611-12
In this regard the painting in Aix closely (Museo del Madrid, Prado); the soldier leaning
resembles a drawing in the British Museum in on his lance figured in Decius Mus Relating His
London (fig. 1), the authorship of which has Dreams of about 1617 (cat. 5); and the group
been much disputed (Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, of the Christian spectators and a Roman soldier
vol. 1, no. 195 [as Rubens]; Vlieghe 1972-73, viewed half-length in the foreground recalls
p. 136, no. 138a [as Boeyermans]; Rowlands, in the organization of the group of soldiers in the
exh cat. London 1977, cat. 190 [as Rubens with Bearing of the Cross completed in 1637 for the
an assistant]; Held 1980, vol. 1, p. 583 [“Rubens Benedictine monastery of Sts. Paul and Peter at
had a hand in it”]). The drawing has gone Afflighem (see the related sketches, Held 1980,
through multiple reworkings, possibly by more vol. 1, nos. 347, 348, vol. 2, pis. 341, 342). The
than one hand, and further complicating matters, pose of the executioner may ultimately be
has been cut up and pasted together to create the derived from Raphael’s fresco in the Stanza
image with full-length figures in the foreground della Segnatura in the Vatican.
that corresponds most closely to the painting in -PCS
39
Peter Paul Rubens
The Elevation of the Cross
c. 1637-38
Oil on paper, backed by canvas

60 x 126.5 cm (later enlarged to 70 x 131.5 cm)
Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto. Purchase, 1928,
acc. no. 906
Provenance: Hyacinthe Rigaud (1659-1743), Paris; sale as modello for print); Adolph Rosenberg, “Die
Hyacinthe Collin de Vermont et Hyacinthe Rigaud, Paris Rubensstecher,” in Geschichte der vervielfaltigenden
(Didot), November 14, 1761, lot 71 (“Elevation de Notre Kiinste, ed. C. von Liitzow (Vienna, 1893), p. 138;
Seigneur en Croix, Tableau non fmi,” 48 francs); sold to Oldenbourg 1921, pp. 455-56; Gustav Gluck, “Rubens
Drouin for Louis Francois de Bourbon (1717-1776), Kreuzaufrichtungsaltar,” Belgische Kunstdenkmdler, 1922,
prince de Conti, for 3,810 livres; sale prince de Conti, pp. 171-72; Gustav Gluck, Rubens, Van Dyck und ihr Kreis
Paris (Remy), April 8-June 6, 1777, lot 240 (withdrawn); (Vienna, 1933), pp. 68-70, fig. 40 (as study for Antwerp
sale Martin de Brouwer (Brussels), Brussels (de Roi), July painting); Goris and Held 1947, p. 51, no. A.57; Frits
31, 1788, lot 24 (720 florins, to Edouard Walkiers); Lugt, Inventaire general des dessins des e'coles du nord, e'coles
Jeremiah Harman, London, by 1815; his sale, London flamandes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1949), vol. 2, p. 51; Christopher
(Christie’s), 1844 (£787.10, to Holford); sale Sir George Norris, “Rubens’s ‘Adoration of the Kings’ of 1609,”
L. Holford, London (Christie’s), May 17-18, 1928, lot 37 Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 14 (1963), p. 152;
(5,460 guineas, to A. Martin for the Art Gallery of Michael Jaffe, “Masterworks in Canada: Rubens’
Ontario). Elevation of the Cross,” Canadian Art 22 (1965), p. 52;
Gregory Martin, “Two Working Sketches for Engravings
EXHIBITIONS: London, British Institution, Pictures by Produced by Rubens,” The Burlington Magazine 108
Rubens, Rembrandt, Vandyke and Other Artists of the Flemish (1966), pp. 239-40, fig. 17; Muller Hofstede 1966, p. 451;
and Dutch Schools, 1815, no. 21; Manchester, Art Treasures Justus Muller Hofstede, “Rubens’ Grisaille fur den
of the United Kingdom, cat. by G. Scharf, 1857, no. 566; Abendmahlsstich des Boetius a Bolswert,” Pantheon 38,
London, Royal Academy of Arts, Works by the Old Masters: no. 2 (1970), p. 109 (as c. 1619); Konrad Renger, “Rubens
and the Deceased Masters of the British School, 1887, no. 122; Dedit Dedicavitque. Rubens’ Beschaftigung mit der
London, Royal Academy of Arts, Exhibition of Works by Druckgrafik, I: Der Kupferstich,” Jahrbuch der Berliner
Van Dyck, 1599-1641, 1900, no. 134 (as van Dyck); Museen 16 (1974), pp. 159-60, 170, fig. 19; Julius S. Held,
London, Royal Academy of Arts, Exhibition of Flemish and “Rubens’ Leopards—a Milestone in the Portrayal of Wild
Belgian Art, 1300-1900, 1927, no. 279; Detroit 1936, no. Animals,” M. A Quarterly Review of the Montreal Museum
38, ill.; Los Angeles 1946, no. 10, ill.; London, Ontario, of Fine Arts 7, no. 3 (1975), p. 5; Didier Bodart, in exh.
University of Western Ontario, McIntosh Memorial cat. Rome, Villa della Farnesina, Rubens e I’incisione nelle
Gallery, 15th-16th-17th Century Flemish Masters, 1957, collezione del Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe, cat. by
no no.; Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, Rubens and His Didier Bodart, 1977, p. 144; Held 1980, vol. 1, no. 351,
Age: Treasures from the Hermitage Museum, Russia, 2001, pp. 482-84, vol. 2, pi. 346; Logan 1981, p. 514; Michael
hors catalogue. Jaffe, “The Oil Sketches of Rubens,” Apollo 115 (1982),
p. 62; Pohlen 1985, pp. 135-36, 138-39, 298-99, fig. 56a;
Literature: Smith 1829-42, vol. 2 (1830), p. 2, no. 2; White 1987, p. 139, fig. 157, p. 141; M. Jaffe 1989,
Waagen 1854-57, vol. 2 (1854), pp. 199, 200, vol. 4 pp. 367-68, no. 1357; exh. cat. Cambridge 1990, p. 20;
(1857), p. 102; Thore-Biirger [Theophile Thore], Tresors Judson 2000, no. 20k, pp. 105-9, pi. 77; Art Gallery of
d’art en Angleterre, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1865), pp. 196-97 (“une Ontario: Selected Works (Toronto, 1990), p. 86; F. W. H.
esquisse superbe, la plus remarquable que le maitre nous Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings, and
ait laissee”); Rooses 1886-92, vol. 2 (1888), pp. 77-78, Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700, 62 vols. to date (1949—),
nos. 275—77bis, vol. 5 (1892), p. 325 (correctly identified vol. 53 (1999), pp. 100-101.
Catalogue 249
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
The Raising of the Cross, 1610-11
Oil on panel, 460 x 340 cm (center panel)
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwkerk, Antwerp
church wardens of St. Walburga in 1610 (fig. 2),

