The Collaboration Between and Jan Brueghel the Elder1 christine van mulders

The corpus of paintings made by Peter Paul Rubens in collab- Among the new artist duos we fi nd -Gillis oration with comprises some thirty Mostaert, -, Hans Vredeman works. Among them we fi nd wreaths or garlands of fl owers de Vries-Gillis Mostaert, Jacob Grimmer-Marten van Cleve around religious images, interiors with allegories, and land- and Cornelis Molenaer-Marten van Cleve.5 The practice of scapes with historical scenes. The period in which their col- collaborative production units also survived the iconoclasm laboration took place runs from 1598-1600, the probable date of 1566-1585. collaborated with Karel of their fi rst joint effort, until 1625, the year of Brueghel’s van Mander and Gillis Mostaert; ii with death.2 Frans Francken ii, , Hendrick van Balen The study of the creative process in works made by Rubens and Jan Brueghel i and ii.6 Other duos included Denijs van and Jan Brueghel the Elder together can be situated within Alsloot-Hendrick de Clerck, -Hendrick van the broader context of collaborative ties between independ- Balen and -Hendrick de Clerck.7 ent artists in general. Investigation into the genesis of the During the fi rst half of the 17th century, when ’s conceptual framework underlying their combined efforts recovery was underway and the city continued to be a promis- can be articulated around institutional mechanisms like ing center for commissions from the Church, court, nobility the organization of the painters’ guilds, on the one hand, and affl uent middle class, and had the added advantage of an and cultural or socio-economic mechanisms on the other. extensive international art market, the phenomenon of col- In addition, there are also a number of specifi c biographical laboration was even more widespread. Production units that facts concerning both artists that initiated and stimulated had grown up around fi gures like Jan Brueghel the Elder and their decision to work together. Rubens undoubtedly played a role in this process. Like their The earliest forms of collaboration between independent 16th century counterparts, they were stimulated by speciali- painters, though hardly numerous, turn up in the fi rst quar- zation, which was at its peak in the 17th century. Brueghel ter of the 16th century, when they arose as a result of speciali- participated in collaborative projects throughout his career. zation in painting and the development of various genres.3 The earliest works that he produced in tandem with other art- Joachim Patinier, a skillful landscape painter, regularly relied ists date from between 1589 and 1596, during his stay in Italy, on specialized fi gure painters like his good friend Quinten where he worked for distinguished patrons like Cardinal Metsijs.4 Around the middle of the 16th century, the growing Federico Borromeo.8 While abroad, he painted works with number of genres – from traditional northern forms, such artists like and Jacob de Backer.9 Even as narrative devotional scenes, landscape, moralizing scenes after his return to Antwerp, he continued to make paintings from daily life, market and kitchen scenes, still lifes and por- with Rottenhammer.10 It was probably shortly after his return traits, to Italianate forms featuring religious, mythological from Italy that Brueghel came into contact with Hendrick and allegorical subjects – provided a stimulus to even greater van Balen, with whom he became close friends and with specialization. These, in turn, favored the rise of production whom he frequently collaborated. From the beginning of the units consisting of independent artists acting in tandem. 17th century onward, Van Balen had specialized in painting

107 1

the female nude, unlike Brueghel who concentrated on land- contain any specifi c provisions concerning these tempo- scapes and still lifes. In numerous allegorical scenes depict- rary production units. This is rather unusual, given that the ing the fi ve senses, the elements and the seasons, Van Balen trend toward specialization and collaboration grew over the provided Brueghel’s landscapes with fi gures.11 Many of these course of the 17th century into a characteristic mode of artis- paintings were made on commission for Borromeo.12 Tobias tic activity. In fact, the strict guild system seems to have cre- Verhaecht, Hendrick van Steenwijck, Sebastiaen Vrancx and ated an atmosphere of collegiality. This feeling of solidarity Hendrick de Clerck also collaborated with Brueghel before was in some cases given extra intensity by the long tradition Rubens returned from Italy, and continued to do so after- of intermarriage between artists’ families – the Brueghel, ward.13 Over the years, new collaborators joined their ranks. De Jode, Kessel and Teniers families are good examples.15 Brueghel also worked with Joos de Momper ii, Frans Francken The guild’s implicit recognition of independent collabora- ii, Peter van Avont, and .14 Rubens tion is evident, among other things, from the large number would continue to work with Brueghel throughout his career, of deans who regularly participated in this sort of activity. but he also collaborated with other artists, the most impor- Another sign of appreciation was the city of Antwerp’s gift tant being Jan Brueghel the Younger, , Frans Snyders, of two panels depicting the Allegory of Sight and Smell and the and Jan Wildens. Allegory of Touch, Hearing and Taste to Archdukes Albert and All of this suggests that the institutional context of the paint- Isabella during their visit in 1618 – according to contempo- ers’ guild did not stand in the way of independent collabo- rary sources, these paintings were the result of collabora- ration. The labor regulations of the Guild of St. Luke did not tion between twelve of the most important artists of the day

