ALLEN MEMORIAL ART MUSEUM

OBERLIN COLLEGE FALL 1963 The covet design by Forbes Whiteside is based upon his design for the Allen Memorial Art Museum monogram. ALLEN MEMORIAL ART MUSEUM BULLETIN

VOLUME XXI, NUMBER 1 FALL 1963

Contents

A Portrait by Jacob Esselens by Wolfgang Stechow - 3

Cezanne and a Pine Tree by Ellen H. Johnson - - - - 11

Viaduct at I'Estaque: A Footnote by Ellen H. Johnson 25

Christina of Denmark by Michael Coxie

by Patricia Rose ----- 29

Nils Gosta Sandblad 52

Notes Baldwin Lecture Series 1963-64 53 Oberlin Archaeological Society - - - - - 53 Fall and Winter Exhibitions - - - - - 53 Friends of Art Film Series ----- 54 Loans to Museums and Institutions - - - - - 55

Friends of the Museum ------57

Printed three times a year by the Department of Art of Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. $6.00 a year, this issue $2.00; mailed free to members of the Oberlin Friends of Art. 1. Jacob Esselens, Portrait of a Lady Oberlin A Portrait by Jacob Esselens

Again and again in the course of a comprehensive view of Dutch painting of the seventeenth century, one is struck by the phenomenon of a master of secondary rank surpassing his ordinary level of achieve­ ment and approaching that of the elect few. The circumstances in which this occurs vary: a special meeting of mind between teacher and pupil, the discovery of unsuspected developments in other artistic centers of the land, a journey abroad, a theme or a sitter holding a particular personal appeal to the painter — all these may accomplish it. No collection known to this writer can boast of more happv surprises of this kind than that of one of the great connoisseurs of our time, Mr. F. Lugt in Paris. The Allen Memorial Art Museum, already the owner of at least one such exceptional picture, Job Berckhevde's Bakery Shop,1 has just acquired another, a small portrait of a lady (fig. I).2 It is a distinguished little work in which sobrietv and elegance blend in perfect harmony. The fashionable black dress and scarf, the necklace and earrings, the demonstratively presented watch, the refined gesture of the left hand, the rich drapery of the orange-brown curtain foil are average ingredients of portraiture around 1670 all over Europe, but the rhythm with which these elements are interlaced is of a rare perfection, both in their linear and coloristic order, and the brushstroke is neither over-meticulous nor sloppy. Above all, it is remarkable that the sitter does not seem to pose for all this; with her charmingly innocent, conspicuously Dutch features, her natural restraint, her unassuming youthfulness she dignifies what could otherwise easily be no more than a modish display, and makes it all her own in an almost touching synthesis of naivete and social ease. But there is nothing dilettante about the means with which the painter has conveyed this human situation to us. The picture bears the full signature of Jacob Esselens, who was born in Amsterdam in 1626 or 1628 and was buried there on January 15,

1 W. Stechow, "Job Berckhevde's 'Bakery Shop'," AMAM Bulletin, XV, 1958, p. 90 ff. 2 Ace. no. 62.40. On panel, 10% by 8]/2 inches. Signed, lower left: "J. Esselens." From a Swiss private collection and Coll. F. Mont, New York. 1687.3 He was one of the few well-to-do Dutch painters of the seven­ teenth century but he did not earn his fortune with the works of his brush. Called a merchant in documents of the seventies and eighties, he was best known as a silk dealer and employer of velvet weavers in Amsterdam; he travelled a good deal in France, England and Scotland, and his pictorial output seems to have been rather small — even though we may assume that some of his genuine signatures were later removed from his paintings in order to make them salable as works of better known masters. The majority of his extant paintings are landscapes of great diversity. Some are wooded or rocky scenes, often with lakes and streams, with mythological figures or contemporary fishing or hunt­ ing parties, in the style of painters of foreign scenes representing various trends;4 there are occasional English vistas'' and marines." Less protean, and more easily recognized as works of one and the same hand, are his views of Dutch beaches, seen either close by or from a more distant vant­ age point, some of them of very high quality (fig. 7). Drawings by Esselens show an even more bewildering variety, ranging all the way from utterly classicistic, almost Carracci-like landscapes7 to realistic studies of the fishermen and gentlefolk that populate his painted "beach- scapes".8

3 On Esselens see: A. von Wurzbach, Niederlandisches Kiinstler-Lexikon, Vienna- Leipzig, 1906, I, p. 496; K. Lilienfeld in Thieme-Becker's Kiinstlerlexikon, XI, 1915, p. 43; A. Bredius, "Das Nachlass-Inventar von Jacob Esselens," Kiinstler- Inventare, II {Quellenstudien zur hollandischen Kitnstgeschichte, VI), The Hague, 1916, p. 549 ff.; idem, Kiinstler-lnventare, VII, p. 58; idem, "Drie land- schappen van Jacob Esselens," Ond Holland, XLVII, 1930, p. 277 ff.; S. J. Gudlaugsson, "Een figuurstudie van Jacob Esselens te Besaneon," Oud Holland, LXVI, 1951, p. 62 f.; P. H. Hulton, "Drawings of England in the Seventeenth Centurv bv Willem Schellinks, Jacob Esselens and Lambert Doomer," Walpole Society, XXXV, 1954-56, (published in 1959), 2 vols. (Atlas van der Hem, National Library, Vienna). 4 A picture in Braunschweig (no. 198), sometimes said to recall Poelenburgh, is really reminiscent of the late phase of classicistic landscape painting in Holland, and the Forest Scene in Amsterdam (no. 905 c) was in fact once attributed to Glauber. Before the Scottish Landscape in the Brediushuis at The Hague (no. 46) one thinks of Everdingen. All three pictures are signed. 5 In addition to the drawings in the Atlas van der Hem (see note 3) cf. the signed View of Hampton Court, exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, Winter 1927-28, and the View of Dover in the Bruce S. Ingram Collection (Exhibi­ tion at Colnaghi's, London, March 1938, no. 72). 6 Museum in Raleigh, N.C., cat. 1956, no. 47 (not signed but probably correctly attributed, see also the Lake Scene in Oxford, Asbmolean Museum, cat. 1951, no. 144). A winter landscape, mentioned in a sale at Amsterdam, April 19, 1735, no. 47 (see Thieme-Becker), remains to be rediscovered. 7 Several examples in Brussels, Coll. de Grez (no. 1243 is fully signed). 8 For instance, Hamburg, no. 21922, and Gudlaugsson, op. cit. UJ Esselens seems to have been no less eclectic in his rare portraits. I am acquainted with but four fullv authenticated ones, including ours. A pair representing husband and wife is known today from reproductions only (figs. 2 and 3);" while the man is of a somewhat more outgoing type — one can certainly detect amiability and a fine sense of humor here — the woman seems to be nearer in interpretation to the Oberlin ladv, and certainly very close in style. It is possible that if the Oberlin picture were not signed bv Esselens it would have been attributed, in spite of its unusually small size, to Nicolaes Maes — and that among the portraits attributed to Maes there may be hidden some actually done bv Esselens. This, of course, is not the Maes of the Rembrandtesque period but of the years around 1670-80, just before and after his final removal from Dordrecht to Amsterdam, when he had already become a portrait painter of the more fashionable type in which French and Flemish elements vie with the sturdier Dutch core. In its general stylistic and technical features the Oberlin portrait corresponds rather closely to this group of works by Maes (fig. 4).10 But upon closer inspection its most personal properties differ from those of Maes's portraits significantly enough to establish criteria for distinguishing between the works of the two artists. Although Maes's most superficially elegant likenesses belong to his last period (ca. 1680- 93), even those of the time around 1670-80 have a greater tendency to­ ward a certain grandiloquence, or in any case — including the case of the extraordinarily sensitive picture here illustrated — toward a more emphatic contact between the sitter and the onlooker. Esselens' greater- restraint in this respect can hardly be overlooked. The signed female portrait by Esselens in the possession of Mr. Nystad in The Hague (fig. 5)n is of a rather different type. A full-

9 A. Bredius, Kiinstler-lnventare, II, p. 555 (see note 3); on panel, 11 by 9 inches, sale Ramsay and Rangabe, Berlin (Lepke), Feb. 7, 1911, nos. 73-74, with illus­ trations, from which ours were taken through the courtesy of the Princeton Department of Art and Archaeology (Piatt Collection). The female portrait is signed. 10 I owe the photograph of this outstanding work of 1679 to Dr. Jan Bialostocki in Warsaw. See C. Hofstede de Groot, Catalogue Raisonne. . . . VI, London, 1916, p. 579, no. 456, and Jan Bialostocki and Michael Walicki, Europaische Malerei in Polnischen Sammlungen, 1300-1800, Warsaw, 1957, pi. 281 and p. 537. — Another artist whose few portraits come to mind before the Oberlin portrait is Jan van Noordt; see A. Staring, "Weinig bekende portrettisten, III: Joannes van Noordt," Kunsthistorische Verkenningen, The Hague, 1948, p. 47 ff. (some of these portraits had been attributed to Maes), and A. Pigler, "Gruppenbild- nisse mit historisch verkleideten Figuren und ein Hauptwcrk des Joannes van Noordt," Acta Historiae Artium, II, 1955, p. 169 ff. II On canvas, 24 by 19Vi inches. I am indebted to Mr. Nystad for the photograph. 4. Nicolaes Maes, Portrait of a Lady Wavel, Cracow length likeness, though of cabinet size, it recalls Maes only in its brush­ stroke and suggests inspiration from another source. A closely related portrait of a gentleman in the collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein in Vaduz (fig. 6)1- was not accidentally given to Gerard Terborch be­ fore Dr. Gudlaugsson proposed the new attribution; Hofstede de Groot

12 S. J. Gudlaugsson, Katalog der Gemdlde Gerard Ter Borchs, The Hague, 1960, p. 282, no. D 60. Gudlaugsson believes that this picture (on canvas, 24 by 19 u c

5 J 7. Esselens, Beach Scene F. Lust Collection, Paris was somewhat in doubt and suggested Barent Graat as its possible author. A marked similarity to some works of Graat is undeniable for both the Liechtenstein and the Nystad pictures, but the arrangement in the latter of chair, table, mirror and candle stems undoubtedly from Terborch. The Oberlin portrait supports the attribution of the Liechtenstein pic­ ture to Esselens as fully as does the Nystad one. Some fine portraits (or at least portrait-like figures) were introduced by Esselens into his "beachscapes": well-to-do burghers buying fish or giving alms. One of the two beach scenes in the Lugt Collection (fig. 7) offers a lovely example of this.13 The quiet, modest charm of Esselens' work at its best is here fully revealed; man, genre and landscape blend as naturally and successfully as do personality and fashion in the Oberlin

" ' Wolfgang Stechow

inches; C. Hofstede de Groot, Catalogue Raisonne. ... V, London, 1913, Ter­ borch no. 332, p. 102) is the companion piece of the Nystad portrait. I owe the photograph to the kindness of Dr. G. Wilhelm in Vaduz. For other attribu­ tions of female portraits to Esselens see Gudlaugsson, ibid., p. 271, under no. C. 256, and The Connoisseur, CLIII, June 1963, p. 125. Mr. Lugt kindly provided the photograph. On other beach scenes by Esselens see Gudlaugsson's article cited in note 3.

