186 B. BRENNINKMEYER - DE ROOY Notes on the decoration of the Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch These notes are intended as a follow-up to H. Peter-Raupp's dissertation Die Ikono- graphie des Oranjezaal (Hildesheim/ New York 1980). They cover the same fields, namely the individual paintings of the Oranjezaal, its prograrnme and its illustrious pre- decessors, and are organized on roughly that plan. I. Individual paintings a. C. van Everdingen, Allegory on the Birth of Frederick Henry (Fig. 1 ). Peter's division of this composition into an 'earthly' and 'heavenly' zone seems rather forced. More important is the identification of the veiled woman in the foreground, the focal point of the picture. She is probably not Louise de Coligny, as usually stated, but a figure connected with the advent of the Golden Age, to which there are clear allusions on this wall. The Sibyl of Cumae, Astraea and the obscure goddess Lucina are candi- dates, but the lack of attributes precludes a definite identification. b. J. van Campen ( ?), 'Frederik Hendrik in der Wiege' (Fig. 2) This infant, a pendant to the Infant Hercules on the other side of the chimneypiece, would better be seen not as Frederick Henry, but as Hiero, the son of the tyrant of Sicily, who according to the story by P. Valerianus cited by Peter (Note 6), was_fed by a swarm of bees. c. Frieze with The Closing of the Doors of the Temple of Janus (Figs. 3, 4) Here, as throughout, Peter has kept to Van Gelder's attributions (Note 1 ), but K. Fre- mantle has established beyond doubt from a print of part of the frieze (Fig. 5) that it is by Rombout Verhulst (Note 9). d. T. van Thulden, 'Die Huldiging vor dem Statthalter Prinz Frederik Hendrik' (Fig. 6) The subject of this painting as given on the two plans for the Oranjezaal (Fig. 45, 46) is somewhat confusing (Note 12), but an analysis of the scene supports the view that it is (His Highness Accepts the Government', or rather, as Frederick Henry never actually governed in the strict sense, (The Netherlands offers Frederick Henry the Su- preme Military and Naval Command'. e. C. van Couwenburgh, 'Minerva und Herkules 6ffncn dem Frieden die Tiir' (Fig. 7,) The figure identified by Peter as Peace here is more likely to be Victory, on the analogy of Ripa's description (Note 15), plus an emblem by Camerarius which explains the tri- ple wreath (Fig. 8, Note 16). This is not a unique subject, as Peter states, for it was also included in Van Campen's programme for the Amsterdam town hall, though never executed (Fig. 9, Note 17). This gives a clearer picture of Van Campen's intentions and supports the identifi'cation as Victory. Passages in letters by Huygens and Jordaens reveal that Van Campen actually compiled whole compositions for the artists working on the Oranjezaal. f G. van Honthorst, Allegory on the Steadfastness of Frederick Henry (Fig. 10). The interpretation of this composition is already clear from the titles given in the plans, but Peter confuses the issue by dragging in numerous other aspects. The painting is best seen in the light of Neo-Stoicism (Note 21), in which steadfastness was a prime virtue, witness a number of Otto van Veen's emblems (Fig. 11, Note 22). Frederick Henry 187 had previously been credited with that virtue by the quotation of lines from the Aeneid in Vondel's eulogy on his capture of Grol in 1627 (Note 23). The personal device of William the Silent to be seen in the painting obviously links up with this idea. g. J. van Campen (attrib.), 'Der Ritt iiber die drei Fliisse' (Fig. 12). The two plans refer here to Frederick Henry's campaign of 1645 in Flanders, but the artist has clearly gone further than this suggestion and no historically precise details are to be found in the scene. The suggestion Peter offers here is unacceptable, as there seems to be an obvious reference to Frederick Henry's masterly use of water in his campaigns. There are several poems by Huygens on this subject (Note 26), but a more important reference would seem to be that in Hooft's epic poem on the capture of's-Hertogenbosch in 1629 (Note 27), where Frederick Henry is seen as a warrior who shines like a star, because he can make the water obey his will. Thus a better title here would probably be (Frederick Henry as Warrior among the Stars'. h. J. van Campen, 'Venus, Juno und Ganymed' (Fig. 13) Peter sees the two women here as Venus and Juno, but in fact the peacocks are not draw- ing the car and the women seated in it both bear attributes of Venus. Thus they can better be interpreted as the 'heavenly' and 'earthly' Venus, a Neo-Platonist concept also found in Van Mander (Note 32). This i_s a highly unusual subject in Dutch art, but not a unique one, as Nicolaas Berchem also painted it about twenty years later (Fig. 14). The composition in the Oranjezaal is clearly related to The Marriage of Frcde- rick Henry and Amalia van Solms below: earthly love looks down at the peacocks of Juno, goddess of marriage, heavenly love up to Ganymede, who was seen in Neo- Platonist philosophy as the pure soul who finds joy in God (Notes 36, 37) j. Artist unknown, arms of parents and ancestors of Frederick Henry and Amalia van Solms (Fig. 15). Huygens went to a lot of trouble to collect together the arms shown here (Note 39). They appear in identical form on a parchment sheet belonging to the College of Heralds in The Hague (Fig. 16), which must have been done in the 17th century and may even have served as a model for the Oranjezaal artist. A list of the arms compiled by the secretary of the College is given here in an Appendix. k. The portraits of Amalia van Solms in the dome (Figs. 17-19) The first portrait of Amalia (Fig. 17) had to be replaced by a second showing her as a widow. Peter follows Van Gelder in thinking that the portrait now in situ (Fig. 19) is an 18th-century replacement, but in fact it is mentioned in a poem of 1675 by Jan Zoet (Note 42). The portrait of 1650 signed G. H. in Berlin (Fig. 18), which is thought to have been the original second portrait, is very minutely painted and was thus probably unsatisfactory. It may never have been placed in the dome and was certainly replaced by 1675. II. Attributions Two changes of attribution are suggested here. A detail of the Allegory on the Mar- riage of Frederick Henry (Fig. 20) reveals characteristics of the style of Cesar van Everdingen, while the Allegory of the Good Government of Frederick Henry (Fig. 21 ) seems too coarse in execution for Pieter de Grebber and much closer to the style of Jacob van Campen. Moreover, a façade suspiciously like that of the Amsterdam town hall appears in the clouds (Fig. 22). The portrait in East Berlin, hitherto attributed to Willem van Honthorst, is given here to Gerard, on the basis of its strong similarity to the painting of Amalia in the Triumph scene (Fig. 42). III. Sources Only one source can be added to Peter's list, namely G. du Choul's Discours de la religion des Anciens Romains illustre, f rst published in Lyon in 1555 (Note 50). This book was in Huygens' library (Note 51) and there are surely parallels to be found .