fig. 1: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i (attributed), Battle of the Amazons, 108 Potsdam, Stiftung Preussische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg, Schloss Sanssouci, Bildergalerie under Brueghel’s direction.16 In addition, the Antwerp rheto- Collaboration between masters of standing like Rubens and ricians’ chamber, the Violieren, had their blazon painted in Brueghel belonged to the high-level category. Of course, the 1618 by a group of four artists: Frans Francken ii, Hendrick determining factor in the rising value and growing success van Balen, Sebastiaen Vrancx and Jan Brueghel i. of paintings like these was their exceptionally high quality. This cultural and socio-economic context was also related to Even though Brueghel and Rubens were clearly excellent all the way in which paintings acquired value in 17th-century round painters, they were nevertheless aware of their best Antwerp. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between qualities. Brueghel’s delicate, almost miniaturistic painting different levels of collaboration, which were also character- technique showed to best advantage in still-life and land- istic of the artist’s social status. Honig describes the process scape paintings, while Rubens’ ingenious hand was able to in terms of low- and high-level collaboration; Van der Stighelen animate the human fi gure with rapid yet perfectly control- discusses collaborative circuits.17 led style. By making cabinet paintings together, they were In low-level collaboration, ‘second rate’ painters operated able to combine their strengths. from purely opportunistic considerations. Collaboration was The value and success of these works were largely owing to a necessity, given the one-sided craftsmanship that speciali- the high socio-cultural status of the cooperating artists. The zation brought with it. Moreover, a considerable amount of increasing interest of 17th-century viewers in a painting’s work could be produced in a short time. Authorship was of authorship and the new role and social status of the con- little importance, and the dealer – who was often both go- noisseur that went with it popularized the act of looking and between and initial patron – usually withheld this informa- the attempt to distinguish between different hands in col- tion from potential buyers. In this type of collaboration, the laborative paintings. In contrast to earlier connoisseurs who dealer acted more as an organizer or supplier. adhered tot the Renaissance idea that authorship resided in

2

fig. 2: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i, Banquet of Achelous, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 109 the mind of a single artist as something separate from the Snyders. When chance brought them together again at the endless variants that could be produced by the atelier, the court of the archdukes, the ideal circumstances gave extra new connoisseur judged an authorship that was plural in its impetus to their collaboration. Archdukes Albert and Isabella mode of expression. The possession of such paintings was were highly active patrons: Brueghel worked for them from reserved for the socially privileged. In addition to the canon 1606 onward,22 and Rubens entered their service as a court of important painters, there also arose a canon of collabora- painter in 1609.23 tive teams: the most highly sought-after included Brueghel- Only a few commissions from Albert and Isabella have been Rubens, Brueghel-De Momper and Brueghel-Van Balen. documented. The earliest of these is the Banquet of Achelous Because the demand for paintings by these prominent teams (New York; fi g. 2) of ca. 1614-1615.24 The painting – or at least a could not always be satisfi ed, and because works of this type version of it – is depicted in the Allegory of Painting (Anet) by were too expensive for the majority of collectors, copying an anonymous Flemish master.25 The castle of Mariemont in was rampant. Few of the fi rst-rate artists complained. On the background suggests that the collection might have been the contrary, many even participated in the process with the intended to represent that of the archdukes. In the Banquet of help of their own ateliers. Hence, in addition to the principal Achelous, Rubens laid out the composition and painted the fi g- or original painting, there were also replicas by the artist’s ures; Brueghel then worked out the landscape and additional own hand, variants, and frank copies. decor. The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (The Hague; The only painting that can be attributed to Brueghel and fi g. 3),26 which may have been part of the collection of Johann Rubens from the period between 1598 and 1600 – the respec- de Bye in Leiden (1666), probably also dates to around 1614- tive dates at which Rubens became an independent master 1615.27 This time Brueghel was responsible for the composi- in the Guild of St. Luke and departed for Italy – is the Battle of tion, which can be seen as the culmination of his progress the Amazons (Potsdam-Sanssouci; fi g. 1).18 The Potsdam paint- in depicting the Garden of Eden.28 After Brueghel had exe- ing is not only the fi rst result of their partnership, it is also cuted the landscape and animals, Rubens painted the fi gures a testament to Rubens’ willingness to collaborate in gen- of Adam and Eve. During the same period, they also painted a eral and one of his earliest known works.19 The painting is Mars and Venus.29 As in the case of the Garden of Eden mentioned probably the same one mentioned in the 1682 estate inven- above, Brueghel was probably responsible for this composi- tory of Diego Duarte ii.20 Gaspar Duarte i, Diego’s father, tion as well. A Pan and Syrinx (Kassel; fi g. 4),30 in which Rubens may have purchased the panel directly from Rubens. The painted the composition and fi gures fi rst and Brueghel subse- 1642 inventory of Herman Neyts mentions a ‘piece painted quently fi lled in the landscape, can also be associated with the by Octavi and Breugel, started by Rubens … showing mount group of works dating to the mid 1610s. Parnassus,’ suggesting that the pair may also have worked Around 1615-1617, Rubens and Brueghel painted several as a trio with Otto van Veen.21 The fact that Rubens already Madonnas in fl ower garlands. Brueghel painted the garlands, collaborated with Brueghel after leaving his master’s studio while Rubens fi lled in the medallions. A very early version can not only says a great deal about the young painter’s high level be seen in the Allegory of Sight (; see p. 16, fi g. 2) of 1617,31 of artistic achievement, but also indicates the prevailing where it may be represented as part of the archducal collec- familiarity with the concept of collaboration in general. This tion. Shortly thereafter, at Brueghel’s initiative, they produced type of collaboration was probably initiated by the painters a smaller version for Cardinal Federico Borromeo (Paris; involved, and the prestigious products that resulted were fi g. 5).32 The Madonna in a Flower Garland with Angels (Munich; either retained for their own collections or recommended to see cat. 53, fi g. 1) likewise dates from the same period.33 This the most important collectors of the moment, like the above- time the initiative came from Rubens, who probably made the mentioned Gaspar Duarte i and Herman Neyts. painting for George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. The fact The most important period in the collaboration between that Rubens was responsible for the composition is expressed Rubens and Brueghel extends from 1609 to 1621. It seemed in various ways. In contrast to the Louvre Madonna, in which almost obvious that their teamwork would resume after Rubens’ portion of the painting is bounded by a pre-deter- Rubens’ return from Italy, even though Brueghel’s collabora- mined oval fi eld, the scene depicted in the medallion here pen- tion with other artists – notably Hendrick van Balen – was etrates the surrounding fl ower garland, which is further enli- highly active at the time, and Rubens had begun to associ- vened by playful angels. In addition, Rubens changed the com- ate with other painters as well, including Paul Bril and Frans position in the course of the creative process, before the stage