Cezanne and a Pine Tree To Nils Gosta Sandblad, in grateful memory

In his classic study of Cezanne, Fritz Novotny declares that the artist was obliged to sacrifice "the individual phenomena, the individual value of the human figure, the tree, the still-life subject, etc."1 in order to arrive at his monumental style. Although Novotny modified his posi­ tion somewhat in a more recent essav, even there he states that Cezanne's "renunciation and omissions . . . demonstrated elementary, basic shapes instead of individual variations; and depicted what was lasting and per­ manent instead of what was transitory and passing."2 One would no more cavil with the statement that Cezanne's art is selective, monu­ mental and permanent, than one would wish to underestimate the pro­ found importance of Novotny's work on Cezanne;3 it is only his view that Cezanne sacrificed individual phenomena and variations which is in question. There is no doubt that certain phenomena of natural objects, as textural variations, did not concern Cezanne, but their formal and even coloristic individuality did interest him deeply. Novotnv's is far from an isolated interpretation in the Cezanne literature. In the numer­ ous analyses of his paintings published side-by-side with the motifs which were their sources, criticism has largely dwelt on the transforma­ tion which nature undergoes in the artist's hands. While this compara­ tive analysis is certainly a useful method of approach, most of it has tend­ ed to minimize Cezanne's regard for the unique character of the form of objects. When we read in one of his letters, "were it not that I am pas­ sionately fond of the contours of this country, I should not be here,"4 an image of the majestic Montagne Sainte Victoire immediately comes to mind, but so do many other things: the rocks and the bay at l'Estaque,

1 Fritz Novotny, Cezanne, London, 1961, p. 5 (first published 1937). I am indebted to John Rewald, Leo Marchutz, Fritz Novotny and other Cezanne scholars who have been helpful in correspondence and conversation regarding our watercolor. 2 In the catalogue of the Paid Cezanne exhibition, Vienna, Osterreichische Gal- erie, Oberes Belvedere, 1961, p. 13. 3 Particularly his ground-breaking Cezanne und das Ende der wissenschaftlichen Perspektive, Vienna, 1938. 4 To Joachim Gasquet, April 30, 1896, John Rewald, Paid Cezanne Letters, Lon­ don, 1941, CXXIV, p. 199. 11 the quarry of Bibemus, the valley of the Arc. He loved the sandy red earth running through the quiet green fields and he loved the trees, especially the superb pines at Bellevue to which he returned again and again in his drawings, watercolors and oils. To contend that Cezanne was faithful to the form not only of a par­ ticular mountain but even a particular tree is thus to oppose the fre­ quently held view that in his search for the permanent, generalized form of things he distorted their appearance. The truth is that these two seem­ ingly contradictory positions are no more incompatible than are the two old antipodes of line and color which are so beautifully synthesized in Cezanne's work. He, like manv other great masters of the past, was amaz­ ingly faithful to both his vision of nature and of art.5 One of the special qualities of his art is that the identity of objects and the exigency of pic­ torial form are not only kept in harmony but each is given the fullest pos­ sible force. Cezanne himself is thoroughly explicit on this point: "There are two things in the painter: the eye and the brain. The two must co­ operate; one must work for the development of both, but as a painter: of the eve through the outlook on nature, of the brain through the logic of organized sensations which provide the means of expression."" Banal as that quotation may have become through too frequent classroom repeti­ tion, it still holds a key to the understanding of Cezanne's thought and work as does another familiar passage: "One is neither too scrupulous nor too sincere nor too submissive to nature; but one is more or less master of one's model, and above all, of the means of expression. Get to the heart of what is before you and continue to express yourself as logically as possible."7 It is in his selection and omission of what he sees that Cezanne is "master of his model," as he conceives and forms the painting. But what he does decide to take from nature he gives back so clearly in his art that the specific objects selected are identifiable beyond question. The means whereby he masters the model have been sufficiently an­ alyzed elsewhere. That nature is not art could not be more clear than in Cezanne's work and there is no intention here to minimize his con­ summate art; its incredible harmony of subject and form will never cease to astonish and delight. But the point that is being emphasized

5 Cezanne directly identifies his "ideal of art" as "a conception of nature," Rewald, ibid., CLXXX, to Roger-Marx, January 23, 1905, p. 248. 6 Quoted in John Rewald, Paid Cezanne, a Biography, New York, 1948, p. 135. The passage comes from Joachim Gasquet, Cezanne, Paris, 1921 and 1926 (p. 205 in the latter edition). 7 Letter CLXIX, to fimile Bernard, May 26, 1904, Rewald, Paul Cezanne Letters, p. 237. This letter is signed, perhaps with a gentle jibe, "Pictor P. Cezanne." 12 is that Cezanne arrived at the universal through and in his exact study of the particular. He liked to live as close as possible to the motifs which occupied him at given times; for example, on one occasion he rented a room at the Chateau Noir and on another a little cabin at the Bibemus quarry. Besides saving the time that would be lost each day in transporting himself and his painting gear from Aix, this procedure kept him in the constant presence of what he was painting. He often visited Bellevue, a property near Aix belonging to his brother- in-law, Maxime Conil; here he painted the house, the pigeon-tower and, above all, the Montagne Sainte Victoire seen from across the valley of the Arc and framed bv the great pines at Montbriant. It is here that he painted our watercolor, Pine Tree at Bellevue (fig. 1). Throughout his entire career, great arching or stretching trees, whether in straight landscapes or figure compositions out-of-doors, en­ gaged Cezanne as much as the steadfast, rock-bound contours of Mt. Ste. Victoire and he often opposed and united their differing qualities. The framing or spreading tree motif appears even in the early imaginative, romantic themes; it is stated very clearly in a pencil drawing8 of 1868-71 where the violent thrust of the tree, first to the left and then back to the right, anticipates something of the dramatic character of the Oberlin watercolor. From his mature work, there is one oil, Paysage a I'Estaque in the Sam Spiegel collection (V. 410, 1883-85)°, which particularly re­ sembles our sketch in terms of composition. In both pictures, the ex­ aggerated slant of the pine toward the right is abruptly counteracted by the forceful leftward sweep of its long branches. The tension between these forces, concentrated in the crotch of the tree, subsides into the gentle flapping of the pine foliage and the undulating vertical of the tree on the extreme left. Although, on first impression, the pine tree itself in the I'Estaque painting looks remarkably like that in the Oberlin water- color, a closer examination discloses its difference from our particular tree. That ours is a specific tree, however, can hardly be doubted when one compares it with a series of other pictures. It is unquestionably the same pine as the one on Montbriant at Bellevue which figures as the sub­ ject of the oil painting, Le grand pin et les terres rouges,10 in the Le-

8 Reproduced in Adrien Chappuis, Les dessins de Paul Cezanne au Cabinet des Estampes du Musee des Beaux-Arts de Bale, 1962, no. 47, p. 39 of plates, Inv. 1934, 168. 0 Venturi's original date was 1882-85; it is my understanding that 1883-85 will be used in the revised edition. 111 Venturi's title; it is also called Le grand pin a Montbriant, as in the catalogue bv Charles Sterling of the Cezanne exhibition at L'Orangerie, 1936, no. 71, pi. XXVIII.

13 comte collection (V. 459; fig. 2). If one covers over the top and right side of the oil painting and visualizes the trees as seen from slightly more to the left, one finds that its structure is similar to the Oberlin tree in the form of the trunk and the shape, number and proportion of the branches and the distances between them and in their direction of growth. The vegetation running across the foreground from left center to the base of the large pine is also comparable, as arc the cluster of buildings below the tree, suggested in the Oberlin picture with a few light strokes of the pen­ cil and brush, and the gentle slopes of Mt. Ste. Victoire on the other side of the Arc valley. "Our" tree also figures in another oil, Grand pin et terres rouges,11 in the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad (V. 458; fig. 3); brilliantly colored in intense orange burning against the cool foliage, richly modulated and constructed, that work is a consummate refinement of the same theme. Venturi dated both the Lecomte and the Hermitage paintings 1885-87; but they must be separated bv at least five years, the Lecomte no later than 1885 (and quite possibly earlier) and the Lenin­ grad about 1890.1- Even the thickness of the actual tree hints that the Leningrad picture is later; but there are far more cogent reasons for sug­ gesting that it is a more mature painting. The Lecomte version, with its relatively descriptive character in the representation of objects, of light and of space, is less transformed, less a "Cezanne painting," than the Leningrad picture where each of the elements: structure, format,13 color, line, surface, space — every little squared plane of color — is adjusted to the miraculous oneness of the whole. The difference between these two pictures exemplifies that process which Matisse defined as "the conden­ sation of sensations which constitute a picture"14 and it anticipates

11 Reproduced in color, Charles Sterling, Great French Painting in the Hermitage, New York, 1958, pi. 86, p. 113. 12 About 1885 for the Lecomte and about 1890 for the Leningrad are the dates which Rewald has recently arrived at for the revised Venturi catalogue which is being published by the New York Graphic Society. It seems to me that "about 1885" for the Lecomte picture should be interpreted as 1883-85 and especially so if that date is to be maintained for the Hahnloser picture, Vue de I'aqueduc an nord d'Aix, V. 296, which is stylistically so thoroughly like the Lecomte painting. The Leningrad painting is given as late 1890's in M. Levinson- Lessing, Catalogue of the Paintings of the Department of Western Art of the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad, 1958, no. 8963, pi. 363, p. 444; and as about 1890 in Pierre Descargues, The Hermitage Museum, Leningrad, New York, 1961, ill. p. 299; called Pine-tree near Aix. 13 The long rather narrow horizontal format is frequently used in the watercolors whereas in the oils there is a marked tendency to square up the proportions per­ haps more in keeping with a "classic" conception. 14 Quoted in Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Matisse, His Art and His Public, New York, 1951, p. 120.

14 2. Cezanne, Le grand pin et les terres rouge (V. 459) Lecomte Collection, Paris Photo: Mltsees Nationaux

3. Cezanne, Grand pin et terres rouges (V. 458) Hermitage, Leningrad Mondrian's tree series going from relative illusionism to relative ab­ straction. Besides the oil paintings, there are at least three very exact pencil and watercolor drawings of the specific pine tree in the Oberlin sheet. Of those studies, the one in the Rousseau collection1"' (fig. 4) carefully models the structure of the tree in line; its insistent, exquisite pencil hatching is partially covered with a few light washes of color, whereas in the Zurich Etude pour un arbre1® (V. 1024; fig. 5) the form of the tree is found entirely through the scintillating planes of color without any pencil at all. How beautifully these two studies compose the page; how sensitively the drawing conforms to the distinct character sustained in each design. Consistent with the slanting planes of color in the Zurich sheet are the slightly angular contours of the tree branches as thev join the trunk, whereas those edges in the Rousseau drawing are delicately and softly rounded. In the Rousseau composition how important to the total structure are the two horizontals behind the tree trunk. But throuofi- o out all the formal and expressive variety of these studies and paintings Cezanne remained completely faithful to the tree's own form. In the Oberlin watercolor, unusual to Cezanne's work is the contrast in handling between the separate parts of the picture; the primarily con­ tained drawing and modelling of the greyed-violet pine tree is quite dif­ ferent from the fluctuating contours of the yellow-green, blue and violet tree and the light orange, green and violet ground on the left. The bush in the right center (probably a small pine), mostly blue with touches of green and violet, is formed of rapid, swinging zig-zags that set off across the valley. The picture is divided into two unequal parts, one vertically and the other diagonally oriented, with maximum tension between them, like many contemporary compositions. But the most startling thing in this atypical Cezanne is the dramatic force of the one great exaggerated

10 Le grand arbre, not in Venturi; given as 1885-87 in the catalogue of the Colum­ bia University Cezanne watercolor exhibition at Knoedler Gallery, 1963, no. 22. Reproduced in color, Time magazine, April 19, 1963. 16 Reproduced in color, Georg Schmidt, Aquarelles de Paul Cezanne, Basle, 1952, pi. 11. Venturi dated it 1885-90 but its stylistic maturity indicates that it must be placed at the outer limit of that date and it was so assigned (ca. 1890) in the 1956 Cezanne exhibition in Aix, no. 72, catalogue dates by Douglas Cooper and Leo Marchutz; it is my understanding that it will also be given that date in the new Venturi. Another drawing of the same tree, V. 1494, at a slightly different angle and less finished than the others, was loaned by the Earl of Sandwich to the Arts Council Cezanne watercolor exhibition, cat. no. 29, 1946. Listed by Venturi as "ancienne collection Bernheim-Ieune," and placed at 1885-90, it was acquired from Bernheim-Jeune by Halvorsen in 1920 and from him by Brown & Phillips in 1925. It is doubtful that the oil painting, Le grand pin, V. 669, 1892-96, now in the Sao Paulo Museum, is the same tree.

16 4. Cezanne, Le grand arbre Rousseau Collection, New York

5. Cezanne, Etude pour un arbre (V. 1024) Kunsthaus, Zurich rush and opposition of the big tree. There is nothing else in his entire oeuvre which has quite that breath-taking sweep, that first day of spring air. The branch of the pine plunges out in the direction of its growth and in the force of the wind as explicitly and as ecstatically as any tree of van Gogh's. Our picture brings to mind not only van Gogh's painting, but also his notation that he wanted to express in his drawing of the gnarled tortured roots of trees "the struggle for life."17 However, there is no twisted agitation, no pathos, no tragedy in Cezanne's pine as it soars away — off from the hill, out of the frame and free from the earth. Critics who are primarily impressed bv the logic of Cezanne's con­ struction sometimes overlook the passion of the artist who, while select­ ing, distilling, abstracting, remained "passionately fond'' of nature. Any­ one who can not recognize the depth of the artist's controlled feeling in his sober, exuberant, delicate art need only consult his biography and letters for evidence of it. The man of whose youthful imagination and sensibility Zola wrote "If love had not already been an old invention, he would have invented it";18 the man who shut himself up in his studio and wept the whole day when he learned of the death of his old friend Zola in 1902, even though he had neither visited nor written to the author of L'Oeuvre since one sad little letter acknowledging its appear­ ance in 1886; this man revealed himself in his art as surely as he mastered himself and his model. Time and again in his letters, as in the two examples from them quoted earlier, Cezanne makes clear that expression of feeling is an es­ sential element in his creativity. To acknowledge the existence of the expressionist in Cezanne (not only in the early romantic or late "baroque" periods, but in his "constructivist" or "classical" phase) is difficult for a generation brought up on the cliche of "Cezanne: back to Poussin and forward to Cubism and on to pure abstraction." That thoroughly de­ fensible but lop-sided view is happily avoided by several critics, particular­ ly Venturi and Schapiro,19 both of whom stress, in quite different ways, the human significance of Cezanne's work, and more recently bv Reff who quite frankly puts his name together with van Gogh's: "Here, especially in the exalted or profoundly solemn works of his last vears,

17 Letter no. 195, to Theo, The Complete Letters of Vincent van Gogh, New York Graphic Society, Greenwich, 1958,1, p. 360. 18 Quoted in Lionello Venturi, Cezanne, son art — son oeuvre, Paris, 1936, I, p. 20. 19 Meyer Schapiro, Paul Cezanne, New York, 1952; "Cezanne as a Watercolorist" in catalogue of Cezanne Watercolor Exhibition, Columbia University — Knoed- ler, 1963; and his lecture "The Humanity of Cezanne," delivered at the Art Institute of Chicago, February 26, 1952 on the occasion of the Cezanne exhi­ bition.