makes it clear that although he had determined
the basic design of the altarpiece he was still
refining details of the composition at this stage.
The figure of Christ on the cross is conceived
in a more static horizontal position, and the
horsemen and crucified thieves appear both in
the background of the central panel and on the
right wing, suggesting that only in the process
of painting the Paris sketch had Rubens decided
to treat the wings as an extension of the central
design (J. R. Martin 1969, p. 41). Bursting with
dynamic movement and intensely affective
emotion, Rubens’s final design resulted in what
The Toronto Elevation of the Cross served as was perhaps the first fully Baroque altarpiece
the modello for Hans (Johannes) Witdoek’s 1638 executed in the North.
engraving after one of Rubens’s early Antwerp The boldly sculpted forms and dramatic
triumphs, the imposing altarpiece painted in chiaroscuro of the St. Walburga altarpiece
1610-11 for the church of St. Walburga in were ideally suited to reproduction in print.
Antwerp (fig. 1; for a detailed analysis of the Yet Witdoek’s engraving (fig. 3) only appeared
commission, see Judson 2000, pp. 93-94, and twenty-seven years after the original painting.
G. Martin 1966, passim). Presumably at the Rubens had apparently thought to have a print
insistence of the church fathers, the St. Walburga engraved after The Elevation of the Cross several
altarpiece assumed a traditional triptych form, years earlier, however: in a letter dated January
with the principal subject-—the Raising of 23, 1619 (see Magurn 1955, p. 69), he included
the Cross—occupying the central panel. This the composition in a list of prints that he
portion of the design fairly explodes with raw intended to have engraved “in my presence by
physical power, as a team of muscular soldiers a well-intentioned young man”—presumably
and executioners hauls the cross bearing Christ’s Lucas Vorsterman (1596-1675), who initially
body to an upright position. Transcending the enjoyed a successful and productive collaboration
structural limitations of the rather old-fashioned with Rubens as the engraver of his compositions.
triptych format, Rubens boldly linked the After a violent falling-out with Rubens, in 1622
flanking scenes to the central composition Vorsterman left his studio, and no print was
through the use of a contiguous landscape made of The Elevation of the Cross.
background. The left wing depicts the Virgin, Some years later Rubens revived the idea of
St. John, and several distraught witnesses before having the St. Walburga altarpiece reproduced
a rocky bluff overgrown with trees; the right in an engraving and painted the Toronto sketch
depicts the two thieves crucified alongside Christ for the engraver Hans Witdoek to work from.
and Roman soldiers mounted on restive steeds. The modello incorporates several changes from
Rubens’s preliminary modello for The Raising the original tripartite composition. Most notably,
of the Cross, the sketch shown to the priest and Rubens placed the figures in one continuous
Catalogue 251
Fig. 2. Fig. 3.
Peter Paul Rubens Hans Witdoek after Peter Paul Rubens
The Raising of the Cross, 1610 The Elevation of the Cross, 1638
Oil on panel, three panels, 67 x 25 cm, Engraving, 61.8 x 125.5 cm
67x51 cm, and 67 x 25 cm British Museum, London, inv. R-3-78
Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. MNR 411
space, eliminating the breaks necessitated by the As was the norm for modelli (or modeletti)
altarpiece frame and completing those figures Rubens painted expressly as models for
once abruptly cropped by the frame. While printmakers’ use (cf. cats. 29 and 30), The
maintaining the three main figural groupings, Elevation of the Cross is primarily painted in
he has connected them by introducing additional neutral tones of gray and brown. The Toronto
figures (the witnesses perched on the cliff left sketch is unique, however, in the unusually lavish
of center) and landscape elements (the distant addition of rich color accents throughout the
view of Jerusalem right of center), and generally composition. As Held (1980, p. 483) and others
loosening the tightly compacted groupings of the have noted, the addition of color as well as the
original composition. These changes are entirely painting’s large size suggest that Rubens may
in keeping with Rubens’s tendency toward looser well have conceived of the Toronto sketch as an
arrangements in his later works and create a more independent painting, and possibly as a personal
fluid composition with greater narrative clarity gift to his longtime friend and patron Cornelis
and a more natural recession into space. van der Geest (see Judson 2000, p. 108). Van der
As J. Richard Judson has noted, the technique Geest (1555-1638), a wealthy spice merchant, had
of the Toronto sketch, with its broadly brushed a long history of support for the arts in Antwerp
anatomy and drapery, stongly contoured shadows, and had been instrumental in securing the
and precisely drawn highlights, suggests a date in St. Walburga commission for the young Rubens
the 1630s (Judson 2000, p. 107). Unlike most of barely a year after the artist’s return from Rome
Rubens’s oil sketches, it is painted in oils on paper (on van der Geest as a patron and collector,
over an initial outline in black chalk and mounted see Julius S. Held, “Artis Pictoriae Amator, an
on panel (since transferred to canvas). The Antwerp Art Patron and His Collection,” Gazette
unusual choice of support may have been what des Beaux-Arts 50 [1957], pp. 53-84). Witdoek’s
led Ludwig Burchard to question the attribution engraving of The Elevation of the Cross bears a
of the Toronto painting to Rubens; he suggested dedication to van der Geest, describing him as
instead that it was perhaps done by Anthony van “the best of men and the oldest of friends, in
Dyck for the engraving by Lucas Vorsterman whom ever since youth he [Rubens] found a
planned in 1619, or by Vorsterman himself, but constant patron,” and adds that the engraving
in either case averred that the sketch was at the represented “a souvenir of eternal friendship”
very least retouched by Rubens (Burchard’s between Rubens and van der Geest.
opinions are cited in Judson 2000, pp. 108-9). -MEW
40
Peter Paul Rubens
Hercules Strangling the Nemean Lion
c. 1639
Oil on panel with traces of red chalk

23 x 39.2 cm
Busch-Reisinger Museum,
Harvard University Art Museums,
Gift of Dr. Charles and Nobuko Kuhn in
honor of Charles L. Kuhn, Curator of the
Busch-Reisinger Museum, 1930-1968,
acc. no. 2000.199
Provenance: Prince Lichnowsky, Kuchelna, Berlin;

Willy Hess, Berlin-Dahlem, sale Lucerne, September 1,
1931, no. 10; Dr. Charles L. Kuhn, Cambridge, MA,
bequeathed, 2000.
EXHIBITIONS: Detroit 1936, no. 44; Cincinnati,

Cincinnati Art Museum, Nicholas Poussin-Peter Paul
Rubens, 1948, no. 13; New York 1951, no. 17;
Cambridge/New York 1956, no. 29.
LITERATURE: Valentiner 1946, no. 94; Goris and Held