110 3

4

fig. 3: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Garden of Eden with the Fall of Adam and Eve, The Hague, Mauritshuis fig. 4: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i, Pan and Syrinx, Kassel, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister 111 5 6

at which Brueghel worked out the garland.34 Rubens’ contri- Sometime around 1616-1617, the duo were commissioned by bution is moreover highly original on account of his choice the archdukes to paint their individual portraits (Madrid; of fi gures: Isabella Brant and his son Jan II served as mod- fi g. 7).37 Brueghel’s backgrounds depict the ducal castle els for the Virgin and Child. Finally, the painting is distinc- at Tervuren (Portrait of Albert) and their country estate at tive on account of its unusually large dimensions. Sometime Mariemont (Portrait of Isabella). As Vlieghe has suggested, the around 1619, at Rubens’ initiative, the two produced a work portraits were carried out with the help of Rubens’ studio.38 conceived in a similar fashion – garland and medallion – but A high point in the collaboration between Rubens and with a profane theme, Nature Adorned by the Graces in a Garland Brueghel is undoubtedly the fi ve-part allegorical series de- of Fruit, Vegetables and Flowers (Glasgow; cat. 24).35 Rubens sold picting the Five Senses of 1617-1618 (Madrid).39 In this cycle, this work to the Duke of Buckingham, sometime around which is both artistically and iconographically exceptional, 1625-1627. Here, too, the central scene spreads beyond the the fi ve senses are depicted in various courtly contexts. The bounds of an oval scratched in beforehand, and even beyond series comes across as a conscious articulation of the arch- the fl ower garland, which almost seems to participate in the dukes’ feeling for art and collecting and the representative scene depicted in the medallion. The evolution from fl oral role of pomp and circumstance. Brueghel’s extraordinar- wreath to U-shaped garland continued, ultimately ending in ily encyclopedic, detailed depiction of interiors, populated the type of closed, U-shaped garland found in the Madonna with fi gures by Rubens, are almost overwhelming. The arch- in a Fruit and Flower Garland now in Madrid (fi g. 6).36 Brueghel dukes gave these paintings to Wolfgang Wilhelm von Pfalz- and Rubens painted this work at the former’s initiative for Neuburg, their most important ally within the Catholic alli- Cardinal Federico Borromeo shortly before 1621. Brueghel ance. The earlier series depicting the Senses mentioned above, executed the still-life elements in this work in an exception- painted by some twelve painters under Brueghel’s direction ally broad manner. in 1618 and given to the archdukes by the city of Antwerp,

fig. 5: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Madonna in a Flower Garland, Paris, Musée du Louvre 112 fig. 6: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Madonna in a Fruit and Flower Garland, Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado 7 should also be mentioned here. The two original works sion was the result of Rubens’ increasing number of interna- were lost in the fi re at the Coudenberg Palace in 1731, but are tional contacts, the product of his more frequent diplomatic known to us through replicas (Madrid).40 By stimulating the missions after the death of Archduke Albert. Broadly con- production of prestigious works like these, patronage played ceived landscapes by Brueghel with mythological or religious an important role in the later popularization of independent histories provided by Rubens form the majority. A number of collaboration between artists. Popes, papal nuncios, princes, scenes depicting the goddess Diana also date to these years, dukes, diplomats and nobles were eager to fulfi ll the role of and includes Diana Departing for the Hunt (Paris; fi g. 9),41 Maecenas. Sleeping Nymph Spied on by Satyrs (Paris and Munich),42 a In the period that follows, 1621-1625, documented commis- Diana Returning from the Hunt (Munich)43 and Diana’s Repose44. sions for Rubens and Brueghel are similarly scarce. Never- Among the religious scenes, we fi nd a Vision of St. Hubert (for- theless, it is clear that their regular clientele expanded dur- merly Berlin),45 a Noli me tangere46 and a Road to Emmaus,47 ing these years to encompass a broader public. This expan- among others.