18 where watercolor was a major vehicle of expression, he was not at the opposite pole from van Gogh, as is sometimes said, but a close col­ league."20 Our Pine Tree at Bellevue, like our oil painting, the Viaduct at I'Estaque, came from Ambroise Vollard, Cezanne's dealer who had such abundant holdings of that master's work that Venturi did not see all of them when he was preparing his catalogue raisonne of Cezanne's pic­ tures. Bought from Vollard in 1936 bv Reid and Lefevre and exhibited by them in 1937, our watercolor,21 one of those which escaped Venturi, is to be included in the forthcoming revised edition of his catalogue which, it is to be hoped, will throw light on many puzzling matters, par­ ticularly with reference to chronology. To ascribe secure dates to Cezanne's pictures is notoriously difficult; of his more than 1000 oil paintings, less than 100 can be dated with rea­ sonable assurance.22 He rarely affixed dates to them and seldom even signed them. He sometimes worked several years on the same painting and, as Schmidt further observes,23 there are no abrupt changes of style in his mature work; rather, the transitions are gradual and any given pic­ ture can anticipate the future at the same time that it recalls the earlier work. Rosenberg placed our watercolor about 1890-94,24 Neumeyer 1885-87.23 It was once assigned,2" for some curious reason, possibly be­ cause of the boldness and openness of the composition, to the last phase of Cezanne's work; but one has only to look at the Oberlin watercolor for a moment in comparison with one of the late pieces, as Le pont des Trois Sautets in the Cincinnati Museum, painted in 1906 (V. 1076; fig. 6), to observe that the "relaxed drawing" in the Oberlin sheet lacks the bite and

20 Theodore Reff, "Cezanne: the logical mvsterv," Art News, v. 62, no. 2, April, 1963, pp. 28-31, ref. p. 30. 21 Ace. no. 62.38, called Landscape near Aix, pencil and watercolor, H. 12V4 x 18%. Purchased from Vollard, July, 1936 by Alex Reid & Lefevre; sold to Oswald T. Falk, October, 1936; included in Cezanne exhibition, Reid & Le­ fevre, June, 1937, no. 33; purchased from exhibition by Mrs. Chester Beatty; from her estate to Paul Rosenberg & Co., 1952; presented by them to Oberlin, 1962. 22 Adrien Chappuis accepts Rattcliffe's figure of 90 while reminding us that Re­ wald gave 100 and Cooper only 50; text, p. 20. 23 Georg Schmidt, p. 17. 24 It was published with this date in the Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin, XX, 2, 1963, p. 70, and in the catalogue of the Columbia-Knoedler exhibition, no. 72. 2r> Alfred Neumeyer, Cezanne Drawings, New York, London, 1958, no. 79, ill., text, pp. 58-59. 26 Cezanne, exhibition, Reid & Lefevre, London, 1937, no. 33.

19 6. Cezanne, Le font des Trois Sautets (V. 1076) Cincinnati Art Museum brilliant assurance of the late works and it has neither their pulsating. baroque character of swelling and receding space nor their transparent, angular planes floating like thin blocks of colored ice. Those qualities may be promised in some passages of the Oberlin watercolor but thev are far from developed and controlled; thev are, however, more firmly present by 1890 as can be seen in the Etude pour un arbre in the Kunsthaus, Zurich (V. 1024; fig. 5). Here, there is already much of that fluctuating, transparent quality of Cezanne's late work where patches of color run across, dissolve, and simultaneously form the volume, its edge, and the space and shadow around it; whereas objects in the Oberlin picture, par­ ticularly the large tree, are drawn with a fairly continuous outline, de­ scribing structure rather than evoking it, as is done later, through the interrupted, quivering contours. There is a hint of that quality in the Oberlin watercolor, notably in the tree on the extreme left, but be­ side the decision of the Zurich sheet ours appears tentative and certainly earlier. It could not have been done as late as 1890-94 and it is doubtful that it is as late as 1885-87 as Neumever proposes, although the latter dating is far more plausible than the former.

20 The Oberlin watercolor is clearly related to two studies for the familiar paintings of the Arc river valley with the viaduct and Mt. Ste. Victoire seen through the branches of the pines on top of the hill at Bellevue.27 Although Cezanne's brother-in-law did not purchase the Bellevue estate until 1885, there is, as Rewald suggests,28 no reason to assume that Cezanne never worked there before that time since it is not far from the Jas de Bouffan, the family home outside Aix, and since his delight in roaming the countryside, from his boyhood davs with Zola throughout his entire life, is well-documented. To one who knows that terrain fairly well, it is quite obvious that our watercolor was painted at the same place as Figures 7 and 8, although at a different angle — facing the rolling foothills of the mountain. In Figure 7 the little house at the left end of the road could be the same one whose roof is faintly indicated in the Oberlin picture, but that is an insignificant detail and, moreover, the locale of our tree has already been established bv comparison with the Lecomte and Leningrad paintings. It is in terms of stylistic, rather than topographical or dendrological similarities that we are concerned now. The study (V. 914; fig. 7) for the Phillips and the Courtauld oils (Venturi calls the latter La Montagne Sainte Victoire au grand fin and writes of it, "le pin . . . ferme le tableau avec un geste heroique"20) resembles the Oberlin watercolor in the fairlv continuous contour of the tree and its irregular shading, the quick roughly parallel strokes of the foliage, and the relative amount of openness and looseness in the total design. Several of these observations apply likewise to the Albertina study30 (V. 913; fig. 8) which, in addition, is similar to ours in the com­ parative vagueness of the sky washes, the loose hatching and spiralling character of the brushwork and the rapid, swinging pencil notations.31 Venturi assigned the oils which evolved from both of these watercolors to 1885-87 and the watercolors to 1883-87, which generous latitude does

27 The best known oils of this motif are V. 452, Metropolitan Museum; V. 454, Courtauld collection; V. 455, Phillips Gallery. Venturi placed them all at 1885- 87, but it is quite likely that their dates will be changed in the revised catalogue, V. 452 possibly earlier and V. 454 later. 28 In a letter to E. Johnson, August 14, 1963. 20 Venturi, I, p. 162. 30 Reproduced in color, Schmidt, pi. 10. 31 In a sketch book belonging to Leigh Block is a pencil drawing of the same sub­ ject as the Albertina watercolor; it is a lively little first thought in line noting the view and forming the plan of the picture. Reproduced in John Rewald, Paul Cezanne, Garnets de dessins, Paris, 1951. It is called Vue de la vallee de VArc (verso of Enfant dormi), 5th carr.et, p. XXII, pi. 46. According to Rewald the drawings in that carnet are mostly from 1875-85.

21 7. Cezanne, La Montagne Ste. Victoire (V. 914) Formerly Paul Cezanne fils Collection Photo: Bulloz not take into account the slight differences between the two. The Alber­ tina one appears to be not only less worked-up, i.e., less realized in terms of spatial complexity and over-all design, but somewhat less accom­ plished in those elements; this is especially noticeable in the indifferently formed sky and mountain washes already referred to. Moreover, color is applied in fairly simple, broad areas, whereas in the other work the color patches create more quickly changing intervals on the surface and in space. These differences suggest that the Albertina sheet came first; Novotny ascribed it to about 1885 in the 1961 Vienna Cezanne exhibi­ tion (catalogue no. 54). Its style suggests that it could be pushed as far back as the earliest limit of Venturi's original dating of 1883-87 and it is my understanding that it will indeed be placed at 1883-85 in the revised Venturi. The other study (V. 914, fig. 7) will probably be assigned to about 1885. The Oberlin sketch has elements which are comparable to both the others — some to one end and some to the other. In terms of the multiple segmenting of shapes and their lively movement in and out of space, our picture, even in its unfinished state, is closer to V. 914, fig. 7 than the Albertina one is. Curiously, it is also closer to fig. 7 in the way the great tree trunk and branches are drawn and shaded; but it is nearer the Vienna sheet in the hooked, spiralling and linear treatment of the

22 8. Cezanne, La vallee de I'Arc (V. 913) Albertina, Vienna foliage of the big tree and the shrubbery at its base and to its right. On the other hand, that awkward passage in our drawing is offset by the ef­ fective handling of the extreme left tree and ground which are more deli­ cately adjusted in their trembling contours and volumes. To summarize this triple comparison, the Oberlin drawing could have been done be­ tween V. 913 and V. 914 — probably closer to V. 914. This means that, if we accept the revised dates for those two pictures, our Pine Tree at Bellevue was painted between 1883-85, or about 1885.32 Of the pine trees at Bellevue, Venturi wrote that Cezanne "leur a donne de la force, de la fermete, de l'objectivite, et certaine communion particuliere avec 1'univers qui les rend humains."33 Our watercolor and the several related studies and finished paintings of that particular tree are a convincing example of the faithful and expressive element in Ce­ zanne's painting, a proof of his ability to remain close to the natural ob­ ject and to imbue it with lvrical passion. Ellen H. Johnson

32 From the standpoint of biographical evidence also, Cezanne could easily have executed the watercolor at that time since he was mostly in and around Aix in 1883-85 (as well as 1885-87); but to place the work, as has sometimes been sug­ gested, from 1879-82 would be less easy since he was not in the area from March, 1879 to November, 1881 nor from March to October, 1882. Venturi, I, p. 55. 2^

The Viaduct at VEstaque: A Footnote*

As is evident from the preceding article, it is difficult to ascribe closer dates to Cezanne's paintings than periods of two or more years (and even that, most of the time, is guesswork). Venturi placed the canvas Viaduct at I'Estaque in the Oberlin collection at about 1882-85. While it may be possible to discern stylistic changes within those years which would tend to place our picture in the early part of that period, this note is concerned with an extrinsic factor of significance in establish­ ing a more precise date for the Oberlin painting. In January 1882 Renoir, returning to Paris from Italy by way of Algiers, stopped at I'Estaque where he visited Cezanne; as was often their custom on such occasions, the two friends went out painting together.1 From I'Estaque Renoir wrote to Durand-Ruel in February 1882, "As it is very beautiful here, I am staying another fortnight. It would really be a pity to leave this lovely country without bringing back something. And the weather! The spring with a gentle sun and no wind, which is rare in Marseilles. Moreover, I ran into Cezanne and we are going to work together."2 On March 2 of the same year, Renoir wrote to Chocquet, "I have just been ill and am convalescing. I cannot tell you how nice Cezanne has been to me. He wanted to bring me his entire house. We are going to have a farewell dinner with his mother at his home; he is going back to Paris and I am obliged to stay somewhere in the South . . ."3 Cezanne left for Paris, then, in March 1882 and Renoir returned to Algiers.

Although today industrial structures at I'Estaque make it impos­ sible to view the place from precisely the same location where either artist worked, still the nature of the land in general, and particularly the

* To the article, " 'The Viaduct at I'Estaque' of Paul Cezanne," by Ellen John­ son, Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin, VII, no. 1, 1949, pp. 4-12; reprinted in The Art Quarterly, XIII, 1950, pp. 353-54. 1 To mention other occasions when they were together in the 1880's: in De­ cember, 1883 Renoir and Monet visited Cezanne at I'Estaque; in June and July 1885 Cezanne visited Renoir at La Roche-Guyon; in 1889 Renoir rented, from Cezanne's brother-in-law, the Bellevue estate where they both painted the pigeon tower and Cezanne's favorite motif, Mt. Ste. Victoire. 2 John Rewald, Paul Cezanne, a Biography, New York, 1948, p. 133. 3 Ibid., pp. 133-134. 25 2. Photo: I'Estaque (compare fig. 3)

3. Auguste Renoir, The Rocky Crags at I'Estaque Boston Museum of Fine Arts 4. Photo: I'Estaque (compare fig. 1) skyline, is sufficiently revealed in the photographs (figs. 2 and 4) to identify the site where Cezanne painted our Viaduct at I'Estaque (fig. 1) and Renoir The Rocky Crags at I'Estaque (fig. 3), now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. In his version of the locale, Cezanne confronts us abruptly with the jagged blue rocks and parched ochre earth; we are brought up close, but forbidden to enter. With Renoir we are at a safer distance, more passive and comfortable in his gently rolling land where the trees, the earth and the very rocks are soft and curved. In the Cezanne painting, on the upper right, there is a sharp rise of the cliff, crowned with a tuft of pine. That formation, which is so pronounced that one recognizes it immediately even when approaching I'Estaque from some distance out at sea, is also present in the Renoir; but, there, its bold angular character is minimized, not only because Renoir's landscapes often tend to be what Cezanne called "woolv," nor because Renoir did not love bonv rocks as much as Cezanne did — nor know them so well — but also because in his painting Renoir's position was a little more to the left than

27 Cezanne's, thus at an angle which introduced other forms, partly con­ cealing the projecting point. The contour of the Renoir mountain on the left side of the ravine corresponds with both the photograph and the Cezanne view, although Renoir's angle of vision takes in a wider lateral extension than Cezanne's. Renoir signed and dated his painting, on the lower left, "Renoir 82." While there are other pictures by Cezanne of the rocks at I'Estaque,4 the Oberlin canvas is the only known work bv him of the particular motif which he and Renoir painted in the two pictures reproduced here. Thus we can propose, with some confidence, that Cezanne painted the Viaduct at I'Estaque in the early months, and quite probably in Febru­ ary, of 1882.5 Ellen H. Johnson

See Venturi, 400, 402, 404. (Ours is 401.) We listed it as "1882(?)" in the "Catalogue of Miller Fund Acquisitions," Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin, XVI, no. 2, 1959, p. 60. In the Cezanne exhibition at Aix in 1956 it was dated 1883-84, no. 25, in the catalogue (entries by Douglas Cooper and Leo Marchutz). Fritz Novotny, in the catalogue of the Vienna Cezanne exhibition, 1961, placed it at "about 1882," noting in the catalogue description, no. 20, p. 26, that "Renoir was also in I'Estaque in 1882 and reported that he had gone out to work together with Cezanne." In the 1961 Cezanne exhibition at Aix it is dated by Leo Marchutz 1883-84, although refer­ ence is also made there to his having worked with Renoir at I'Estaque in 1882, cat. no. 9, p. 22. No specific painting by Renoir is mentioned in either of these references; and, so far as I have been able to discover, in the Renoir litera­ ture nothing more than general allusions are made to his having painted "Cezanne I'Estaque motifs" on this occasion.