1947, no. 72; Ludwig Burchard and R.-A. d’Hulst, in exh.
cat. Antwerp 1956, under no. 80; Michael Jaffe, “Rubens
and Giulio Romano at Mantua,” The Art Bulletin 40
(1958), p. 327 n. 20; Burchard and d’Hulst 1963,
pp. 298-99, under no. 190; Alpers 1971, pp. 274, n.,
and 277; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 311-12, vol. 2, pi. 230.
Catalogue 253
254 D RAWN BY THE BRUSH: OlL SKETCHES BY PETER PAUL RUBENS
Fig. 1.
Peter Paul Rubens
Studies for the Labors of Hercules
Red and black chalk and brown ink on paper, 30 x 47 cm
British Museum, London, no. 1897-6-15-12
Hercules’ labors were penance for slaying his own the four studies on this sheet of Hercules and
children in a fit of madness. Having offended the Nemean Lion, Rubens depicts Hercules looking
Olympians, he was given a menial role serving a out of the picture and encircling the lion’s neck,
mortal. The Delphic oracle ordered that he serve as in the present work; but as Julius Held
Eurystheus, king of the Tiryns, for twelve years. observed (1980, vol. 1, p. 330), it is only in
Among the twelve labors imposed on Hercules the very summary outline sketch at the bottom
by the king, the first was the killing of a lion center that Rubens depicts the animal seen from
that had terrorized the citizens of Nemea. When the side. Rubens made several additional designs
his weapons proved inadequate, he strangled the of the subject, one of which exists in a painting
creature. Following this initial victory Hercules attributed by Michael Jaffe to Rubens and dated
wore the lion’s pelt as his emblem. Initially about 1615 (1977, p. 117 n. 75; and 1989, p. 203,
celebrated simply as tales of victorious strength, no. 290), but which, like a copy in Sanssouci,
the labors acquired moral associations as the Potsdam, may only be a workshop product.
triumphs of good over evil. Rubens also developed the subject in three other
In the present scene, the mighty Hercules drawings: in a loose chalk sketch in the print
chokes the lion, wrapping his left arm around room in Antwerp (Held 1959, no. 34, ill. 32);
the animal’s throat. Both the muscular hero and in a much more finished study at the Clark
enraged creature look out at the viewer as they Art Institute in Williamstown, Massachusetts,
struggle. A second lion is visible in a landscape depicting the scene in a landscape with the
at the back right. Hercules wears gray drapery second lion disappearing into a cave (fig. 2);
and there are accents of red in his face, but most and in a careful study mostly of Hercules’
of the scene is very lightly brushed with gray musculature in the Cabinet des Dessins in the
priming on the ivory-colored ground. Some Louvre (see exh. cat. Paris, Musee du Louvre,
red underdrawing in the lion’s head suggests Rubens, ses maitres, ses e'leves, dessins du Musee
that Rubens first sketched the animal in chalk. du Louvre, 1978, no. 13, ill.). The dating and
The subject of Hercules with the Nemean sequence of these drawings have been debated,
Lion was treated by Rubens repeatedly in his with Egbert Haverkamp Begemann suggesting
career. In a drawing in the British Museum he (Drawings from the Clark Institute [Williamstown,
executed a series of very quick studies of the MA, 1964], no. 20) that the red chalk drawing
different labors (fig. 1; Held 1959, no. 61, ill. 73; in Williamstown might date from the Italian
see also exh. cat. London 1977, no. 184, ill.). In period, about 1605-8, but which is dated after
Catalogue 255
Fig. 2. Fig. 3.
Hercules Strangling the Nemean Lion, c. 1620 Hercules Strangling the Nemean Lion
Red, yellow, and black chalk, brush and red ink, and Oil on panel, 22.3 x 31.4 cm
white heightening, 31.8 x 48.4 cm Musee Jacquemart-Andre, Paris, inv. 1-840
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute,
Williamstown, Massachusetts, no. 1955.992
the return to Antwerp by others (see exh. cat. 1951, and Cambridge/New York 1956) put its
Paris 1978, p. 31). In classical models, such origin at about 1620, which is probably too early.
as sarcophagi reliefs, where Rubens probably Leo van Puyvelde (1940, p. 42) dated it later but
first studied the subject in Rome, Hercules is incorrectly believed it was part of the Torre de la
depicted standing upright holding the animal in a Parada series. In 1959 Held (1959, under no. 242)
vertical position. But in converting the subject to first proposed a date in the 1630s, a suggestion
a more horizontal design, he probably consulted accepted by Ludwig Burchard and R.-A. d’Hulst
Renaissance Italian chiaroscuro prints, specifically (1963, p. 299) and Alpers (1971, p. 274). In 1980
those by G. Nicolo Vincentino (see exh. cat. Held (vol. 1, p. 312) further likened the style of
London 1977, fig. 62) and those attributed the present work to the hunt scenes that Rubens
to Niccolo Boldrini, both after Raphael (see executed at the end of his life for the royal palace
Held 1959, vol. 1, p. 108). The more horizontal in Madrid (see cats. 41-43). He further suggested
treatment is fully realized in Rubens’s very freely that an oblong painting (c. 125 x 167 cm) by
brushed oil sketch in the Musee Jacquemart- Rubens of Hercules Killing the Lion, now lost,
Andre, Paris (fig. 3; Held 1980, vol. 1, cat. 242, which was recorded in the 1686 inventory of
vol. 2, pi. 276). Held has characterized the present the royal palace (Alpers 1971, p. 275) should be
work as a “neat” edition of the Paris sketch. Not connected with the present sketch, which he
only is the drawing of the figure and animal dates about 1639. The less fully developed
more clearly outlined, but also the lion’s left Jacquemart-Andre version (fig. 3) therefore
foreleg now crosses Hercules’ right thigh and would date somewhat earlier, or perhaps the
the second lion at the back is much clearer. mid- to late 1630s.
Dates proposed for the present sketch when it -PCS
appeared in exhibitions (Detroit 1936, New York
41
Peter Paul Rubens
Bear Hunt
c. 1639
Oil on panel
26 x 53.7 cm
The Cleveland Museum of Art,
Leonard C. Hanna Fund, 1983.69
PROVENANCE: Sale London (Christie’s), April 11, 1930,

lot 91, to Rothschild; A. G. Frey, from whom purchased
by Thos. Agnew, London (before 1933), who sold it to
G. Huntington Hartford, New York, 1937; with Agnew’s,
London, 1973; private collection, 1974; with Agnew’s,
London, 1979; private collection, Portugal, 1980; sale
London (Sotheby’s), June 23, 1983, lot 40, ill.; with
Newhouse Galleries, New York; purchased by the
museum in 1983.
EXHIBITIONS: London, Thos. Agnew & Sons, Landscapes

of the 11th and 18th Centuries, 1935, no. 9; London,
Christie’s, Fanfare for Europe, 1973, no. 28; Madrid
1977-78, no. 94; London, Thos. Agnew & Sons, Old
Master Paintings. Recent Acquisitions, 1979, no. 18.
LITERATURE: Larsen 1952, p. 200, under no. 112; C. R.