fig. 7: peter paul rubens (and studio) and jan brueghel i, Portrait of Archduke Albert with the Castle of Tervuren, Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado 113 8

1 This topic forms the subject of my doctoral thesis, now in preparation: Brueghel stayed there several months for a commission of eleven works; Een analyse van het creative proces in het oeuvre van Peter Paul Rubens in De Maeyer 1955, p. 147. samenwerking met Jan Brueghel i en Jan Brueghel ii. 23 De Maeyer 1945-1948; Vlieghe 1992; Brown 1998. 2 Teamwork between Rubens and Jan Brueghel ii began around 1624, the year 24 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 45.141; Ertz 1979, no. 335; Liedtke 1984, i, in which the younger Brueghel returned from Italy and took over his father’s p. 194-198; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 3. workshop, and continued until 1644, the year of Rubens’ death. 25 Château Anet, collection of C. de Yturbe. 3 Faggin 1968; Van de Velde 1975[1]. 26 Mauritshuis, inv. 253; Ertz 1979, no. 308; Van Mulders 2004[2]; cat. exh. 4 The Temptation of St. Anthony (Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1615) Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 4. by Patenier and Metsijs. 27 Houbraken 1718-1721, i, p. 87. 5 Landscape with a Castle and an Inn (, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 28 On the evolution within Brueghel’s depictions of the Garden of Eden, inv. 5652) by Grimmer and Mostaert; The Good Samaritan (Berlin, Staatliche see Van Mulders 2004[2]. Museen, inv. 706) by Molenaer and Van Cleve. 29 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 2000.PB.68; Van Mulders 2005; cat. exh. 6 Landscape with the Judgment of Midas (Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 2. inv. 857) by Van Coninxloo and Van Mander; Minerva Visiting the Muses 30 Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. GK 1229; Van Mulders 2004[1], p. 73-77; (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 957) by De Momper, cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 5. Van Balen and Brueghel. 31 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1394; see note 39. 7 Wooded Landscape with Cephalos and Procris (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches 32 Musée du Louvre, inv. 1764; Ertz 1979, no. 325. Museum, inv. 1077) by Van Alsloot and De Clerck; Antwerp with the Scheldt and 33 Alte Pinakothek, inv. 331; Ertz 1979, no. 326; Burmester/Raffelt/Renger/ the Holy Trinity (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 817) Robinson/Wagini 1996, p. 92-95. by Grimmer and Van Balen. 34 Poll/Frommel/Renger/Schmidt 1993; Renger 1994. 8 On the relationship between Brueghel and Borromeo, see Crivelli 1868; 35 Art Gallery, inv. 609; X 1961, i, p. 117-120; Ertz 1979, no. 349. Bedoni 1983; Jones 1993. 36 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1418; Ertz 1979, no. 368; Díaz Padrón/Padrón 9 Circe and Odysseus (Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario) by Brueghel Mérida 1995, i, no. 1418, p. 290-291; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, and Rottenhammer; Landscape with Diana and Actaeon (, no. 12. Nationalmuseum, inv. NM 367) by Brueghel and De Backer. 37 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1683-1684; Ertz 1979, no. 309-310; Díaz Padrón/ 10 Angelic Choir (Milan, Ambrosiana, inv. 70), painted for Borromeo. Padrón Mérida 1995, ii, no. 1683-1684, p. 1076-1083; cat. exh. Los Angeles/ 11 Allegory of the Four Elements (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 815). Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 9. 12 Allegory of the Elements (Milan, Ambrosiana, inv. 74, 6-16), together with 38 Vlieghe, crlb 1987, xix/2, p. 43. Hendrick van Balen. 39 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1394-1398; it is not excluded that Frans Snyders 13 Tower of Babel (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 947) collaborated on Taste; Ertz 1979, no. 327-331; Díaz Padrón/Padrón Mérida 1995, i, by Brueghel and Verhaecht; Interior of Antwerp Cathedral (Budapest, no. 1394-1398, p. 265-287; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 8. Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. 579) by Brueghel and Van Steenwijck; Attack in 40 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1403-1404; Ertz 1979, no. 332-333; Díaz Padrón/ the Woods (Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, inv. 622) by Brueghel Padrón Mérida 1995, i, no. 1403-1404, p. 236-245. and Vrancx; Diana and Actaeon (Prague, Národní Gallery, inv. do-4130) 41 Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature, inv. 68-3-1; Ertz 1979, no. 354; cat. exh. by Brueghel and De Clerck. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 10. 14 Hilly Landscape with Travelers (Vaduz, Collections of the Princes of Liechtenstein, 42 Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature, inv. 68-3-2; with the possible assistance of inv. G748) by Brueghel and De Momper; ‘Konstkabinet’ with Archdukes Albert Frans Snyders; Ertz 1979, no. 355; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, and Isabella (Baltimore, The Walters Art Gallery, inv. 31.2010) by Brueghel and no. 11, and Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. 344/3884; with the Francken; Garland of Fruit with Holy Family (Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 149) assistance of Frans Snyders; Ertz 1979, no. 358. by Brueghel and Van Avont. 43 Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. 842; with the assistance 15 For a genealogical table of the Brueghel dynasty, see Ertz 1979, p. 13. of Frans Snyders; Ertz 1979, no. 356. 16 The document reads, and that is actually remarkable: tweelff diversche van de 44 The original version is known through a replica which was probably made by principaelste meesters deser stadt or ‘twelve of the most important masters of the studio of Rubens and Jan Brueghel II and is now in Munich, Bayerische this city’; see De Maeyer 1955, p. 342, doc. 139. Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. 346/3885. 17 Honig 1995; Honig 1998; Van der Stighelen 1990[2]. 45 Kaiser-Wilhelm-Museum, inv. 765 (destroyed by fi re in 1945); Ertz 1979, no. 18 Bildergalerie, inv. 10021; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 1. 365. Known through a variant by Rubens (and studio) and Jan Brueghel i now 19 Held 1983; Held 1987[1]. in Madrid, Prado, inv. 1411; Ertz 1979, no. 366; Díaz Padrón/Padrón Mérida 1995, 20 Dogaer 1971. i, no. 1411, p. 288-289; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 7. 21 Denucé 1932, p. 100, under no. 362: stuck van Octavi ende Breugel ende van Rubens 46 Known through a replica by a follower or the studio of Rubens and Jan Brueghel eerst geschilderd ... wesende den berch Parnassus. II in Bremen, Kunsthalle, inv. 736-57/3; Ertz 1984, no. 155. 22 His appointment as court painter is not documented by any source, but 47 Known through a replica by a follower or a studio of Rubens in St. Petersburg, Brueghel’s letters testify to his activity there; Crivelli 1868, p. 272. In 1609-1610, Hermitage, inv. 525.