2S Christina of Denmark by Michael Coxie

In 1953 the Allen Memorial Art Museum acquired a three-quarter length portrait of a young woman dressed in sixteenth-century mourning and holding a leather-bound book in ringed hands (figs. 1,8). 1 he eves are dark brown, cheeks and lips slightly flushed, and the few strands of hair that escape from the tight-fitting widow's cap are blonde. The figure, turned slightly to the left, is set against a dark, yellow-brown foil, the somber costume relieved onlv bv small white ruffles at neck and wrists. A reserved and gentle melancholy in the painted features, underlined by the quiet pose, commands immediate sympathy. The painting was purchased as a signed and dated work of the Flemish painter, Michael Coxie, representing Christina of Denmark.1 The portrait affords two possible areas for investigation: the authenticity of the dated signature, "MICHEL COCXYIE P1NGEBAT ANNOR- UM 1545," which appears at the extreme right of the panel, two and one-half inches from the lower margin; and the reliability of the sitter's identification as Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan and Lorraine. The Duchess of Lorraine was suggested as subject of the painting by Gustav Gliick in a 1934 article on Hapsburg portraits.2 It had been identified earlier with Mary of Hungary, Christina's aunt and Regent of the Netherlands under Charles V. The painting was still listed in the Rothermere sale of 1947 as "Maria of Hongaria," an identification also formerly given to a partial replica of the Oberlin panel now in the Fine Arts Museum, Budapest.3 Signatures are not uncommon in Coxie's work, although manv paintings are not signed. The inscription on the Oberlin panel and the date, 1545, were accepted as authentic when the portrait was in a

1 Michael Coxie, Flemish, 1499-1592. Portrait of Christina of Denmark, oil on panel, H. 28 in., W. 211%6 in. Mrs. F. F. Prentiss Fund. Ace. no. 53.270. The painting is first known in the collection of Count Arco, Munich, before 1925; acquired by the Knoedler gallery from A. S. Drey, Munich, in February 1925; sold to Drey and Co., New York, in January 1928; by 1938 in the collection Viscount Rothermere; sold Christie's, December 12, 1947 to Sabin Galleries, London; bv 1953 with Kleinberger and Co., purchased from Kleinberger bv Oberlin College, 1953. 2 Gustav Gliick, "Bildnisse aus dem Haus Habsburg," Jahrbuch der Kunsthis- torischen Sammlungen in Wien, 1934, VIII, 173-196. 3 No. 6709. See below p. 43. 2') 1. Michael Coxie, Christina of Denmark Oberli Munich gallery in 1925, and subsequently in the collection of Viscount Rothermere in the 1930's. However, telling discrepancies exist between this and other known Coxie signatures. In comparison with other Coxie signatures, the formation of the letters in the Oberlin painting is more regular and the spacing between them more even.4 Laboratory examination shows that this signature is applied over the varnish layers covering the remainder of the picture surface. The figure of the voung woman is set against a vellow-brown unevenly scumbled background in contradiction to its appearance as de­ scribed by Gliick who recalls the figure as set against a light-green back­ ground. The panel in its present condition has been thinned and mounted on masonite, a restoration technique in use for the last two or three decades. The fingers have been lengthened with a rather clumsy over- painting but there is no indication of when this alteration was made. Two photographs of the painting give a strangely conflicting record. A photograph published in 1938"' indicates a very light background, two vertical lines of discolored retouching running from neck to waist of the sitter, a more irregular formation and spacing of letters in the signature, and a different way of forming the digit 5 than is found on the pane! today. The painting still retains the ridges of the two parallel lines run­ ning down the middle of the gown and actually extending upward to the top and downward to the lower edge of the painting; these have been covered sufficiently to be visible now only in a raking light. However, a dealer's photograph made about 1925 shows a dark background, no ob­ vious discoloration in the retouching lines and the dated signature in its present form. The fingers with the retouching are the same in both photographs. To account for the difference in appearance of the panel as it was published in 1938 from its appearance both before and after that date one may assume that the publisher in 1938 had in hand a photograph made before 1925. This proves only that a restoration occurred at some point before 1925 but probably not long before. Gliick's observation that the figure was set against a light green background was made when he studied the painting "for a few years" at the gallery of a Munich art dealer. The painting's Munich history ends about 1925 when the pane! came to New York.

4 See facsimile reproductions, Alfred von Wurzbach, Niederlcindisches Kiinstler- Lexikon, Vienna, 1906, I, 349-351. 5 An exhibition of Rothermere paintings on loan to the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 1938, Pantheon, XXII, ill. p. 53.

31 It would seem probable that the painting, which had already suf­ fered alterations of the hands and retouching of faults running the length of the panel, was again restored after its sale in 1925, thinned, mounted on masonite, the background repainted, retouching done at wrists, areas of chin and gown along the fault lines indicated, and the signature then transcribed onto the new background — its condition when it appeared at the Bruges portrait exhibition in 1953." The four digits in the date are separated into two groups "15 45" for no apparent reason, but there is a faint indication of a figure 5 between the two groups of figures. The choice and use of Latin in the inscription are difficult to justify if this one is a faithful copy of a genuine Coxie signature. The verb pingo, while in itself correctly used, does not appear again in the known signatures of Coxie; in every other instance the verb used is facio. This docs not preclude the possibility that Coxie did on one occasion choose another verb, but the wrong case and num­ ber of the Latin annorum cannot be so easily dismissed. Coxie had bv 1545 lived in Italy under the influence of high Renaissance learning and would not in all likelihood inscribe so eminently fine a painting in the wrong case. There is no other instance of incorrect Latin among Coxie's signatures and the one other signed and dated portrait bv Coxie is in­ scribed "me fecit."1 The most reasonable solution for the signature as it now appears is that when the painting was thinned for remounting and the yellow- brown background scumbled over the light-green one, the signature was simply "re-applied" to the new background. This explains the regularity of the letters and the difference in the 5's, but not the incorrect Latin which read exactly the same when it stood against the green. The prob­ lem, therefore, becomes not whether the present signature is genuine, nor even whether it is a faithful copy of the signature on the panel in the 1920s, but whether this earlier signature, itself, was genuine.8 Because there are no documents pertaining to the portrait, and the present inscription is only a reflection of date and attribution, it is neces­ sary to establish the reliability of the date, 1545, and the probability of Coxie's authorship. Coxie was lionized during his lifetime as the "Flemish Raphael," shown marked favors by members of the royal family, attached to the

0 Exhibition "Le portrait dans les anciens Pavs-Bas," Musee Communal, Bruges, 1953, no. 8, ill. 7 For complete signature see below p. 39. 8 "Annorum" suggests a possible misunderstanding of "Anno Dom" or "Anno Dni" by the hypothetical restorer who replaced the original signature.

32 Brussels court of Queen Marv and patronized by both Charles V and Philip II. His long career was marked with success and popular ap­ proval. Van Mander gives his first wife, an Italian woman, credit for his efficiency and prosperity as an artist, but his second marriage to Ida van Hesselt after his return from Rome to the Netherlands in 1539 does not seem to have changed the course of his good fortune. During his ninety-three years he acquired great wealth, and although Hymans in a note to his translation of the Schilderboek reports that van Mander has exaggerated the painter's fortune,9 it is nevertheless known that Coxie left a costly collection of paintings and art works at his death. Still in demand to the last vear of his life, he died from injuries sustained in falling from a scaffold while overseeing restoration of his paintings for the Antwerp City Hall. Malines, or Mcchelen, where he enrolled in the painter's guild in 1539 was at that time a center for art and artists, and even though scorned or ignored by later historians of Flemish art for his "cold mannerism." lack of originality, and slavish copying after Raphael, Coxie fulfilled competently and well the demands of his society for a more gracious and sophisticated art. Coxie was not only a painter; following almost exactly in the foot­ steps of his teacher, Barent van Orlev, he was appointed director of the Brussels tapestry works, made court painter to Mary of Hungary, and between the years 1542 and 1556 completed the commission given originally to van Orlev for the stained glass in St. Gudule, Brussels.10 His designs for engravings are reflected in thirtv-two prints illustrating the history of Cupid and Psyche executed in Rome by the Marcantonio shop.11 As a painter attached to the regent's court, Coxie was also re­ sponsible for a part of the decoration in the queen's castle of Binche.

10 Henri Hymans; tr., Le livre des peintres de Carel van Mander, Paris, 1885, II, notes, p. 35. 10 Mary Helen Stone, Michael Coxie in Rome and a Handlist of his Later Works, Master's Thesis, New York University, 1957; catalogue of tapestry designs, stained-glass designs, and drawings for engravings, Vol. I, pp. 141-165. 11 The Legend of Cupid and Psyche, 32 plates after designs by Michael Coxie, 1532, engraved by Agostino Veneziano and the Master of the Die. Bartsch (Master of the Die) 39-70 with the exception of 42,45, 51 signed by Agostino Veneziano; Bartsch (Agostino Veneziano) 235, 236, 238; according to Bartsch the engravings are after Raphael designs, but there is no longer question as to Coxie's authorship. Illustrations: Psyche giving Presents to her Sisters, Master of the Die, Burlington Magazine, LXXXlX, 1947, p. 31, pi. IV; Telling of the Story of Cupid and Psyche, Agostino Veneziano, E. H. Haight, Apuleius and his Influence, New York, 1927, frontispiece; Psyche discovers Cupid, Agostino Veneziano, Haight, p. 179; Psyche at her Toilet, Master of the Die, Burlington Magazine, LXXVIII, 1941, p. 86. In collaboration with Michel de Neufchateau he painted the walls and ceilings of the grand salon, and was given payment in December of 1549 for paintings including "four figures in fresco and the lansgheneck portier, landscape, fireplaces, windows and designs for the same."12 He painted a large number of religious pictures, altarpieces for the most part, for which he was widely known. His teacher, van Orley, had been of the first generation of Flemish Italianate painters, absorbing many ideas from the south but remaining essentially northern, while Coxie with others of the Netherlandish romanists such as Maarten van Heems- kerck and Frans Floris, made the high Renaissance of Italy the ideal of sixteenth century Flanders. Through van Orley's work and Raphael engravings used in the tapestry workshop, Coxie met the Roman style even before his own journey to Italy in 1532. Italian portraiture was at its zenith in the six­ teenth century, and the Venetian tradition of Titian was complemented by such masters as Pontormo, Bronzino and Lotto among the mannerists, and by Raphael, himself. Firm contours, elegant costumes, slender hands and features, perfection of detail and subtlety of modelling mark their works. In many instances the subjects appear before unrelieved back­ grounds of a neutral brown, grey or blue. In his absorption of Italian art Coxie was, perhaps, most happily influenced bv the portraitists. The fact that he was chosen to complete a commission left unfinished b\ Sebastiano del Piombo which included a donor portrait of the Cardinal van Enckevoort is strong evidence that his ability was recognized in Rome.13 Portraiture also flourished in the North, in Flanders, Holland and Germany, in the sixteenth century, and the general tone of reserve was much the same as in southern works. There is, as would be ex­ pected, less elegance, or at least self-conscious elegance, in costume accessories, hands and features. An intentional blunting of accepted aristocratic formulae in the Oberlin painting is also present in many portraits of Coxie's Dutch and Flemish contemporaries, Jan van Score], Heemskerck, Joos van Cleve, and Willem Key. Of this group it is with the work of Willem Key, born in Breda, registered as master in the Antwerp painters' guild in 1542, that the Oberlin portrait has the closest affinity. It consists not merely in the re-

12 Albert van de Put, "Two Drawings of the Fetes at Binche for Charles V and Philip II, 1549," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, III, 1939/40, p. 54. 13 T. H. Fokker, Werke Niederldndische Meister in den Kirchen Italiens, The Hague, 1931, pp. 21-22 126-127.