Bordley, Rubens ou Snyders? (Paris, 1955), pp. 85, 147,
fig. 81 (as Snyders); The Burlington Magazine 65 (1973),
p. 53, fig. 51; M. Diaz Padron, in exh. cat. Madrid
1977-78, p. 110, no. 94, ill.; Michael Jaffe, “Exhibitions
for the Rubens Year, III,” The Burlington Magazine 120
(1978), p. 346, no. 94; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 305-6,
309-10, no. 225, vol. 2, pi. 235; Bulletin of the Cleveland
Museum of Art 71 (February 1984), p. 68, no. 23, ill.
p. 69; M. Jaffe 1989, p. 372, no. 1381, ill.; Alan Chong,
European and American Painting in the Cleveland Musewn
of Art: A Summary Catalogue (Cleveland, 1993), p. 208.
Catalogue 257
In a rapid brush drawing executed primarily Ruelens 1887-1909, vol. 6 [1909], pp. 232, 237),
in shades of brown, two mounted hunters, two implying that the large final paintings were not
attendants on foot, and a half dozen hounds personally executed by either master. The large
attack two large bears in a landscape. The paintings have been assumed to have been
horseman on the left wields a sword as he is destroyed by a fire in the palace in 1734,
bitten on the shoulder by the rearing bear. His but Julius Held (1980, p. 305) identified two
jacket is a light purple and his horse a roan. The surviving paintings that may be either copies
horseman at the center wears a rose jacket and or the originals in the Museo Arqueologico in
sits astride a charging white and gray horse. Both Gerona, Spain (Balis 1986, nos. 25, 26, figs. 124,
horsemen have plumed hats. One of the running 126), and three other copies in the Musee des
hunters at the back blows a horn and the other Beaux-Arts in Nunes, France (Balis 1986, figs.
brandishes a lance. In the violence of the hunt 113, 115, 134). A large version of the present
several of the dogs, many of which are spattered design is among the latter works (oil on canvas,
with blood, have been thrown to the ground, 110 x 280 cm; inv. IP-293), and a fragmentary
while others attack the beasts. A hillock in shades canvas in the North Carolina Museum of Art in
of blue-green rises on the right. Several changes Raleigh corresponds closely to the left-hand side
reveal Rubens subtly editing himself: the horses’ of the present composition, save for the fact that
legs, the right hind leg of the rearing bear, and the central horseman has a beard (fig. 1). Held
the paw of the hound thrown to the ground in observed that the Raleigh painting is superior
the right center all show pentimenti. in quality to the copy in France but concluded
This is one of a series of sketches (see cats. that it was probably substantially the work of
42 and 43) that Rubens executed on a long and assistants. Balis (1986, no. 27, p. 262), by contrast,
narrow format in 1639 to serve as models for a gave the attribution the benefit of the doubt
set of eight large paintings on hunting topics to because the canvas was probably damaged in
decorate the Pieza Ochavada and Boveda del the Madrid fire, amputated, and extensively
Palacio in the Alcazar, Philip IV’s royal palace in repainted. He felt that Rubens had a hand in the
Madrid. Some of the series depict mythological execution of the Raleigh painting, specifically
hunts, such as the Hunt of Diana, the Death of in the heads of the figures, while attributing the
Adonis, and the Death of Silvia’s Stag, while animals to Frans Snyders. He further observed
others, including the present work, depict that the poses of several of the dogs and of the
contemporary hunts with anonymous hunters. horse on the left of the composition recur
A letter dated June 22, 1639, from the Cardinal elsewhere in Rubens’s work; see, for example,
Infante to his brother, the king, reports that work the oil sketch the Lion Hunt (The National
had begun on the series, and a second letter dated Gallery, London, no. 853P). Balis (ibid.) also
July 22 indicates that the sketches from Rubens’s suggested that the motif of the bear biting the
hand had been finished. The second letter also horseman could have been inspired by a print by
states that the sketches would be distributed Stradanus (Jan van der Straet), and the horseman
“among those whom Rubens and Snyders entrust on the right was borrowed from an etching by
[with their execution]” (respectively, Rooses and Antonio Tempesta. Svetlana Alpers (1971, p. 39)
Catalogue 259
showed that the theory first advanced by Wilhelm Fig. 1.

Valentiner that the Raleigh picture (and thus by Attributed to Peter Paul Rubens, Frans Snyders,
and Studio
implication the Cleveland sketch) was done for
The Bear Hunt, 1639-40
the Torre de la Parada is incorrect.
Copies of the present sketch appeared in two (cut down at the right; original width c. 300 cm)
sales: panel, 34 by 51.5 centimeters, sale Berlin North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh,
(Graupe), May 27, 1935, lot 64; and panel, 55.5 Purchased with funds from the State of North Carolina
by 104 centimeters, sale London (Christie’s), acc. no. 52.9.108
November 26, 1965, lot 71. Seven of the hunt

scenes for the Alcazar, including the present
design, were woven into tapestries by the
Brussels manufacturer Daniel Eggermans the
Younger and were acquired for the imperial
collection in Vienna in 1666 from the Viennese
merchant Bartholome Triangl. They are still
preserved in the Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Vienna (see Ludwig von Baldass, Die Wiener
Gobelin Sammlung [Vienna, 1920], vol. 4, no. 183).
However, Eggermans’s tapestry after the present
design moves the two horsemen to the right and
the footmen, bear, and hounds to the left, while
reproducing them in reverse (see Balis 1986,
fig. 135).
-PCS
42
(Exhibited in Greenwich and Cincinnati only)
Peter Paul Rubens
Diana and Nymphs Hunting Fallow Deer

c. 1639
Oil on panel
23.5 x 52.6 cm
Private Collection
PROVENANCE: Lord Hillingdon(P), sale earl

Beauchamps et al. (Miss E. Dickens?), London
(Christie’s), March 31, 1939, lot 113 (together with
fig. 2 below; see commentary), bought by Fenouil;
with Thomas Harris, London; purchased by John
Nieuwenhuys, Brussels, in 1955; sale, New York
(Sotheby’s), June 2, 1989, lot 17.
Exhibitions: Brussels 1965, no. 203a; New York 1995,