114 fig. 8: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Diana’s Departure for the Hunt, Paris, Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature 24 Nature Adorned by the Graces in a Garland of Fruit, Vegetables and Flowers Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) and Jan Brueghel i (1568–1625)

Oil on panel, 106.7 ◊ 72.4 cm Glasgow, City Council, inv. 609 prov. : George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, 1625-1627; George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham; York House, 1635; Paris, Rondo; J. Thornhill, 19 May 1716; Thornhill sale, London, 25 February 1734, no. 99; M. Edwards sale, London, 29 May 1746, no. 140; G. Braamcamp sale, , 31 July 1771, no. 194; L. Dundas sale, London, 31 May 1794, no. 36; 2nd Count of Ashburnham, ca. 1804; Ashburnham sale, London, Christie’s, 20 July 1850, no. 62; Samuel Woodburn sale, London, Christie’s, 16 May 1852, no. 192; J. Graham- Gilbert; bequest of Mrs. J. Graham- Gilbert, 1877. exh. : London 1912, no. 14; London 1938, no. 65; London 1953-1954, no. 194; Brugge 1956, no. 64. bibl. : Walpole 1758, no. 11; Rooses 1886-1892, iv, no. 821; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 61; Evers 1943, p. 237, 243-244; cat. exh. Rotterdam 1953-1954, sub nos. 4, 17; cat. exh. Antwerpen 1956[2], sub no. 60; Held 1959, i, sub no. 75; Bille 1961, ii, p. 47, 47a, no. 194 (with prov.); x 1961, i, p. 117-120 (with bibl.); Hairs 1965, p. 73, 301, 359, note 180; Ertz 1979, no. 349; Freedberg 1981, p. 132; Robels 1989, p. 356, sub no. 262; McGrath 2006.