34 strained color and poses, the large solid figures close to the picture plane, the modelling in planes of light and shadow, but also in the successful attempt at capturing a sombre, inner moment. Key was singled out bv his contemporaries as "soft:" Vasari in a short chapter on Flemish paint­ ers uses the expression "e quegli che piu d'ogni altro conduce le sue pitture sfumate, e tutte piene di dolcezza e di grazia."14 Stylistically the Oberlin panel does not seem to belong in the Flem­ ish mannerist tradition of van Orlev, the tradition in which all con­ temporary and subsequent literature places Coxie. In this style, as illus­ trated bv van Orlev, there is a decided linear treatment, areas limited bv line and filled in with smooth flat color. The Oberlin portrait, however, is modelled entirely in planes of value which blend and overlap to pro­ duce fullness of contour without any definite linear stops at such points as cheekbones, bridge of the nose and under chin, a portrait style in this characteristic more southern than northern. Having considered the Oberlin portrait as it fits into general styles of the sixteenth century, it must now be compared with those portraits known to have been painted by Michael Coxie. If the Oberlin panel did not bear its present inscription there would be little reason to suspect Coxie's authorship; although a handful of portraits, most of them donors on large altarpieces, are attributed to him, he was not in his time, nor has he been by any later writer, considered a portraitist. Eliminating the signature for a moment and given the subject — the niece of Mary of Hungary living in and out of the Brussels court — with the date 1545, choice would fall naturally among those painters retained by the court specifically for the painting of portraits, such as Cornelisz. Vermeven. Guillaume Scrots, or by 1550, Anton Mor. Coxie's commissions during the 1540's were for the most part in the decorative arts, his work in the Castle Binche, tapestry designs and the designs for stained glass in St. Gudule. He was also employed in the preparation of court fetes, and it is recorded that the only thing to bring forth a smile from sour-faced Philip when his emperor-father, Charles V, presented him to his future subjects in the Netherlands, was an organ so constructed by Coxie that live cats whose tails were tied to the keys howled each time a note was struck.13

14 Vasari, Milanesi, VII, p. 585; Van Mander, H. Floerke, I, p. 250f., follows Vasari, for example, "behaeghlijke soetheyt," or pleasing sweetness. Compare the Portrait of a Man, Copenhagen, ill. M. J. Friedlander, Die Altnieder- landische Malerei, XIII, pi. LVII; or the Portrait of a Woman, Berlin, ill. M. J. Friedlander, "Willem Key als Portratmaler," Pantheon, XIV, 1934, pp. 230-236. 15 R. H. Wilenski, Flemish Painters, I, p. 120. (London, 1960). 35 The first documented Coxie portrait is that done for the Cardinal van Enckcvoort as donor of frescoes depicting the life of St. Barbara in the Roman church of Santa Maria dell'Anima.1" The date of this donor portrait, most probably 1534, would place it at least eleven years before the Oberlin painting of 1545. This was a commission first given to Sebas tiano del Piombo but finally awarded to Coxie by his compatriot the cardinal. The ruined state of the cardinal's portrait, even before a 1954 restoration, makes anv comparison for similarity of style impossible.17 In the inventories of the collection of Charles I, a portrait, reput­ edly a favorite of the King's, is listed as a Michael Coxie.18 This picture has recently been identified with the St. William by Dosso Dossi, still in the royal collection.19 Earlier the possibility was considered of there being two examples of the St. William in the king's collection, an Italian ori­ ginal and a Flemish copy.20 Whether or not the painting described as a Coxie in the roval inventories was a copy is not so important here as the fact that such an Italianate portrait could be taken for a Michael Coxie bv the early keepers of the king's collection. Closest in time to Obcrlin's painting is a small brilliantly painted self-portrait from the Ghent altar copy which Coxie made for Philip II during the years 1557-59 (fig. 2).21 It is quickly brushed and very much smaller than the Oberlin portrait, but even in this near-improvisation there is firmness and solidity. The hair curls upward in a suggestion of

10 Fokker, p. 126. 17 111. G. J. Hoogewcrff, Nederlandsche Schilders in Italie in de XVle Eeuw, Utrecht, 1912; Stone, Vol II, fig. 25. 18 A description of the painting appears in Ashmole Ms. 1514 of 1639 in the Bodleian Librarv; reprinted bv Oliver Millar, "Abraham van der Doort's Cata­ logue of the Collection of Charles I," The Walpole Society, XXXVII, 1958-60, p. 20. See also Gustav Waagen, Treasures of Art in Great Britain, London, 1854, I, p. 10; Wurzbach, p. 351. Stone, Vol. I, p. 130, lists the portrait among "lost pictures" by Coxie, with the Wurzbach reference. 10 Millar, The Walpole Society, XXXVII, 1958-60, p. 230. See Catalogue of the Pictures at Hampton Court, C. H. C. Baker, 1929, no. 183. 20 Claude Phillips, "The Picture Gallery of Charles I," Portfolio, No. 25, 1896, p. 56. 21 For this painting (oil on panel) Coxie received 4000 ducats and the title "Painter to the King." Signed: Michael Coxie me fecit, Anno 1550 (should be 1559). See J. Duverger, "Kopieen van het Lam Gods'-rctable van Hubrecht en Jan van Eyck," Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts Bulletin, Brussels, No. 2, June 1954, pp. 51-67. See also first literary reference in the ode composed by Lucas de Herre in 1559, published in 1565 in Den Hof en Boomgaerd der Poesien, and quoted in full by W. H. J. Weale, Hubert and John van Eyck, London, 1908, pp. LXXVII-LXXXI. (This describes Coxie's commission and the length of time it took but does not mention the self-portrait. Weale in The Van Eycks and their Art, London, 1928, p. 59, describes the changes Coxie made from the

36 2. Coxie, Self-portrait from Ghent Altar Copy Musees Royaux, Brussels Copyright A.C.L. Bruxelles laurel leaves, and the armor is loosely but clearly described. Allowing for the difference in execution between the smooth, meticulously painted

original and mentions portraits of Charles V, Philip II and a self-portrait in three of the Christian Knights, an identification repeated by Duverger, p. 55.) The panels of the Adoration of the Lamb and of God the Father are in the 37 c —a

8 _

0

£ £

S5

s

s S

°t£ u surface of the Oberlin portrait and the quick stroking of the small self- portrait, there is remarkable similarity in the modelling of noses, in the drawing of the eye areas, and in the shading of the sides of the face from ear to cheek. Of the few reliable portraits known bv the Flemish painter, this self-portrait is the one that makes most plausible the assigning of the Oberlin portrait to Michael Coxie. The hand-list of known works bv Coxie appended to Mary Helen Stone's recent work on the artist's Roman period mentions two portraits, both dated and one signed.22 The portrait of a woman dated 1562 in the Beziers museum is given its attribution on the basis of similarity to the Oberlin painting.23 The portrait of a man formerly in the collection of the Count de Bergeyck, Antwerp, represents Gilles Gottignies, an an­ cestor of the family Bergevck, and is signed "Michael de Coxijen Me Fecit A°XVCLX" (fig. 3). The painting, exhibited for the first time in 1930 at the Flemish painting exhibition in Antwerp,24 and destroyed by fire in 1949, was the only other signed and dated portrait bv Coxie. How­ ever, for the problem of Coxie as a portrait painter the establishment of a provenance in the same familv from 1560 to the fire in 1949 is of major importance in demonstrating that at least on this occasion Coxie was commissioned to execute a portrait per se. The photograph of the painting clearly shows the containment of modelled areas of the face within linear contours and the sharp deline­ ation and crisp drawing, particularly in the beard and the fur collar, characteristic of Coxie's late manner as seen in donor portraits from altar- pieces painted in the 60's and 80's. The difference of fifteen years be­ tween the dates of the Gilles Gottignies and the Oberlin painting would

Berlin Museum, nos. 524 and 525; the panels of the Virgin and St. John are in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, nos. 97 and 98. Remaining wings are in the Museum of Fine Arts, Brussels, with the exception of the Adam and Eve panels, now lost. For the original document from Ghent Cathedral Archives, see the report of the Paul Coremans laboratory, L'Agneau mystique au laboratoire from the corpus Les Primitifs Flamands, Antwerp, 1953, p. 36 (12). 22 Also listed, a double donor-portrait of 1536, Parisian couple, de Bourgoing, sug­ gested as a Coxie by J. Q. van Regteren Altena, "Two Sixteenth Century Ex­ hibitions in Holland," Burlington Magazine, XCVII, 1955, p. 315. Stone does not accept it as Coxie's; on the basis of the reproduction in the above article it is not acceptable as Coxie's work. 23 Illustrated in Stone, Vol. II, fig. 51. 24 I am indebted to Comte Paul de Bergeyck for information regarding the portrait of his ancestor and for permission to publish the photograph. In a review of the 1930 Flemish exhibition, Alfred Scharf comments that the painting was un­ known up to this time. (Cicerone, XXII, 1930, p. 464.) Gustav Gliick in 1934 seems to ignore the painting when he states that the Oberlin picture is the only surviving Coxie portrait with a genuine signature.

39 provide for the change from the softer more planar modelling to the linear one. In the male portrait the three-quarter length figure, turned slightly to the left, is set against a neutral foil. The luxurious beard flows over a fur-trimmed coat of black velvet. The figure is bulky, especially massive through the shoulders, and attention is drawn to the face and hands by the slight white accent of ruffles at neck and wrists. The hands hold gloves and stick. In the placing of the figure against the background, the enlargement of the bodv in relation to the head bv means of bulky cloth­ ing, the conscious display of hands against dark draperv, the contrast of texture in beard and fur against the simple contour of the head, and the introspective interpretation of the sitter's personality, the Antwerp pic­ ture is next-of-kin to the portrait in Oberlin. Other Coxie portraits are from altarpieces painted in the 50's, 60s, and 80's. A donor portrait from an altar in St. Bavo, Ghent, from the vears 1555-60-"' presents Jean de Hertoghe kneeling at a prie-dieu with John the Evangelist standing behind him. The portraits of Elizabeth de Mil with her two daughters from the right wing of the triptych of Guv de Morillion, and the portraits of Guy de Morillion with his two sons from the left wing were painted in 1562 and arc now in the Communal Museum, Louvain (figs. 5-6).2" In the Musees Rovaux des Beaux-Arts in Brussels are the portraits of Leonard van Tour en Taxis on the reverse of the right wing and Gilles van Buslevden on the reverse of the left wing of a triptych whose center panel represents the Death of the Virgin; the altarpiece is dated between 1587 and 1590.27

There is a marked difference in these altars between the Raphael- esque manner of representing the religious subjcts and the unidealized way of representing the donors. It was not unusual for an artist to work in more than one maniera and there has not been to my knowledge any question of Coxie's authorship of donors as well as religious figures in these pieces. The donor portraits, although given more surface elegance than the Oberlin portrait, present depth and penetration of character and

2o Altarwings of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist with the donor Jean de Hertoghe; Reverse of wings: St. Bavo and St. Livinius. St. Bavo, Ghent, ill. Stone, Vol. II, figs. 45-48. Attribution to Coxie from Charles Blanc, His- foire des peintres de toutes les ecoles, Paris, 1850, p. 8. 2,5 Altarpiece of the Resurrected Christ, Louvain, 1562, oil on panel, originally made for the tomb of Guis de Morillion, Church of St. Pierre, Louvain; Coxie attribution from Blanc, p. 8. 27 Oil on panel, made for the Guild of the Cross-Bowmen at Brussels, in church of Notre Dame du Sablon. Attribution to Coxie from Blanc, p. 6.

40 5, 6. Coxie, left and right wing of Triptych of Guy de Morillion Communal Museum, Louvain Copyright A.C.L. Bruxelles in a few faces, particularly of Elizabeth Mil and her daughters, a some­ what soft planar modelling. The drawing of costume accessories and some of the faces is more mechanical than in the Oberlin picture, but two to four decades separate these works, again making a detailed comparison of relatively little value. Although the precision of drawing in some of the later portraits is not in accord with the tonal modelling and marked sim­ plicity of the earlier one, the difference could be explained by Coxie's greater distance from the softening Italian influences still strong in the 1540's immediately after his return from Rome in 1539.