pp. 77-79, ill.
LITERATURE: Leo van Puyvelde, in Brussels 1965,

p. 194; Alpers 1971, p. Ill n. 237; E. Duverger,
“Tapijten naar Rubens in het bezit van het Antwerps
handelsvennootschap Fourment van Hecke,” Artec
Textiles. Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de tapijt-, borduur-
en textielkimst 7 (1971), p. 141, fig. 11; Held 1980, vol. 1,
pp. 307-8, no. 223, vol. 2, pi. 232; Adler 1982, p. 150,
under no. 46; Arnout Balis, “Rubens’Jachttaferelen:
Bedenkingen bij een Onderzoek,” Academia Analecta,
Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie 47
(1986), pp. 118-20, fig. 6; Balis 1986, vol. 2, pp. 241-42,
no. 21a, fig. 110.
Catalogue 261
Fig. l.
Formerly attributed to J. Thomas van Yperen, after
Peter Paul Rubens
Diana and Her Nymphs Hunting
87.2 x 117.4 cm
Royal Pavilion, Libraries and Museums,
Brighton and Flove, acc. no. 000005
The huntress Diana, wearing a purple-gray and his brother, the Cardinal Infante Ferdinand,
tunic and brandishing a spear, is given pride of although only the latter’s letters survive and
place in the center of the composition beside a then incompletely. On June 22, 1639, Ferdinand
tree. She is accompanied by four nymphs and informed Philip that the work on the series had
seven lunging brown and gray hunting dogs that begun, and a month later he could report that
pursue two does and a stag that have taken to all of the sketches had been finished by Rubens
water, as well as a fallow deer. The partially clad himself. It is understood from the documents
nymphs variously brandish a lance and a bow and that the final paintings were to be executed by the
arrow, while in the right foreground one wearing workshop of Rubens and his friend and colleague,
crimson drapery blows a hunting horn. The last the animal specialist Frans Snyders. The final
nymph remains on shore, clinging to a tree trunk painting that Rubens’s studio executed based on
with one arm and reining in her leashed dogs the present sketch and sent to Madrid in 1640
with the other. Trees border the water and a probably has been lost, but at least seven painted
landscape opens beyond on the left. copies of the composition exist (see Balis 1986
This is one of seven surviving oil sketches [Corpus], pp. 239-40), including the work
of mythological and secular hunt scenes (see assigned dubiously to J. Thomas van Yperen or
Balis 1986 [Corpus], nos. 20a, 23a, 24a, 25a, 26a, Paulus de Vos in the Brighton Art Gallery (fig. 1)
27a; and cats. 41-43) that were preparatory to and a large painting in the museum in Nimes
the eight hunting scenes (Balis 1986 [Corpus], (Balis 1986 [Corpus], copy no. 1, fig. 108). A
nos. 20-27) that were part of one of the last painted copy now lost that was in the collection
commissions of Rubens’s career, namely eighteen of Francis Lamb, Edinburgh, in 1835, was
paintings for the Boveda del Palacio in Philip IV’s engraved (Balis copy no. 2). As with several
royal palace in Madrid. The series is mentioned other oil sketches from the series, there also
repeatedly in correspondence between the king exists a tapestry by Daniel Eggermans the
Catalogue 263
Fig. 2. Fig. 3.
Peter Paul Rubens Giulio Romano
The Death ofActaeon Diana and the Hunt (The Calydonian Boar Hunt)
Oil on panel, 23 x 51.5 cm Pen and brown ink, with light brown wash, over charcoal,
Private Collection on two sheets conjoined, 303 x 546 mm
British Museum, London, no. 1939,0714.140
Younger(?) after the design, now preserved in The present work may be compared with
the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (Balis Rubens’s other earlier paintings of the popular
1986 [Corpus], copy no. 9, fig. 109). theme of Diana and the Hunt (see as examples
Within the group of hunt scenes for the M. Jaffe 1989, nos. 929, 1263), but as Julius Held
Boveda del Palacio, the present work evidently correctly observed (1980, vol. 1, p. 308), it is
was paired in traditional fashion with the Death “the most graceful and least sanguinary” of all
ofActaeon, the sketch for which (fig. 2) remained his treatments of the theme. David Freedberg (in
with the present work until 1989. That work is exh. cat. New York 1995) rightly commended the
also conceived in a long, narrow horizontal fine and delicate execution of the work, which
format and executed in a similarly delicate and testifies to the master’s undiminished powers
subtle technique. It depicts the horrific end of even in his last works.
the huntsman Actaeon who, having encountered The panel was primed with a thin wash of
the chaste goddess Diana and her companions light brown pigment extending over the entire
as they bathed, is already suffering his fate-— surface of the ground; the design was then
transformation into a stag and his violent death quickly sketched entirely with the brush in
by his own hounds. As Svetlana Alpers first transparent thin strokes. Finally, color accents
observed (1971, p. Ill), the group on the far were sparingly but judiciously applied. When
right of the design with the nymph clinging to the painting sold in 1939 it measured 33 by 52
the tree is borrowed from a design recorded in centimeters because it had two wooden strips
a drawing in the British Museum by one of the added by a later hand to the top and bottom of
sixteenth-century artists that Rubens most the original panel (for the old state, see Alpers
admired, Giulio Romano (fig. 3). It attests to 1971, fig. 11). These were subsequently removed.
the fact that Rubens continued to pay homage -PCS
to his Italian forebears to the end of his career.
43
Peter Paul Rubens
The Death of Silvia's Stag

c. 1638
Oil on panel
23.2 x 52.6 cm
Philadelphia Museum of Art: John G. Johnson
Collection, 1917, inv. J#663
PROVENANCE: In the John G. Johnson collection

by 1911.
EXHIBITION: Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art,

A New Look at Old Masters: Selections from the Permanent
Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1994.
LITERATURE: W. R. Valentiner, “Gemalde des Rubens

in Amerika, II,” Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte, N.F., 23
(1911-12), pp. 268, 271, no. 31, fig. 7; W. R. Valentiner,
John G. Johnson Collection, Catalogue, vol. 2 (Philadelphia,
1913), p. 163; Valentiner 1914, p. 193; O. H. Bockelberg,
Das Jagdstiick in der nordlischen Kunst der Gotik bis zum
Rokoko (Bleichrode am Harz, 1936), p. 67 n.; Valentiner
1946, p. 167, no. 133; Goris and Held 1947, p. 36, no. 69,
pi. 82; J. S. Held, “Rubens and Virgil, a Self-Correction,”
The Art Bulletin 29 (1947), pp. 125-26, fig. 1; Larsen
1952, p. 219, no. 103; Stechow 1968, pp. 7-8, fig. 1;
M. Diaz Padron, Catdlogo (Madrid, 1975), vol. 1, p. 325,
under no. 39-P; Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 308-9, no. 224,
vol. 2, pi. 234; Logan 1981, p. 514; Julius Held, “Rubens
Olskizzen. Ein Arbeitsbericht,” in Peter Paul Rubens. Werk
und Nachruhm (Munich, 1981), pp. 63-64, fig. 62; Balis
1986, pp. 229, 252, 253-54, no. 25a, figs. 122, 123;
M.Jaffe 1989, p. 371, no. 1377.
Catalogue 265
Virgil’s Aeneid (7.475-508) recounts the origins low quality,” like its companion, The Bull Hunt
of the war between the Trojans and the Rutuli. also in Gerona (Balis 1986, no. 26), it should
Aeneas’s son, Ascanius, mortally wounded a stag be regarded as the original, although mainly
that was the favorite pet of Silvia, daughter of the work of the studio, damaged, and “spoilt
the shepherd Tyrrhus. Silvia’s enraged brothers by later overpainting.” In the large version the
and other shepherds took up whatever arms they scene extends farther to the left: the head of the
could find and attacked Ascanius, who was running dog is visible, another hunter is seen
supported by his fellow Trojans. In Rubens’s behind the second mounted Trojan, and
sketch Silvia is seated at the right comforting Ascanius’s horse is viewed fully in side view.
the dying stag. A second woman (or, according There also are minor changes in the figures’
to Julius Held, another image of Silvia) stands costumes and the positions of their weapons,
above crying out for revenge. At the left the and a man rushes out of the doorway of the
shepherds armed with sticks, pitchforks, and flails farmhouse on the right.
engage the Trojans and beat back their dogs. The painting has suffered extensive paint
The foremost rider who brandishes a javelin is loss along the lower quarter of the panel; a
probably Ascanius; as Arnout Balis observed photo of it in a stripped state before in-painting
(1986, p. 251), the warrior before him is was illustrated by Balis (fig. 123). In the areas
identifiable as a Trojan by his Phrygian cap. that preserve the original paint, the figures are
Although he first mistakenly proposed that the fluently brushed in brown paint, and delicately
subject was the Sacred Stag of Artemis Killed transparent passages of color are distributed
by Agamemnon, Held was the first to correctly throughout: Ascanius’s tunic is pinkish purple;
identify the theme in 1947. the man at the center with the pitchfork is in
The large version of the composition is pink; the man in front is in light blue; ocher
preserved in the Museu d’Art in Gerona, Spain and olive green touches appear in the standing
(fig. 1), and may be either a copy or the original woman’s fluttering costume; and Silvia’s dress
canvas that was part of the suite of eight hunt is pink and purple. Patches of green and blue
scenes that were commissioned by Philip rV articulate the sky and landscape. Balis noted
for the Alcazar in 1639 (see also cats. 41 and 42). the pentiment in the stag, which was originally
Diaz Padron believed that the Gerona picture farther to the left and higher. He also listed
was a copy, but Held (1980, no. 224) thought three copies of the sketch.
that it could be the lost original. Balis (1986, -PCS
pp. 251-52) argued that despite its “depressingly
Catalogue 267
Opposite: Fig. 1.
Attributed to Peter Paul Rubens, Frans Snyders,
and Studio
The Death of Silvia’s Stag
Museu d’Art de Gerona (on loan from Museo del Prado,
Madrid, since 1882), no. 130.541
General Bibliography
Adler 1982 Bodart 1985 Denuce 1949