cat. 24

115 A luxurious garland of fruit, vegetables, fl owers and animals is draped around the princi- pal scene by fi ve satyrs and a black man. In the center, a female term with multiple breasts is being veiled by three women. This is probably a personifi cation of Nature with the Three Graces.1 The copious garland symbolizes the fertility of Nature. Nature Adorned is a collaborative painting by Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder. The fi gures are by Rubens; the fl ora and fauna are the work of Brueghel. The painting was cre- ated sometime around 1619. In the parts of the painting executed by Rubens, we recognize a number of familiar fi gures and heads. The heads of the black men repeat Rubens’ Four Studies of a Moor’s Head in (cat. 52) and the Adoration of the Magi in Mechelen (Church of St. John). The fi gure of Silenus is also found in Rubens’ Bacchanal in Vienna (Akademie der Bildenden Künste) and Silenus and Bacchantes in Genoa (Palazzo Durazzo). For this fi gure, Rubens probably took inspiration from an antique head of Silenus or Socrates. The satyr on whose back one of the Graces is standing is based on a fi gure in the cartoon for the Battle of Cascina by Michelangelo. Similarly, the angels, Graces, nymphs and satyrs are also based on Rubensian models. The shape of Brueghel’s garland is typical for a particular phase in the evolution of his circular wreaths, such as in the Paris Madonna in a Flower Garland (Louvre), into U-shaped garlands like the one seen here, and fi nally into closed U-shaped garlands like the Madrid Madonna in a Garland (Prado). The versions of Ceres in a Garland in Antwerp and The Hague (in a private col- lection and the Mauritshuis, respectively) and the Holy Family in a Garland in Richmond (The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) by Brueghel and Hendrick van Balen feature garlands which are nearly identical to the one shown here. The hypothetical dating of the Glasgow painting is partly dependent on its relationship to these paintings, all of which date to ca. 1618. Nature Adorned was probably created on Rubens’ initiative, and was for several years part of his collection before coming into the possession of Georges Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. Rubens’ innovative concept for the relationship between the medallion and the garland sup- ports this hypothesis. The central scene by Rubens extends beyond the garland, which almost seems to take an active part in the scene. This construction contrasts with that used in the Paris Madonna in a Flower Garland (Louvre). In this work, initiated by Brueghel shortly after 1617-1618 and painted in collaboration with Rubens for Cardinal Federico Borromeo, the part executed by Rubens is carefully separated from the decorative garland by an oval scratched into the surface beforehand. In Nature Adorned by the Three Graces, Rubens fi rst laid out the overall lines of the composition. He delineated the zone of the central scene with a similar oval and applied dead-coloring to both fi gures and garland. Brueghel then executed the gar- land, leaving the fi gures in reserve. Finally, Rubens painted his portion in detail. The fi nal retouching of the garland over the fi gures ensures that the different areas executed by both artists merge to form a consistent whole.

cvm

1 The central fi gure has also been interpreted as Diana of Ephesus or as Ceres, Cybele, and other related goddesses of the earth. In the 16th century, however, fi gures with multiple breasts were used almost exclusively as symbols of Nature. See Ripa 1603, p. 348.

116 25 The Madonna with the Periwinkle Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) (and assistant?) and Jan Brueghel i (1568–1625) (and assistant)

Oil on panel, 66.5 ◊ 48 cm Brussels, rmfab, inv. 2850 prov. : Knyff, 1809; J. Douglas sale, Liverpool 26-27 September 1840; Paris, L. Gauchez; acquired in 1882. exh. : Worcester/Philadelphia 1939, no. 120. bibl. : Lagye 1882; x 1882; Fierens-Gevaert/Laes 1927, no. 390; Fierens/Janson 1959, no. 390; Eemans 1964, p. 91; no. 314 ; Pauwels 1984, p. 247; Jaffé 1989, no. 668.

cat. 25

117 In the foreground of a wooded landscape with a rosebush in the left-hand corner sits the Virgin with the infant Jesus. In his left hand, Jesus holds a periwinkle, a reference to Mary’s virginity. For a long time, these fl owers were erroneously identifi ed as forget-me-nots; hence, in earlier art-historical literature the painting is known as the ‘Madonna with the Forget-me-Nots’. The fi gures are by Peter Paul Rubens, perhaps with the assistance of his studio. The relatively abraded and reworked condition of the painting makes it diffi cult to endorse Rubens’ sole participation. The painting was recently subjected to thorough restoration, after which vari- ous fl esh tones typical for Rubens reappeared from beneath the old, darkened layer of varnish and later retouching. In particular, those found on the torso of the infant Christ, his face and that of the Virgin are splendid examples. The swift brushstrokes with which the transparent paint layers have been applied in succession and the pastose, Rubensian wet-in-wet highlights are characteristic in this respect. The highlights are particularly striking on the edges of the white cloth. The Madonna with the Periwinkle features a Virgin and Child identical to those found in Rubens’ Holy Family in London (Hampstead, Kenwood House; 1620-1624).1 The infant Jesus moreover shows similarities to his counterpart in the Madonna with a Missal in Berlin (Gemäldegalerie; 1623–1624) by Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder.2 Hence, the Madonna with the Periwinkle may date to the same period. The landscape and rosebush should probably be attributed to Jan Brueghel the Elder with the help of a studio assistant. In the past, these areas of the painting were attributed to his son, Jan Brueghel the Younger.3 But the typical Brueghel style and technique have also come more into their own since the restoration mentioned above. The best fl owers, insects and birds are probably the work of Jan the Elder. The typical and extremely fi ne miniaturistic style marked by superimposed, opaque layers of paint is characteristic in this respect. The weaker areas, such as the foliage of the trees, are probably by the hand of an assistant – possibly Jan the Younger. Comparable rosebushes by Jan Brueghel the Elder featuring nearly identical fl owers can be found in the Portrait of Archduke Albert in Madrid (Prado; 1616-1617), the Allegory of Smell (Prado; 1617–1618), the Three Graces in Vienna (Akademie der bildenden Künste; 1620-1622) and the above-mentioned Madonna with a Missal in Berlin.4 It was no doubt Rubens who initiated the production of this largely fi gurative painting. He painted the fi gures directly on the imprimatura without fi rst applying a layer of dead-color. He then gave the painting to Brueghel, who provided it with a background. As usual, Brueghel applied a preparatory paint layer as an undertone for the foliage, leaving the pale roses in reserve. Infrared photography reveals that this underpainting overlaps the contours of the fi gures.

cvm

1 On loan from a private collection; Jaffé 1989, no. 667. 2 Ertz 1984, no. 315; Jaffé 1989, no. 770. 3 Ertz 1984, no. 314; Jaffé 1989, no. 668. 4 Ertz 1979, no. 309; Jaffé 1989, no. 328. Ertz 1979, no. 331; Jaffé 1989, no. 467. Ertz 1984, no. 316; Jaffé 1989, no. 663.