41 o

a is- Q 2 O ^—' •Sa s IS o •g J3 O T3

0

— pq

• S 3 I J

< Finally, a second version of the Oberlin portrait must be examined (fig. 7).28 This replica showing onlv the head approximately the same size as the corresponding part of the Oberlin portrait, is still in the under- paint stages of an oil painting on oak panel. Although the unfinished glazing and missing highlights preclude judgment on the basis of oil technique, the replica must certainly be the work of a less competent hand. The right cheek in the Budapest version is longer in comparison with the left than it is in the Oberlin portrait, and as a consequence drops the chin on the right side and makes the left side of the face appear slightly contorted. This same error in drawing makes the mouth fuller but less wide and gives a general effect of a more forward tip to the whole head. The opened coat is pulled back more to the left shoulder bal­ ancing the slight forward tilt of head and deep lapel in the Budapest painting, while in the Oberlin portrait the bulk of body and more par­ ticularly the greater slant and length of shoulder line make the head appear poised on an unusually long neck. The Budapest painting is reproduced in the Prodomus Theatrum artis pictoriae of 1735, a pictorial record of the Hapsburg art collections at that time housed in the Stallburg, Vienna. These etchings were com- missioned by Charles VI as a continuation of the paintings and engrav­ ings of Italian works in the collection of Leopold Wilhelm executed bv David Teniers the Younger. The Budapest replica was listed in the 1659 inventory of Leopold Wilhelm's collection, made after its removal to Vienna, as entry no. 101 under "Malerey von teutsch unndt nider- landischen Mahleren."20 It would seem reasonable to assume that the painting had remained in Brussels from the time of Queen Marv until Leopold Wilhelm acquired the entire Brussels collection during his own regency of the low countries. The replica was in the collection of the Vienna Kunsthistorische Museum, although not described in catalogues & 28 In the Budapest Museum attributed to Coxie on the basis of the Oberlin painting. 29 Prodomus Theatrum, etchings by Franz v. Stampart and Anton v. Prenner, Vienna, 1735, published by Dr. Heinrich Zimermann, Jahrbuch der Kunsthis- torischen Sammlungen in Wien, I, part 2, p. VII; the etching of the Buda­ pest painting appears on plate 18 and is signed Purbus P., an 18th century attri­ bution that does not appear elsewhere. The 1659 "Inventar der Kunstsammlung der Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm von Osterreich," published by Adolf Berger, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, I, part 2, p. CXX, has the following entry, no. 101: "Ein klein Contrafait, in der Mitten Zerk- loben, von ohlfarb auf Holcz eines Weibspildt in einem schwartzen Klaidt und Aufsacz mit einem Klainen, Kraussten Kragel." Measurements given are in spans and fingers which equal 20 inches in height, 17 inches in width; un­ known master.

43 of the museum, until 1933-4 when it went to the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts. It is possible that the Budapest picture was begun as a copy of the Oberlin painting and never finished, or, a more plausible explanation, that the Budapest painting was never intended for completion, but rather as the model for a commissioned portrait. The practice of transporting a sitter's features via drawn or painted replica to a distant portraitist was not unusual at the time.30 The errors in drawing evident in the Budapest version of the Oberlin panel would be corrected in a finished painting, and final glazes and highlights would not be required in such a study. I he immediate presence of the sitter is more strongly felt in the Budapest painting. This quality results in part from its unfinished state, but if the replica were made from the Oberlin picture, this reflection of a living model would be fainter and not stronger than in the finished portrait. The date, 1545, on the Oberlin painting would not be acceptable if the full portrait were taken from life as Gliick suggests. It is safe to assume that Christina did not go to Brussels immediately following the death of her second husband, the duke of Lorraine. There is no such journey mentioned in Mrs. Cartwright's very full account of her life, al­ though manv other visits to Marv are described in detail. The duke, Francis, died in June of 1545, Christina retired to her dower house at Denouvre a week later, and postponed the state funeral for her husband until the following year. In August of 1545 her third child was born and the Duchess remained at Denouvre until Christmas when she returned to the ducal palace in Nancy.31 Christina would not have worn mourning while Francis still lived, and she spent the months of 1545 following his death in Lorraine, not in Brussels. However, if the death's head ring, 7 o a detail not present in the 1538 Holbein portrait of Christina as the widow of Milan, and the melancholy expressed in the painted counte­ nance are considered in conjunction with the fact of Francis' death in 1545, the Oberlin painting stands clearly as a commemorative portrait. Mary probably commissioned the portrait of her niece from Coxie who was then busy with other work for the queen in Brussels, and he worked from the oil study sent him from Lorraine in lieu of the Duchess, herself.

3i i The most notable instance of this is Titian who used a Jacob Seisenegger draw­ ing of the Empress Isabella taken from life as model for the portrait known today only in copies after Titian. See Jan Bialostocki, "The Empress Isabella, Titian and Guillim Scrots," Oud-Holland, LXIX, 1954, pp. 109-115; Gustav Gliick, "Original und Kopie," Festschrift fur Julius Schlosser, Vienna, 1927, pp. 224- 242. Mrs. Julia Adv Cartwright, Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan and Lor­ raine, New York, 1913, p. 298 ff.

44 The provenance of the study in the Brussels Hapsburg collections strengthens this hypothesis. One further possibility, which cannot be proved or disproved bv the existing documents, is the inspiration of a Titian portrait underlying the Coxie work. Many Titian portraits exploit the contrast of sensitive, haunting features and expressive hands against a somber, unadorned costume. Evident in infra-red photographs of the Coxie (fig. 8) but sub­ sequently painted out is a column base framing the sitter's head, a device often used by Titian. Perhaps in addition to the oil study from Lorraine recording Christina's features in 1545, Coxie also had before him such a Titian figure composition.32

32 The 1556 inventor)7 of Mary of Hungary's collection lists twenty-five Titian por­ traits among the paintings removed to Spain after her abdication as regent of the Lowlands. See A. Pinchart, "Tableaux et sculptures de Marie d'Autriche, reine douairere de Hongrie (1558);" Revue universelle des arts, III, 1856, 127- 146: inventory, no. 7: "El retrato de la duquesa de Milan e de Lorena, por Ticiano, sobre lienzo;" C. lusti, "Verzeichnis der Friiher in Spanien befind- lichen jetzt verschollenen oder in Ausland gekommenen Gemalde Tizians," Jahrbuch der Koniglich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, X, 1889, p. 185, no. 46: "La Duquesa de Lorena." Her collection went to Philip II who built the Pardo Palace near Madrid primarily for the exhibition of art w7orks. The Titians were hung in a special room designed for Hapsburg portraits and many of them w7ere lost in the fire of 1608 which destroyed the palace. A portrait of Christina by Titian is listed among the twenty-five portraits in the inventory, but there is no indication of when it was painted; w7e know only of its subsequent de­ struction by fire. The first assumption would be 1549, the year of the Augsburg parliament when Titian painted several of the Hapsburgs. Crowe and Caval- caselle arrived at this conclusion. (The Life and Times of Titian, II, London, 1881, p. 177.) If, however, Mrs. Cartw7right is correct in stating that Titian did not "have time" to paint Christina during the Augsburg gathering, the portrait would already have been hanging in Brussels during the 40's and thus provided the idea for Coxie's commemorative picture. This Titian portrait of Christina w7hich is documented in Mary's collection by the inventory of 1556, should not be confused with the already confused accounts of another portrait made when Christina came to Milan in 1534 as the bride of Francesco II Sforza: Crowe and Cavalcaselle, I, p. 355: "It may have been at Aretino's suggestion that Titian was subsequently employed to paint Stampa's likeness, and the portraits of the hunch-backed Sforza and the infant bride which the policy of Charles the Fifth gave him in 1534. . . . There is every possibility in favour of the belief that the portraits of Francesco Sforza and Christine were taken to Madrid. They w7ere copied there by Rubens, and doubtless perished in the fire of the Palace of Pardo." (Rubens was not in Spain during the years between 1604, the year the portrait is recorded in Florence, and 1608, the date of the Pardo fire.) Cartwright, p. 96; "Some writers have conjec­ tured that Alfonso brought his favorite court painter Titian to Milan, and that the Venetian master painted the Duke and Duchess on this occasion. No record of Titian's visit, how7ever, has been discovered, and he probably painted the por­ traits of Francesco and Christina from drawings sent to him at Venice. . . . Aretino [!]... according to Vasari, painted portraits of both the Duke and Duchess. [Christina's portrait] w7as afterwards, 1604, sent to Florence by order of the Grand-Duke Ferdinand who married the Duchess's granddaughter,

45 Several puzzling factors are explained by the hypothesis of a com­ memorative painting. The date 1545, which would be extremely im­ probable for a portrait taken from life, would be appropriate if the por­ trait were made in absentia to mark the date of Christina's second widow­ hood; Coxie's authorship, which could be questioned on the grounds that he was not among Mary's court portraitists, nor known as a portraitist, would make this the first of several commissions for copies after paintings given Coxie bv the Hapsburgs; the tentative appearance and unfinished state of the painting now in Budapest would be expected in a model taken quickly and bv a less competent hand; the obvious references to widowhood in the death ring and melancholy expression would justify the traditional date of 1545 that the present inscription reflects; and finally, an inspiration from Titian would account for the exceptional soft­ ness and beautv of the portrait now in Oberlin. Identification of the Oberlin portrait with Christina of Denmark appears in a catalogue of the Lord Rothermere pictures exhibited in

Christine of Lorraine. . . . Unfortunately, this precious portrait was afterwards sent to Madrid, where it is said to have perished in a fire. In Campo's engraving (published by A. Campo in 1585, from the painting) the youthful Duchess wears a jewelled cap and pearl necklace, with an ermine cape on her shoulders." (Vasari mentions onlv the portrait of the Duke, and as a Titian not an Aretino, Hind translation, IV, p. 208.) From the Pinchart article, p. 145, (on Mary of Hungary's art treasures) comes this puzzling statement: "Dans le compte de l'annee 1540 on lit qu'elle avait fait transporter, en 1536, 1537 et 1538, pour enricher sa galerie de tableaux les portraits de ses nieces Dorothee et Christine de Danemark; . . . Que sont devenus tous ces tresors artistiques? Aucun livre n'a pu nous l'apprendre." Why are these particular portraits separated from those taken to Spain in 1556? The Titian portraits of the sisters are also mentioned as a pair; why could these two not be the same pair? If this should be the Titian Christina that was later burned in the Pardo fire, it would certainly have been before Coxie's eyes when he worked for Mary in Brussels. A portrait signed and dated by Anton Mor, 1549, was published for the first time by Gliick in his 1934 Hapsburg portrait article, and also identified by Gliick w7ith Christina. He further suggested that the painting, now in a private collection in England, was once in the possession of Charles I as a portrait of Christina's mother. The Ashmole Ms. 1514, of van der Doort's catalogue, Wal­ pole Society, XXXVII, f. 33, no. 9, describes it as "A Whitehall peece. Item the Picture of the widdowe of Kinge Christian the Second of denmark. shee was sister to the Emperoure Charles the 5th. In a widdowe habbitt. In a black and part-guilded frame Soe bigg as ye life halfe a figure." This is an impossible identification, as Gliick points out, because Eleonore w7as never a widow. The visual impact is immediately reminiscent of Titian, and the Netherlandish mourning costume with white cap and flowing veil which Christina wore after she left Lorraine would coincide with the date 1549, the year of the Augsburg parliament when the Titian Christina may have been painted. It is then pos­ sible that the Anton Mor portrait is a reflection of the lost Titian, which would point to Crow7e and Cavalcaselle's assumption of 1549 as a date for the Titian portrait.

46 Budapest in 1938.33 Here the portrait is recorded as a signed and dated work by the Flemish painter Michael Coxie and entitled "Christiana, Duchess of Lorraine (1521-1590)." This identification with Christina stems from the observations earlier cited made bv Gustav Gliick in 1934. It is difficult to understand Gliick's insistence that the sitter must "not be looked for in the circle of the Hapsburg kin," but rather in that of the King of Denmark, for Christina, daughter of Denmark's Christian II is also the daughter of Isabella of Austria, sister to Charles V. The age, relationship to the Hapsburg court, and the mourning dress of Italy (as Duchess of Milan) or of France (as Duchess of Lorraine) were also considerations leading to the sitter's identification as the Danish princess Christina who was in 1545 twenty-four years old and twice a widow. In spite of the acceptance of Gliick's identification when the por­ trait was exhibited in Budapest in 1938, it is listed in the 1947 Rother­ mere sale as "Maria of Hongaria,"34 but comparison of the Oberlin por­ trait with unquestioned likenesses of the duchess and again with de­ scriptions from persons who saw and spoke with her, demonstrates con­ clusively that the sitter is Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan and Lorraine. In the Hampton Court triple portrait, Three Children of the King of Denmark, painted by Mabuse, Christina appears as a little girl of about two years.35 A hood covers her hair but the square full jaw is al­ ready prominent, as are the heavy-lidded eves and the wide full lips that are all features of the Oberlin painting. Here the child is dark-eved — brown eyes appear in the Oberlin portrait — but a contemporary descrip­ tion of young Christina's entrance into Milan on the occasion of her marriage to Francesco II Sforza states that her blue dress matched the color of her eyes.30 This, however, could be an understandable error on

33 "Exhibition of Selected Pictures from Lord Rothermere's Collection," Budapest, 1938, no. 4. 34 Christie's, London, Notice of Sale, 12/12/47: no. 2006. "Portrait of Queen Mary of Hungaria: Half-length in black dress shewing small white frills at the neck and cuffs and black head-dress, holding a book with both hands. Signed and dated 1545. On panel, 28 x 22 inches (71 x 56 cm.). Exhibited at Buda- pesth, 1938." 38 Friedlander, Van Eyck to Breughel, 1956, mentions three versions "more or less equal in quality" in England: Hampton Court, no. 595; Earl of Pembroke, Wilton House; and Earl of Radnor, Longford Castle. Millar thinks that the following entrv in van der Doort's catalogue to collection of Charles I, Ashmole Ms. 1514, f. 43, no. 60 (1639), must be the Mabuse: "A Whitehall-Peece. Thought to be of Jennett. Item under the Saide picture an other pictur where­ in 2 men children and one woeman child playing wth some apples in there hands by a greene table. Litle halfe figurs uppon a Board in a Wodden frame." 36 Cecelia Ady, Milan Under the Sforza, London, 1907, p. 245.