Adler, Wolfgang. Landscapes and Bodart, Didier. Rubens. Milan, 1985. -. Na Peter Pauwel Rubens:
Hunting Scenes. Corpus Rubenianum Documenten uit den kunsthandel te
Ludwig Burchard, pt. 18, vol. 1. Boston/Toledo 1993-94 Antwerpen in de XVIIe eeuw van
London, 1982. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, and Matthijs Musson. Antwerp, 1949.
Toledo, The Toledo Museum of
Alpers 1971 Art. The Age of Rubens. Catalogue by Detroit 1936
Alpers, Svetlana. The Decoration of Peter C. Sutton and Marjorie E. Detroit, The Detroit Institute of
the Torre de la Parada. Corpus Wieseman. 1993-94. Arts. An Exhibition of Sixty Paintings
Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, and Some Drawings by Peter Paul
pt. 9. London, 1971. Brussels 1910 Rubens. Catalogue by W. R.
Brussels, Palais du Cinquentenaire. Valentiner. 1936.
Amsterdam 1933 Catalogue de PExposition d'art ancien:
Amsterdam, J. Goudstildcer. Rubens. VArt beige au XVITe siecle. 1910. DuBon 1964
Tentoonstelling. Catalogue by Ludwig DuBon, David. Tapestries from, the
Burchard. 1933. Brussels 1937 Samuel H. Kress Collection at the
Brussels, Musees Royaux des Beaux- Philadelphia Museum of Art. The
Antwerp 1956 Arts de Belgique. Schetsen van History of Constantine the Great
Antwerp, Rubenshuis. Tekeningen Rubens. 1937. Designed by Peter Paul Rubens and
van P. P. Rubens. Catalogue by Pietro da Cortona. London, 1964.
Ludwig Burchard and R.-A. d’Hulst. Brussels 1965
1956. Brussels, Musees Royaux des Beaux- Duverger 1984-2002
Arts de Belgique. Le Siecle de Rubens. Duverger, Erik. Antwerpse
Antwerp 1977 1965. kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende
Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum eeuw. Fontes historiae artis
voor Schone Kunsten. P. P. Rubens: Burchard and d’Hulst 1963 Neerlandicae, 1.12 vols. Brussels,
Paintings, Oil Sketches, Drawings. Burchard, Ludwig, and R.-A. 1984-2002.
1977. d’Hulst. Rubens Drawings. 2 vols.
Brussels, 1963. Goris and Held 1947
Balis 1986 Goris, Jan-Albert, and Julius S.
Balis, Arnout. Rubens Hunting Scenes. Cambridge 1990 Held. Rubens in America. New York,
Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum. 1947.
Burchard, pt. 18, vol. 2. London, Rubens and Printmaking. Catalogue
1986. by Craig Hartley. 1990. Haverkamp Begemann 1975
Haverkamp Begemann, Egbert. The
Baudouin 1991 Cambridge/New York 1956 Achilles Series. Corpus Rubenianum
Baudouin, Frans. “Het door Rubens Cambridge, MA, Fogg Art Museum, Ludwig Burchard, pt. 10. Brussels,
outwerpen hoogaltaar in de kerk Harvard University. Drawings and 1975.
der geschoeide Karmelieten te Oil Sketches by P.P. Rubens from
Antwerpen.” Academiae Analecta. American Collections. Also shown at Held 1959
Mededelingen van de Koninklijke New York, The Pierpont Morgan Held, Julius S. Rubens: Selected
Academie voor Wetenschappen, Library. 1956. Drawings. 2 vols. New York, 1959.
Letteren en Schone Kunsten van
Belgie (Klasse der Schone Kunsten) 51, Cologne/Antwerp/Vienna 1992-93 Held 1968
no. 1 (1991), pp. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. -. “Rubens’ Triumph of the
Von Breughel bis Rubens: Das goldene Eucharist and the Modello in
Bauer 1992 Jahrhundert der flamischen Malerei. Louisville.” The J. B. Speed Art
Bauer, Linda Freeman. “Rubens’ Catalogue edited by Ekkehard Mai Museum Bulletin 26, no. 3 (February
Oil Sketches for Architecture.” and Hans Vlieghe. Also shown at 1968), pp. 2-23.
In An Architectural Progress in the Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor
Renaissance and Baroque: Sojourns Schone Kunsten, and Vienna, Held 1980
In and Out of Italy; Essays in Kunsthistorisches Museum. -. The Oil Sketches of Peter Paul
Architectural History Presented to 1992-93. Rubens: A Critical Catalogue. 2 vols.
Hellmut Hager on His Sixty-sixth Princeton, 1980.
Birthday, edited by Flenry A. Millon Denuce 1932
and Susan Scott Munshower, vol. 1, Denuce, Jean. De Antwerpsche Held 1982
pp. 224-43. Papers in Art History “Konstkamersv: Inventarissen van -. Flemish and German
from the Pennsylvania State kunstverzamelingen te Antwerpen in de Paintings of the 17th Century. The
University, 8. 2 vols. University 16e en lie eeuwen. Amsterdam, 1932. Collections of the Detroit Institute of
Park, PA, 1992. An. Detroit, 1982.
Held 1986 Logan 1981 Muller Hofstede 1968

-. Rubens: Selected Drawings. Logan, Anne-Marie. Review of -. “Zur Kopfstudie im Werk
Rev. ed. Mt. Kisco, NY, 1986. Held 1980. The Art Bulletin 63, no. von Rubens.” Wallraf-Richartz-
3 (September 1981), pp. 512-18. Jahrbuch 30 (1968), pp. 223-52.
d’Hulst and Vandenven 1989
d’Hulst, R.-A., and M. Vandenven. London 1977 Muller Hofstede 1969
Rubens: The Old Testament. Corpus London, The British Museum. -. “Neue Olskizzen von
Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Rubens: Drawings and Sketches. Rubens.” Stcidel-Jahrbuch, N.F., 2
pt. 3. London, 1989. Catalogue by John Rowlands. 1977. (1969), pp. 189-242.
M. Jaffe 1964 London 2003-4 New York 1939