118 26 Still Life with a Flower Wreath, Jewelry and a Tazza Jan Brueghel i (1568–1625)

Oil on panel, 47.5 ◊ 52.5 cm Signature and date, lower left, brveghel fecit 16(18) Brussels, rmfab, inv. 5013 prov. : Versailles, private collection; Berlin, C. Benedict; Brussels, A. de Heuvel; acquired in 1934. exh. : Worcester/Philadelphia 1939, no. 16; Gent 1960, no. 28; Brussels 1965, no. 24; Münster/BadenBaden 1979-1980; Essen/Wien/Antwerpen 1997-1998, no. 82. bibl. : Greindl 1956, p. 127, 153; Fierens 1957, p. 26; Wilenski 1960, i, p. 514; Winner 1961, p. 237; Eemans 1964, p. 66; Hairs 1965, p. 41, 69, 364; Winkelmann-Rhein 1968, p. 42, 85; Mitchell 1973, p. 69 et sq.; Baumgart 1978, p. 32, 148; Ertz 1979, no. 337; Pauwels 1984, p. 40-41; Bussers 2001, p. 100.

cat. 26

119 A wreath of spring and summer fl owers has been placed diagonally over a tazza, or shallow drinking cup. On the table nearby is a jewelry box containing a gold ring, coins, pearl neck- lace and two bracelets. Next to it lie three rings and a pendant. The gold hairpin with a pearl to the left of the tazza is typical of those found in the Netherlands in the fi rst half of the 17th century. The presence of the hairpin and the pearl necklace, symbols of marital fi delity, sug- gest that the panel may be interpreted as an allegory of marriage.1 It was only in 1606 that Jan Brueghel the Elder began to paint fl ower pieces in quantity – works that ensured him a great deal of fame both during his lifetime and afterward.2 That year, Brueghel formed close ties with the court in Brussels. Archduke Albert gave the painter the chance to study and paint curiosa which included rare fl owers, animals and precious objects. Brueghel’s extremely delicate, almost miniaturistic painting technique shows to extraordi- nary advantage in still life painting. The fl ower still lifes of Jan Brueghel the Elder can be divided into three types: fl owers in a vase, dish or basket; wreaths and garlands around a central fi gurative scene; and still lifes with or without an assortment of fl owers and other elements.3 The Brussels still life illus- trates the latter category. The tazza and wreath of fl owers are typical motifs for the artist. The jewelry and gold coins are also accessories in his Allegories of the Senses in Madrid (Prado; 1616-1617); the jewelry box, however, is new. In this work, Brueghel attempts to use a diagonal composition – also one of the primary features of his landscapes – in a still-life painting. The artifi cial arrangement of the wreath corresponds to the diagonal positioning of the objects on the table. Here the artist has used a compositional scheme based on an equilateral trian- gle, which is formed by the diagonals of the knife and the upper-left edge of the jewelry box, which intersect at the vertical center of the composition. The triangle creates the effect of depth and lends coherence to the jewelry box and other elements.

cvm

1 Bussers 2001, p. 100. 2 From correspondence with Cardinal Borromeo, it appears that the Vase of Flowers (Milan, Ambrosiana), commissioned by the cardinal himself, was the fi rst fl oral still life Brueghel ever made. 3 Ertz in cat. exh. Essen/Wien/Antwerpen 1997-1998, p. 256-259. 120 27 Penitent Magdalene Jan Brueghel ii (1601-1678) and Hendrick van Balen i (?) (1575–1632)

Oil on panel, 46.7 ◊ 66.4 cm Brussels, rmfab, inv. 7693 prov. : (?) Jean-Baptiste Anthoine;1 bequest of Mrs. F. Peltzer-de Mot; acquired in 1958. bibl. : Pauwels 1984, p. 40; Ertz 1984, p. 80, no. 169.