47 the part of an onlooker, especially as the voung princess had blonde hair, and blue eyes would be expected. A medal struck in honor of the voung bride, last Duchess of the . o 7 Sforza, bears her likeness at thirteen years. The face is in profile and indicates prominent nose, high forehead, full mouth and fullness under the jaw and chin.37 Francesco lived only a year after this marriage and Christina, widow at fourteen, returned to the Brussels court of Queen Mary where she had lived since her mother's death several years earlier. Henry VIII, searching for a wife to replace Jane Sevmour, opened negotiations in 1537 for the hand of the young widow of Francesco II.38 A correspond­ ence between John Hutton, English agent at the court of Marv, and Cromwell, Lord Privv Seal and close confidant of the king, written dur­ ing the long-distance diplomatic courtship describes Henry's successful attempt to arrange for a portrait of the Duchess.39 Her likeness was at that time being painted bv an unknown Brussels artist as a gift for the "Ladie Marqueis of Barrough," in which Christina appeared in her court finery instead of the "Ytalvn mourning" which she customarily wore. While the portrait, which Lady Burroughs gave to Ambassador Hutton, was still in transit to England, Philip I lobv and Hans Holbein were dispatched to Brussels. The diplomacy of Mr. Hobv resulted in Mary's permission to have her niece painted for the king, and the sketch bv "Master Haunce" taken in a three-hour sitting4" was of

37 Medal illustrated, Cartwright, p. 92; unique cast, 1534, in the Henry Oppen- heimer collection. 38 From the notebooks of George Vertue completed between the years 1721 and 1731, recording his notes on artists and accounts of his antiquarian tours, pub­ lished in the Walpole Society, XX, 1931-32, pp. 83-84: "(1537) an Overture made by the Emperors Embassador to Cromwell Ld privy seal, that a match might be had betwixt our King and Christina the Dutchesse of Milan, being a beautiful Lady and at the present lately come into the Low Countreys. Crom­ well answerd that he woud first sec her picture and then Speak to the King; which being granted one Hans Holbein, being the Kings Servant was sent over and in 3. houres space (as John Hutton our Agent there hath it) shewed what a Master he was in his Science. (This the picture was at Stafford house at whole leng. not Sold in the Sale. 1720 — but kept, and now at Greystock North­ umberland — in poses of Air Howard of Greystock —)" 3:1 Arthur Chamberlain, Hans Holbein the Younger, II, London, 1913, pp. 114-142. 411 A replica either of the original sketch or a three-quarter length study from the finished portrait by Holbein was found by Sir George Scharf at Windsor Castle in 1863 and considered by him the first sketch for the portrait, but there seems more reason for thinking it a copy after the sketch, now7 lost, or after the finished work. See Alfred Woltman, Holbein and his Time, I, (tr. Bunnett), pp. 426-27; this is an oil replica M length in which Christina wears three rings, one of them a gold hoop with a square black stone similar to the one in the Oberlin portrait.

48 such excellence that Hutton describes the first picture as "slobbered" in comparison. Many more letters were exchanged during the negotiations for the Hapsburg marriage, letters of interest here because they describe Chris­ tina's physical appearance in some detail. Dec. 9, 1537- "The Duches of Myllayn . . . arrived here as ystarday, very honorably acompenyd as well of hyr ow7en treyn as withe suche that departed from hence to meit hyr. I ame inffurmyd she is of the age of 16 yeres, very high of stature for that age. She is highar then the Regent, of goodly personage of boddy, and compytent off beawtie, of favor excellent, sofft of speche, and very gentill in countenance. She w7erythe moornyng aparell aftre the maner of Ytalie. . . . She ussithe most to spek Frenche, albeit that as it is reportid she can Ytalian and Highe Almeyne. . . . Dec. 9, 1537 (on the same day a postscript added after Hutton had himself seen the Duchess) — "Ther is non in theis parties off parsonage, beawtie, and byrthe, lyke unto the Duches of Myllayn. She is not so pewre whyt, as was the late Qw7eyn, whois soal God pardon; but she hathe a syngular good countenaunce, and when she chancesithe to smyl, ther aperithe two pittes in hir cheikes, and w7one in hyr chyne, the wiche becommythe hyr right excellently well."41

The Oberlin portrait undeniably records a person of goodly stature and "gentill" countenance, whether interpreting "gentill" in the Eliza­ bethan sense of noble or in the now more common usage as kindlv graciousness. The "pittes in hir cheikes and chyne" appear in the Ober­ lin portrait as well as the brown eyes and blonde hair mentioned in other excerpts. In the National Gallery's full-length Holbein portrait (fig. 4,', six­ teen-year old Christina wears the Italian mourning costume also known in Lorraine at that time and worn by the woman in the Oberlin portrait — a plain black gown tied at the waist with a black cord. Over it is worn a floor-length black coat with full sleeves gathered closely around fore­ arms and wrists. In the Holbein portrait fur edges the collar of the coat; in the Oberlin portrait the material is velvet. The neck and wrist ruffles in both portraits are of a fine white material, and in each painting a tight- fitting widow's cap covers the hair.

Grete Ring published this replica as the "Regent Master," Burlington Maga­ zine, XCIII, 1951, p. 89, fig. 27. For versions and copies of the Holbein and its complete history, see Michael Levey, "The German School," National Gal­ lery Catalogues, London, 1959, pp. 54-57, pi. 24. 41 Chamberlain, pp. 116-117.

49 The Llolbein picture shows Christina wearing one ring while in the Oberlin painting she wears four rings: the death's head, a square black stone on a gold band, a third ring which may bear a crest showing the Hapsburg eagle but is too blurred to be identified with certainty, and a fourth ring, a plain gold band with a very small stone only partly showing. Christina did not marry Henry VIII because the papal dispen­ sation, necessary after Henry's divorce from Katherine of Aragon, Chris­ tina's aunt, was never obtained. However, a tradition persists that she refused the English throne because she had one head only, and only had she two would one be risked to Henry. If the Oberlin portrait is of Christina and its date in the year of her second widowhood, it may be placed next to the 1 Iolbein in the chrono­ logical sequence of extant likenesses.42 The Titian portraits of Chris­ tina, one as the bride of Francesco Sforza and the second listed in the regent's inventory, are lost unless the second one is echoed in the Oberlin painting. In 1589, the last year of her life, Christina was painted with her daughter and granddaughter by an unknown artist on the occasion of the granddaughter's marriage to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany.43 The triple-portrait presents the younger women in richly ornamented court regalia, but Christina is still wearing mourning robes, a white cap and veil, and a plain white ruff unadorned bv any jewel. A shield on the wall behind her bears the arms of Austria, Denmark, Milan and Lor­ raine, and refers to her titles: Queen of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Duchess of Milan, Lorraine, Bar and Calabria, and Lady of Tortona. The wide mouth, heavv-lidded eves, square jaw and quiet dignity that mark all the portraits of Christina, even in her childhood, are present.

Although there is no evidence other than the Oberlin picture of Hapsburg portrait commissions to the artist, Coxie's was a protean talent and one rewarded many times by the royal family. Stylistical-

42 Gliick, "Bildnisse aus dem Haus Habsburg," p. 189, note 59, describes another possible representation of Christina: "Unter den kleinen Bildnissen der Portrat- sammlung Erzherzog Ferdinands von Tirol, welche unbenannt geblieben sind findet sich als Nr. 22 von Taf. C das sehr mittelmassige Brustbild einer ganz jungen Person in derselben schwarzen Trauertracht, nur mit einem weissen Pelzchen iiber den Schultern, und wahrscheinlich ist in diesem wenig charak- teristischen runden Kindergesicht ebenfalls Christine zu erkennen. So junge Witwen sind ja nicht haufig." 43 Triple Portrait, unknown master, ca. 1589 (Levey, questions whether post­ humous of Christina), Prado, Madrid, no. 1951; ill. Cartwright, p. 508.

50 ly, considering the length of time from the Oberlin portrait in the 1540s to the portraits of the 60s and 80s, it is possible that Coxie could have moved away from the softer modelling in the Christina to the slightly drier and more linear style in the donor portrait of Leonard van Tour en Taxis or in the signed portrait of Gilles Gottignies. Further, the quality of his work as evidenced in the small self-portrait from the Ghent Altar copy, and in the donor portraits of Elizabeth Mil and her daughters, lends considerable weight to the Coxie tradition witnessed bv the pres­ ent inscription on the Oberlin panel. In short, there are no proofs that the Oberlin painting is not bv Michael Coxie. Restorations have changed the background and marred the hands, but as seen in the infra-red photograph, the head is relatively untouched. Although the signature as it stands is not original, the tradi­ tion behind it must remain as a firm attribution. The date 1545 places the painting close to Italian influences in Coxie's career and supports the hypothesis of its role as a commemora­ tive piece. From comparison with other portraits of the sitter, and from agreement with written descriptions, the grave young woman of the Oberlin painting must surelv be Christina of Denmark.

Patricia Rose Stanford University

51 Nils Gosta Sandblad

Nils Gosta Sandblad, visiting professor of art during the spring semester of 1963, died in Oberlin on March 20. As professor of the history of art at the University of Uppsala Mr. Sandblad directed its distinguished Institute for Art History. He had been granted a leave of absence to offer courses in 18th and 19th century painting at Oberlin College, replacing Professor Ellen Johnson, who was then on sabbatical leave. Professor Sandblad was also to have presented the Baldwin semi­ nar on "Conception and Form in Some 19th Century Paintings." Professor Sandblad received his doctor's degree from the University of Lund in 1944. From 1935 to 1945 he was at the Malmo Museum as assistant art lecturer. From 1945 to 1955 he was docent and then deputy professor in the history of art at Lund. In 1955 he returned to the Malmo Museum as director of the Department of Fine Arts until his appointment at Uppsala in 1957. From 1959 Professor Sandblad was editor of Figura, the new series, published by the University of Upp­ sala. Probably best known in America among his numerous publications is his excellent book, Manet: Three Studies in Artistic Conception, pub­ lished in Lund in 1954. Professor Sandblad's death occurred less than two months after his arrival in Oberlin, but during that brief period he touched the lives of many people — students, colleagues and neighbors. Oberlin College is honored to have been served bv this fine scholar and teacher, this wise and generous human being.

^2 Notes

Baldwin Lecture Series 1963 -1964

The Baldwin Seminar for the fall term was presented by Henry Millon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on "Baroque Archi­ tecture: Rome and Piedmont." Professor Millon gave two public lec­ tures during the course of the seminar: "Geometry in 17th Century Architecture" on October 10 and "The Golden Age of Piedmontese Ba­ roque" on October 18. The Baldwin Seminar in the spring term will be given in April by Charles Seymour, Jr. of Yale University on "Problems in Fifteenth Century Italian Sculpture."

On October 22 Robert R. Wark of the Huntington Art Gallery, San Marino, lectured on "Rowlandson's Tour in a Post Chaise." On November 21 Cecil L. Striker of Vassar College lectured on "Ottoman Architecture and Byzantium: the Nature of 11th Century Grecophilia."

Oberlin Archaeological Society The Oberlin Archaeological Society will sponsor three lectures dur­ ing the academic year of 1963-64: October 24, 1963, Professor Bernard Ashmole, Oxford University, "Greek Votive Reliefs;" March 5, 1964, Pro­ fessor Rene Millon, University of Rochester, "Archaeology of Teoti- huacan;" April 10, 1964, Professor P. Dikalos, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, "The Excavation of Enkomi."

Fall and Winter Exhibitions From October 1 (for a two-year period) Works from the Princeton Museum October 13-November 3 Gislebertus, Sculptor of Autun Lent by the American Federation of Arts Gallery talk by Professor Edward Capps October 29 October 25 - November 25 Norman Tinker: Sculpture and Drawings Gallery talk by Mr. Tinker October 29

53 November 5-30 Physics and Painting Lent by the Smithsonian Institution December 2-14 French Sculpture, 18th and 19th Century Photographs lent by the French Embassy, New York January 6-25 Tamarind Impressions Lent bv the American Federation of Arts

Index to the Bulletin An index to Volumes XI through XX (1953-1963) of the Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin was published this fall. It has been mailed to Bulletin subscribers and exchanges. It will be sent to members of the Friends of Art on request.