Jaffe, Michael. “Esquisses inedites London, Courtauld Institute of New York, World’s Fair. Masterpieces
de Rubens pour la Torre de la Art. Peter Paul Rubens: A Touch of in Art: European Paintings and
Parada.” La Revue du Louvre 14, no. Brilliance; Oil Sketches and Related Sculpture from 1300-1800.
6 (1964), pp. 313-22. Works from the State Hermitage Catalogue by W. R. Valentiner.
Museum and the Courtauld Institute 1939.
M. Jaffe 1977 Gallery. 2003-4.
-. Rubens in Italy. Ithaca, NY, New York 1942
1977. Los Angeles 1946 New York, Schaeffer and Brandt,
Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Inc. Peter Paul Rubens. 1942.
M. Jaffe 1989 Museum. Loan Exhibition of Forty-
-. Rubens: Catalogo completo. three Paintings by Rubens and Twenty- New York 1951
Milan, 1989. five Paintings by Van Dyck. 1946. New York, Wildenstein and
Company. A Loan Exhibition of
Judson 2000 Madrid 1977-78 Rubens. Catalogue by Ludwig
Judson, J. Richard. Rubens: The Madrid, Palacio de Velazquez. Pedro Burchard. 1951.
Passion of Christ. Corpus Pablo Rubens (1571-1640): Expocicion
Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Homenaje. Catalogue by Matias Diaz New York 1967
pt. 6. Turnhout, 2000. Padron. 1977-78. New York, M. Knoedler and
Company. Masters of the Loaded
Kahr 1972 Magurn 1955 Brush. Catalogue by Rudolf
Kahr, Madlyn Millner. “Delilah.” Magurn, Ruth Saunders. The Letters Witkower et al. 1967.
The Art Bulletin 54, no. 3 of Peter Paul Rubens. Cambridge,
(September 1972), pp. 282-99. MA, 1955. New York 1995
Reprinted in Feminism and Art New York, Gagosian Gallery. Peter
History: Questioning the Litany, J. R. Martin 1968 Paul Rubens: Oil Paintings and Oil
ed. Norma Broude and Mary D. Martin, John Rupert. The Ceiling Sketches. Catalogue by David
Garrard, pp. 119-45. New York, Paintings for the Jesuit Church in Freedberg. 1995.
1982. Antwerp. Corpus Rubenianum
Ludwig Burchard, pt. 1. London, Oldenbourg 1921
Kruger 1989 1968. Oldenbourg, WPP. Rubens, Des
Kruger, Peter. Studien zu Rubens' Meisters Gemdlde. Klassiker der
Konstantinszyklus. Europaische J. R. Martin 1969 Kunst. 4th ed. Stuttgart, 1921.
Hochschulschriften, series 28 -. Rubens: The Antwerp
(Kunstgeschichte), vol. 92. Altarpieces. London, 1969. Paris 1977-78
Frankfurt, 1989. Paris, Grand Palais. Le Siecle de
J. R. Martin 1972 Rubens. 1977-78.
Larsen 1952 -, ed. Rubens before 1620.
Larsen, Erik. P. P. Rubens. With a Princeton, 1972. de Pauw-de Veen 1969
Complete Catalogue of His Works in de Pauw-de Veen, Lydia. De
America. Antwerp, 1952. McGrath 1997 Begrippen Schilder,” uSchilderij” en
McGrath, Elizabeth. Rubens: Subjects uSchilderen" in de zeventiende Eeuw.
Liedtke et al. 1992 from History. Corpus Rubenianum Brussels, 1969.
Liedtke, Walter A., et al. Flemish Ludwig Burchard, pt. 13. London,
Paintings in America: A Survey of 1997. Pohlen 1985
Early Netherlandish and Flemish Pohlen, Ingeborg. Untersuchungen
Paintings in the Public Collections of Muller Hofstede 1966 zur Reproduktionsgraphik der
North America. Antwerp, 1992. Muller Hofstede, Justus. Review of Rubenswerkstatt. Munich, 1985.
Burchard and d’Hulst 1963. Master
Drawings 4 (1966), pp. 435-54.
de Poorter 1978 Rotterdam/Madrid 2003-4 White 1987