cat. 27

The landscape and still life in the foreground can be attributed to Jan Brueghel the Younger. Like his father, Jan Brueghel the Elder, Jan the Younger became a miniaturistic still-life painter as well as a many-sided landscape painter. In this he was inspired by his father’s compositions, which he produced in great numbers as studio replicas and variants. Jan the Younger built up the composition of the Penitent Magdalene using components of various landscape types developed by his father. In the foreground, a grotto landscape familiar from works like the Banquet of the Gods by Jan the Elder and Hendrick van Balen or Rubens predominates. The left background is taken up by a panoramic view into the distance with various planes of depth typical of the mountain landscapes of Jan the Elder. The composition also shows similarities to the panorama found in the Mountain Landscape with St. Anthony in Milan (Ambrosiana), also by Jan the Elder. The still life with vegetables in front of the kneeling Magdalene is related to that found in the many representations of Noli me tangere by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Van Balen or Rubens. The fi gure of Mary Magdalene may have been painted by Hendrick van Balen. When Jan the Younger took over his father’s workshop after his return from Italy, he also inherited the elder Brueghel’s col- laborative working relationship with other painters. Rubens and Van Balen were the most important partners for painting the human fi gure.2 The attribution to Van Balen still requires further inves- tigation. Moreover, it is not excluded that Jan the Younger painted the fi gure of Mary Magdalene himself. The Penitent Magdalene was probably created shortly after 1625, when Jan the Younger took over his father’s workshop.

cvm

1 In the inventory of the collection of J.-B. Anthoine, we fi nd Een pinneltien Magdalena van van Balen ende lantschap van fl uwelen Breugel f. 50, or ‘A small panel Magdalene by van Balen and landscape by velvet Breugel f. 50’; Denucé 1932, ii, p. 354; this may be the same work now in Brussels. 2 Jan Brueghel i probably already worked with his son before the latter left for Italy in the spring of 1622; hence, Jan ii had probably already had contact with Hendrick van Balen. 121 cat. 28

122 cat. 29

123 28 Nymphs with a Cornucopia Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) (and assistant) and Frans Snyders (1579–1657)

Oil on canvas, 223 ◊ 162 cm Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1664 prov. : Madrid, Philip iv, Alcázar, 1636, 1686, 1700. exh. : Madrid 1977-1978, no. 114. bibl. : Rooses 1886-1892, iii, no. 651; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 126; Díaz Padrón 1975, i, p. 321-322; Hairs 1977, p. 15; Held 1980, i, p. 344; Volk 1980[2], p. 176, 180; Orso 1986, p. 57, 71, 87, 102, 104, 191, 193; Robels 1989, p. 374-375; Jaffé 1989, no. 441; Díaz Padrón/Padrón Mérida 1995, ii, p. 1094.

29 Nymphs with a Cornucopia Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640)

Oil on panel, 30.9 ◊ 24.4 cm London, Dulwich College Picture Gallery, inv. DPG 43 prov. : P.J. Snyers sale, Antwerp, 23 May 1758; Noël Joseph Desenfans, 6 July 1804, no. 123; N.J. Desenfans, 1804-1807; Sir Francis Bourgeois, London, 1807-1811; bequest of Mrs. Desenfans; acquired in 1811. exh. : London 1947, no. 44; Rotterdam 1953-1954, no. 70; London 1977, no. 185; Greenwich/Berkeley/Cincinnati 2004-2005, no. 23. bibl. : Rooses 1886-1892, iii, no. 651; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 459; Cook 1926, no. 43; Grossmann 1948, p. 53-54; Held 1980, i, no. 255; Jaffé 1989, no. 440.

Three female fi gures support a lavishly fi lled cornucopia on which a parrot has landed. In the foreground is a fruit basket, fruit and an ape. The two fi gures on the left depict naiads, who transform the horn torn from Achelous – who had been turned into a bull by Hercules – into a cornucopia (Ovid, Metamorphoses).1 The fi gure on the right, the only one wearing clothing, may represent Ceres. Nymphs with a Cornucopia (cat. 28) was made by Rubens in collaboration with Frans Snyders. The fi gures are by Rubens, possibly with the assistance of the studio. The still-life elements and animals are attrib- uted to Snyders. After Rubens returned from Italy in 1609, Snyders was one of the fi rst painters with whom he worked. Their collaboration continued until Rubens’ death in 1640. The painting shown here has been variously dated to 1611-1613, 1615-1617 and 1625-1628.2 In Rubens’ preparatory oil sketch (cat. 29), which is somewhat different, the naiads are still in the proc- ess of fi lling the cornucopia. The fi gure on the left arranges fruit and fl owers; the one in the middle reaches for a basket of fl owers and fruit on the ground. The nymph on the left is based on an antique statue of a naiad riding a seahorse in Florence (Uffi zi)3. The summary execution of the areas containing animals and still-life elements in the sketch suggests that not only their execution but also their inven- tion was left to Snyders. A preparatory drawing for the parrot sitting on the cornucopia attributed to Snyders is preserved in Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen).4 Rubens probably painted the fi gures in the fi rst phase of execution and then gave the work to Snyders so that he could fi ll in the animals and still-life elements. A certain absence of painstaking detail and gloss in the depiction of the materials – both typical of Snyders – suggests that the painting had to be fi nished quickly.

cvm

1 Ovid, Metamorphoses, ix, 80-88. 2 Respectively, Hairs 1977, p. 15; Jaffé 1989, p. 231; Held 1980, p. 345. 3 In the Renaissance, the statue was interpreted as Virgil’s naiad Cymothoë (Aeneas, i, 144); Held 1980, i, p. 344. 4 Inv. AZ 133.

124