Friends of Art Film Series 1963-64

October 10 Night and Fog (Resnais, 1955) Red Badge of Courage (Huston, 1951) November 11 Homage to Jean Tinguelv (Breer, 1960) Shoot the Piano Player (f ruffaut, 1960) January 16 Interview (Pintoff, 1960) Case of the Mukkinese Battle-Horn Tillie's Punctured Romance (Sennett, 1914) February 18 Fotodeath (Kouzel, 1961) Devi (The Goddess) (Indian, 1961) March 24 A Bowl of Cherries (Kronick, ca. 1960) The Love Game (de Broca, 1960) May 5 The Elephant will never Forget (Krish) Throne of Blood (Kurosawa, 1957)

54 Loans to Museums and Institutions

Paul Cezanne, Pine Tree at Bellevue To Knoedler Galleries, N.Y., (Columbia University benefit) April 2-20, 1963 Exhibition: "Cezanne Watercolors"

Chinese, three Rubbings To the Amon Carter Museum of Western Art, Fort Worth, De­ cember 15, 1962-April 15, 1963 Exhibition: "Appaloosa, the Spotted Horse in Art and History"

Michael Coxie, Christine of Denmark To the Musees Rovaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels, Sep­ tember 20-November 30, 1963 Exhibition: "Le siecle de Bruegel"

Henri Edmond Cross, The Return of the Fisherman To Pomona College, Claremont, April 16 - May 12, 1963 Exhibition: "Muse or Ego — Salon and Independent Artists of the 1880's"

Arshile Gorky, The Plough and the Song, painting and drawing To the Museum of Modern Art, N.Y., December 17, 1962-Febru­ ary 12, 1963; to the Gallery of Modern Art, Washington, March 12-April 14, 1963 Exhibition: "Arshile Gorky"

Paul Klee, Die Paukenorgel To the Denver Art Museum, April 7 - May 7, 1963 Exhibition: "Paul Klee in Review"

Amedeo Modigliani, Nude with Coral Necklace To the Arts Council of Great Britain: Royal Scottish Academy, Edinburgh, August 17-September 16, 1963; Tate Gallery, London, September 28 - November 3, 1963 Exhibition: "Modigliani"

5^ Jusepe de Ribera, Blind Old Beggar To the John Herron Museum of Art, Indianapolis, February 10- March 24, 1963; to the Rhode Island School of Design, Provi­ dence, April 19-May 26, 1963 Exhibition: "El Greco to Goya"

Auguste Rodin, The Prodigal Son To the Museum of Modern Art, N.Y., April 29 - September 8, 1963 Exhibition: "Rodin"

Egon Schiele, Black Girl To the University Art Gallery, Berkeley, February 5-March 10, 1963; to the Pasadena Art'Museum,'March 19-April 21, 1963 Exhibition: "Viennese Expressionism 1910-1924"

Oguri Sotan, Landscape To the Asia Society, N.Y., February 24 - April 21, 1963 Exhibition: "Tea Taste in Japanese Art" To the Museum of Art, Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute, Utica, September 15-October 13, 1963; to the Rochester Memorial Art Gallery, November 1 -December 1, 1963 Exhibition: "Masters of Landscape: East and West"

J. M. W. Turner, View of Venice To Wildenstein Galleries, N.Y., March 7 - April 6, 1963 Exhibition: "Birth of Impressionism"

Anthony Van Dvck, Portrait of a Man Benjamin West, General Kosciusko To the Cleveland Museum of Art, October 1 -November 10, 1963 Exhibition: "Style, Truth and the Portrait"

56 Friends of the Museum Friends of the Museum Oberlin Friends of Art

IN MEMORIAM MEMBERSHIPS

Arietta M. Abbott Florence Jenney Jacob Franklin Alderfer Dr. Louis C. Johnson J. E. Artz Dr. Frances E. Killoren Charles K. Barry Mrs. Hazel B. King Genevieve Brandt Mary Smith McRae E. Louise Brownback Julia Patton Mrs. Katherine L. Lewis Bushnell Richard L. Ripin Howard C. Carter Raymond H. Stetson Cyrus Alonzo Clark Mrs. Henry Stanton Storrs George Draper Coons Henry Stanton Storrs Mrs. Maud Baird Coons Jessie Tazewell Edith Dickson Giovanni Terzano Mrs. Amelia Hegman Doolittle Helen Ward Antoinette Beard Harroun

LIFE MEMBERS

Werner Abegg Louise S. Richards Frederick B. Artz Mr. and Mrs. George Bassett Roberts Mr. and Mrs. John Z. Atkins Mrs. Galen Roush Mrs. Harry E. Barnard Margaret Schauffler Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Bongiorno Janos Scholz Mr. and Mrs. Frank C. Fisher Mrs. George H. Seefeld Philip E. Foster Mrs. Alan B. Sheldon Erwin N. Griswold Constance D. Sherman Mr. and Mrs. E. Robert Irwin Mrs. Pierre R. Smith Ellen H. Johnson Mrs. Katherine B. Spencer Mr. and Mrs. Owen T. Jones Mr. and Mrs. Wolfgang Stechow Philip L. Kelser Mr. and Mrs. Frank C. Van Cleef Mrs. Philip L. Kelser Clarence Ward Mr. and Mrs. Ben W. Lewis Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Hatch Wilkins Mrs. Elizabeth R. Parkhurst Beatty B. Williams Mrs. Cassie Spencer Payne Barbara Wriston Haig M. Prince

FAMILY MEMBERS

Mr. and Mrs. David L. Anderson Mr. and Mrs. Bronson Clark Mr. and Mrs. John Antes Mr. and Mrs. Hans G. Funk Mr. and Mrs. Walter E. Aschaffenburg Saul R. Gilford Mr. and Mrs. Simon Barenbaum Mr. and Mrs. Nelson W. Gilmer Mx. and Airs. John D. Baum Mr. and Mrs. Nathan A. Greenberg Mr. and Mrs. Robert K. Carr Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Harmeling

59 Mr. and Mrs. James S. Heifer Mr. and Mrs. Carl Peterson Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Isackes Mr. and Mrs. Walter E. Reeves Mr. and Mrs. Douglas R. Johnson Mr. and Mrs. James Roemer Mr. and Mrs. Paul Kuestner \\v\ . and Mrs. F. T. Schumacher Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Landfield Dr. and Mrs. Warren Sheldon Mr. and Mrs. Frank Lay cock Mr. and Mrs. John R. Spencer Mi. and Mrs. Leon Lishner Mr. and Airs. Robert R. Stoll Mr. and Mrs. Dayton E. Livingston Mr. and Airs. Starr Truscott Mr. and Mrs. James F. Long Mr. and Airs. Thomas R. Whitaker Mr. and Mrs. Barry McGill Mr. and Airs. Felix S. White, Jr. Mi. and Mrs. Thurston E. Manning

SUSTAINING AIEMBERS

Air. and Mrs. Paul B. Arnold Mrs. Rochelle Frankcl Mrs. Iledy Backlin Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Friebert Air. and Mrs. Eugene J. Berke Alargret A. Funk Air. and Airs. William Berman The Gallerv, Inc. Air. and Airs. Franz Bibo Mr. and Airs. Dewey Ganzel Franklin AI. Biebel Air. and Airs. Donald Gilbert Al. and Alme. Billiard-Duchcsne Mr. and Airs. Bernard L. Gladieux Mr. and Airs. Paul H. Boase Mr. and Airs. Samuel Goldberg Mrs. Carol C. Bowie Richard A. Goldthwaite Mr. and Airs. Wallis Braman Airs. Paul C. Graham Edwin W. Brouse Air. and Airs. Henry Grubbs Mr. and Airs. Richard D. Buck Air. and Airs. William II. Hamilton Air. and Airs. Kenneth Burch Mr. and Airs. Peter Hawkins Air. and Mrs. C. Parks Campbell Air. and Airs. Roger Hazelton Mr. and Airs. William Capitan Mr. and Airs. William F. Hellmuth Air. and Airs. Edward Capps, Jr. Mr. and Airs. Sam Herman Dr. and Mrs. C. W. Carrick Dr. and Airs. Clyde Holbrook Mrs. James Christie Howard C. Hollis Anne F. Clapp Air. and Airs. A. G. Hoover Mr. and Airs. Mills Clark Lucretia I Ioover Mrs. Ralph Al. Coe Anne Horton James S. Constantino Air. and Airs. Irvin E. Ilouck Air. and Mrs. Stanley Cowan Alfred H. Howell Mrs. Clifford C. Cowin Air. and Airs. Richard R. Huber Mr. and Airs. Charles R. Crawford Mr. and Airs. John Hyde Dr. and Mrs. Robert Crawford Randall Jacob Mrs. F. Reed Dickcrson Mr. and Airs. David W. Jewell Airs. Paul Drey Air. and Mrs. Harry J. Johnson Air. and Airs. R. W. Dussel Max Kade Air. and Mrs. Percy J. Ebbott Mr. and Airs. William E. Kennick Roger Emanuels Air. and Airs. C. W. Kinney, Jr. Robert W. Evans Mrs. Katharine Kuh All- and Airs. Richard Exner Airs. Alarie Lehn Air. and Mrs. P. T. Fenn Dr. and Airs. William Leonard Air. and Airs. William Fenstemacher Air. and Airs. Beryl H. Levy Mr. and Airs. Paul A. Frank Mr. and Airs. John D. Lewis 60 Lucy Lewis Thelma J. Scott Robert Al. Light Air. and Airs. Tom K. Scott Lloyd G. Linder Mrs. Paul R. Shafer Airs. Richard H. Long Air. and Airs. Chester L. Shaver Richard P. Lothrop Dr. and Mrs. A. Clair Siddall Donald Love Air. and Mrs. Phillip W. Silver Mrs. John W. Love Mr. and Mrs. George E. Simpson Mr. and Mrs. Frits Lugt Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Singleton Charles R. AlcAnall III Mr. and Airs. George Leroy Smith Mr. and Mrs. Alelvin Martens Carl B. Spitzer Dr. and Airs. Jonas Alaurukois Air. and Airs. Ira S. Steinberg Airs. Alargery Al. Alayer Avonelle Stevenson Air. and Airs. Daniel Alerrill Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Stevenson Air. and Airs. Charles T. Alurphy Air. and Airs. Warren Taylor E. Earl Newsom Carole Taynton Dr. and Mrs. J. Herbert Nichols Eileen Thornton Air. and Airs. Walter G. Nord Air. and Airs. Herman H. Thornton Air. and Mrs. Kenneth N. Packard Mr. and Airs. Norman Tinker Erwin Panofsky Harold Tower Mr. and Mrs. Don J. Pease Air. and Airs. L. R. Tower Mr. and Mrs. Harold W. Peterson Mr. and Airs. Robert Tufts Air. and Airs. Kenneth A. Preston Air. and Airs. Edward Turvey Air. and Mrs. Paul W. Rahmeier Dr. and Airs. Don P. van Dyke Air. and Airs. Donald R. Reich Dr. and Airs. A. D. VenTresca Air. and Airs. Joseph Reichard Air. and Airs. Warren Walker, Jr. Mr- and Airs. William B. Renfrow Air. and Airs. Robert L. Walters Patricia Anne Rose Dr. and Airs. John H. Warner Air. and Airs. Vinio Rossi Air. and Airs. Robert Weinstock Dr. and Airs. H. S. Schaeffer Mr. and Airs. Forbes Whiteside Theodore Schempp Air. and Mrs. Dudley A. Wood Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Schlesinger Airs. Ernest G. Yocom Dr. and Airs. Heinz Schmeling Air. and Airs. David P. Young Air. and Airs. Joseph Schwartz Air. and Airs. Richard H. Zinser

In addition to the above members, there are 110 annual members and 400 student members.

(.1 MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION OBERLIN FRIENDS OF ART

Privileges of membership: All members will receive

A copy of each issue of the Bulletin

Invitations to all private receptions and previews at the Museum

Announcements of all special exhibitions, Baldwin public lectures and other major events sponsored by the Museum

A discount on annual subscription to Art News

Free admission to the Friends of Art Film Series

Categories of membership:

In Memoriam Memberships may be established by a contribution of $100 or more

Life Members contribute $100-$1,000 at one time to the Friends of Art Endowment Fund

Family Members contribute $25 annually

Sustaining Members contribute $10-$100 annually

Members contribute $5-$10 annually

Student members contribute $3-$10 annually

The adequate maintenance of the Museum and the development of its collections are dependent upon the assistance of its friends. We invite anyone interested in the Allen Memorial Art Museum of Oberlin College to contribute to its growth by becoming a Friend of Art under one of the foregoing groups.

62 STAFF OF THE MUSEUM

John R. Spencer, Director Mrs. Doris B. Moore, Assistant to Clarence Ward, Director Emeritus the Director Mrs. Chloe Hamilton Young, Curator Delbert Spurlock, Athena Tacha, Assistant Curator Technical Assistant Mrs. Margery Mayer, Librarian Robert Williams, Head Custodian

INTERMUSEUM LABORATORY

Richard D. Buck, Conservator Delbert Spurlock, Anne F. Clapp, Associate Conservator Assistant Conservator Mrs. Henriette F. Bcrger, Secretary

MUSEUM PURCHASE COMMITTEE

John R. Spencer, Chairman Robert K. Carr Paul B. Arnold Mrs. Oscar Jaszi Frederick B. Artz Ellen H. Johnson Karl Aughenbaugh Donald M. Love Andrew Bongiorno Wolfgang Stechow Richard D. Buck Forbes Whiteside Edward Capps, Jr. Mrs. Chloe Hamilton Young

EDITOR OF THE BULLETIN MUSEUM HOURS Mrs. Laurine Mack Bongiorno School Year: Monday through Friday mornings on request PHOTOGRAPHER 1:30-4:30 and 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. Arthur E. Princehorn Saturday 2:00-4:00 P.M. Sunday 2:00-6:00 P.M.

Summer: PUBLICATIONS Monday through Friday The Bulletin, photographs, 10:00-12:00 A.M. and postcards and color repro­ 2:00-4:00 P.M. (apply at side gate) ductions are on sale at the Saturday 2:00-5:00 P.M. Museum Sunday 2:00-6:00 P.M.

63