de Poorter, Nora. The Eucharist Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van White, Christopher. Peter Paul
Series. Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Beuningen, and Madrid, Museo Rubens: Man and Artist. New Haven,
Burchard, pt. 2. 2 vols. London, Nacional del Prado. Peter Paul 1987.
1978. Rubens: Het leven van Achilles.
Catalogue by Fristo Lammertse
Providence 1975 and Alejandro Vergara. 2003-4.
Providence, Brown University, Bell
Gallery, List Art Building. Rubenism. Scribner 1975
1975. Scribner, Charles S., III. “Sacred
Architecture: Rubens’ Eucharist
van Puyvelde 1940 Tapestries.” The Art Bulletin SI
van Puyvelde, Leo. Les Esquisses de (1975), pp. 519-28.
Rubens. Basel, 1940.
Scribner 1977/82
van Puyvelde 1947 -. The Triumph of the Eucharist:
-. The Sketches of Rubens. Tapestries Designed by Rubens. Ann
London, 1947. Arbor, 1982. Revision of author’s
Ph.D. diss., Princeton University,
Rooses 1886-92 1977.
Rooses, Max. L’oeuvre de R R Rubens:
Histoire et description de ses tableaux Smith 1829-42
et dessins. 5 vols. Antwerp, 1886-92. Smith, John. A Catalogue Raisonne of
Reprint. Soest, 1977. the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch,
Flemish, and French Painters. 9 vols.
Rooses 1904 London, 1829-42.
-. Rubens. Translated by
Harold Child. 2 vols. London, 1904. Stechow 1968
Stechow, Wolfgang. Rubens and the
Rooses and Ruelens 1887-1909 Classical Tradition. Cambridge, MA,
Rooses, Max, and Charles Ruelens. 1968.
Correspondance de Rubens et documents
epistolaires concernant sa vie et ses Valentiner 1914
oeuvres. Published, translated, and Valentiner, Wilhelm R. The Art. of
annotated by Charles Ruelens the Low Countries. New York, 1914.
(vol. 1), by Max Rooses and the late
Charles Ruelens (vols. 2-4). 4 vols. Valentiner 1946
Antwerp, 1887-1909. -. “Rubens Paintings in
America.” Art Quarterly 9 (1946),
Rosen and Held 1950-51 pp. 153-68.
Rosen, David, and Julius S. Held.
“A Rubens Discovery in Chicago.” Vlieghe 1987
The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens Portraits of
13-14 (1950-51), pp. 77-91. Identified Sitters Painted in Antwerp.
Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig
Rosenberg 1905 Burchard, pt. 19, 2 vols.. New York,
Rosenberg, A. P. P. Rubens, Des 1987.
Meisters Gemdlde. Klassiker der
Kunst. Stuttgart, 1905. Vlieghe et al. 2000
Vlieghe, Hans, Arnout Balis, and
Rotterdam 1953-54 Carl Van de Velde, eds. Concept,
Rotterdam, Museum Boymans. Design, and Execution in Flemish
Olieveifschetsen van Rubens. 1953-54. Painting (1550-1100). Turnhout,
2000.
Waagen 1854—57
Waagen, Gustav Friedrich. Treasures
of Art in Great Britain. 4 vols.
London, 1854-57.
Photography Credits
Photographs of works of art reproduced in this volume have been Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY
provided in many cases by the owners or custodians of the works. © Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Individual works of art appearing herein may be protected by © MD’A de Girona
copyright in the United States of America or elsewhere, and may Mead Art Museum, Amherst College. Photo credit:
thus not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the Stephen Petegorsky
copyright owners. The following and/or other photograph credits Memorial Art Gallery of The University of Rochester.
appear at the request of the artists’s representatives and/or owners Photo credit: James Via
of individual works. All Rights Reserved. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Photograph © 2004 The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Copyright A.C.L. - Brussel Collection du Mobilier National, cliche du Mobilier National,
Akron Art Museum © Photo: Philippe Sebert
Albertina, Wien Museo del Prado. Madrid.
Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo Copyright © Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza. Madrid
Archivio Fotografico dei Musei Capitolini Photograph © 2 004 Museum Associates/LACMA
© Art Gallery of Ontario Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam
© Reproduction, The Art Institute of Chicago © Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht
© Ashmolean Museum, Oxford Photograph © 2004 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek Munich Museum Plantin-Moretus/Stedelijk Prentenkabinet, Antwerpen:
Bildarchiv Preuhischer Kulturbesitz / Art Resource, NY. collectie Prentenkabinet © foto Peter Maes
Photo: Joerg P. Anders Museum Vleeshuis, Antwerpen
© The British Museum © The National Gallery, London
© Christie’s Images, Inc. 2004 Image © 2004 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art,
Cincinnati Museum of Art. Photo credit: Ron Forth 7/89. Washington
Cincinnati Museum of Art. Photo credit: Tony Walsh 9/1999 Nationalmuseum, Stockholm
Cincinnati Museum of Art. Photo credit: S. Hisey 2004 Niedersachsisches Landesmuseum, Landesgalerie, Hannover
© The Cleveland Museum of Art North Carolina Museum of Art
Photo © Collections management Antwerp Otto Naumann, Ltd.
Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, London Copyright © Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid.
Courtesy David Koetser, Zurich Philadelphia Museum of Art. Photo credit: Graydon Wood, 2004
Photograph © 1987 The Detroit Institute of Arts Private Collections
Courtesy of Dickinson Reunion des Musees Nationaux / Art Resource, NY
By Permission of the Trustees of Dulwich Picture Gallery Reunion des Musees Nationaux. Photo: R.G. Ojeda /
Lee Ewing Art Resource, NY
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco Reunion des Musees Nationaux. Photo: J.G. Berizzi /
Photograph © copyright Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Art Resource, NY
Cambridge Richard L. Feigen & Co.
Courtesy of the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Royal Collections, The Hague
Museums © President and Fellows of Harvard College © Royal Pavilion, Libraries and Museums, Brighton & Hove
Gemaldegalerie der Akademie der bildenden Kiinste Wien Sammlungen des Fursten von und zu Liechtenstein, Vaduz.
Michel Graniou Fotostudio Preute, Vaduz
Groninger Museum. Photo credit: John Stoel The Samuel Courtauld Trust, Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery,
Hannema-de Steurs Foundation. Photo: Hans Westerink, London
Zwolle, The Netherlands San Diego Museum of Art
© Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museums Braunschweig. Scala / Art Resource, NY
Museumsfoto: Bernd-Peter Keiser © Seattle Art Museum. Photo credit: Eduardo Calderon
Nico van Hout Sotheby’s
The Hyde Collection. Photo credit: Joseph Levy The Speed Art Museum, Louisville, Kentucky
Indianapolis Museum of Art Stadelsches Kunstinstitut und Stadtische Galerie, Frankfurt
Copyright IRPA-KIK, Brussels am Main
© The J. Paul Getty Museum The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Jack S. Blanton Museum of Art. Photo credit: Rick Hall Statens Museum for Kunst, SMK Foto
The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, the State Art © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown,
Museum of Florida Massachusetts
Kallsen, Katya. Image © 2004 President and Fellows of Stiftung Preufiischer Schlosser und Garten Berlin-Brandenburg.
Harvard College Fotograf: Anders 1989.
Copyright KIK - Brussel Photographed for the UC Berkeley Art Museum by Ben Blackwell
Copyright © 2003 by Kimbell Art Museum © Yale Center for British Art. Photo credit: Richard Caspole
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerpen 11/1999
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien
Peter C. Sutton is Executive Director of the
Bruce Museum, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Marjorie E. Wieseman is Curator of
European Painting and Sculpture at the
Cincinnati Art Museum. Sutton and
Wieseman previously collaborated on
The Age of Rubens exhibition held in the
museums in Boston and Toledo, Ohio, in
1993-94. Nico van Elout is a conservator
at the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone
Kunsten in Antwerp.
Printed in Singapore

Drawn by The Brush Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Drawn by The Brush Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drawn by The Brush Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drawn by the Brush

Oil Sketches by Peter Paul Rubens

Peter C. Sutton and Marjorie E. Wieseman

Oil sketches by Peter Paul Rubens—created

with Nico van Hout

Yale University Press, New Haven and London, in association with

ISBN 0-300-10626-2 Title page:

Pursuing and Possessing Passion:

The Oil Sketch as a Vehicle for

Peter C. Sutton Kevin E. Consey Timothy Rub

drawings for the individual figures (see, for

Adoration of the Magi of 1608-9 for the town hall

Opposite: Fig. 14.

church wardens chose to issue the print at this

all feast days of the Virgin”; the vision

Philip IV made him a peer in 1624 for his

13. See Frans Baudouin, “Concept, Design and Execution:

16. Baudouin, in Vlieghe et al. 2000, fig. 25.

17. Baudouin, in Vheghe et al. 2000, p. 21, and Held 1980,

46. J. R. Martin, The Decorations for the Pompa Introitus

Beyond the Border

Appreciating Oil Sketches in the Eighteenth Century: Theory and Practice

Rubens’s Oil Sketches in the Collections of Artists ...

Fig. 9. Fig. 10.

of James I Triumphing over Avarice, fig. 11),

. . . AND IN THE CABINETS AND GRAND GALLERIES OF THE AMATEUR

Fig. 12. Fig. 13.

Opposite: Fig. 16.

Burlington Magazine 141 (1999), pp. 525-529; Jeffrey

9. As noted by Zirka Zaremba Filipczak, Picturing An

10. Held 1980, vol. 1, pp. 11-14.

11. Observed also by Ronni Baer with reference to

12. See Max Rooses, “De vreemde reizigers Rubens of

113. On Desenfans’s activities as a dealer and collector,

114. Lamberg’s collecting activities are discussed briefly

115. See Erich Hubala, Peter Paul Rubens: die Gemalde

116. On La Caze, see Sylvie Beguin and Claire Constans,

117. See the recent analysis of Seilern’s collecting by

Nico van Hout

Notes Luxembourg Project,” in Rubens agli Uffizi. II restauro

Oil on paper, mounted on panel

Samson and Delilah

in the final painting: he changed the angle of

The Capture of Samson

Oil on panel, 50.4 x 66.4 cm

PROVENANCE: (Probably) Jean Nicolas Ribard, Rouen

EXHIBITION: Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum,

LITERATURE: Jean-Baptiste Descamps, “Catalogue et

Oil on panel transferred to canvas (1773),

PROVENANCE: (Possibly) sale Randon de Boisset,

Exhibitions: Cologne/Vienna/An twerp 1992-93,

Literature: Oldenbourg 1921, p. 460, note to no. 142;

Adoration of the Mavi

PROVENANCE: Baroness A. Stummer, Vienna;

Exhibitions: Tokyo, Tokyo Takashima-Yamaguchi

LITERATURE: Theodor von Frimmel, Verzeichnis der

the end of the nineteenth century but did not

Town Hall. Hoping to win favors from Spain,

it' -n 4e .Kjsv»tlr»rf m irn Uw»