UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

Call to Action: The Role of Religious in Utrecht’s Golden Age (1590-1640)

A thesis submitted to the Art History Faculty of the School of Art/ College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Art History

Chris Strasbaugh 2007

Thesis Committee Chair: Diane Mankin, Ph. D. Reader: Kristi Nelson, Ph. D. Reader: Mikiko Hirayama, Ph. D.

Abstract

During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the was amid the religious conflict of Protestantism and Catholicism. While the country emerged under the Protestant flag, the conflict inundated the lives and work of the artists especially in town of Utrecht, the Catholic

stronghold in a Calvinist nation. (1566-1651), a Catholic artist, and his

Calvinist counterpart, Wtewael (1566-1638) both treated the field of religious history

painting as a means to place their religious beliefs into their art in order to further their religious

affiliation’s mission. I address these artists’ work through formal analysis, an iconographical

study, as well as placing them inside the socio-historical context of Utrecht from 1590 to 1625.

Each chapter is centered on various religious history themes that both artists depicted. Chapter one focuses on the predominantly Protestant theme of Moses Striking the Rock in order to show how both artists took this motif and adapted it to the context of Utrecht. In chapter two, I identify how both Bloemaert and Wtewael take the Catholic theme of Adoration of the

Shepherds and infuse the images with multiple levels of meanings. The last chapter is on moralizing genre scenes in which both artists began to place religious messages inside scenes of everyday life.

Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the inspiration and support of many people. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Diane Mankin, for her constant support and ideas that truly brought this thesis together. I would like to thank my editors, Ross King and

Mackenzie Howard for their hours of reading and their friendship. I would like to thank my classmates for always lending encouraging words. My thesis would never have happened without the love and support of my wonderful wife. Thank you Leah for your sacrifices and standing by me through this project. Above all I owe everything to my Lord who provided me the inspiration, peace, and wisdom that I needed in order to complete this task.

I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13

Contents

List of Illustrations……………………………………………………………………………..2-3

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….....4-7

Chapter One:

“Moses Striking the Rock: The Dutch as the Israelites”………………………………………8-28

Chapter Two:

“Adorations in Utrecht: Catholic Imagery in a Protestant Land”…………………………….29-46

Chapter Three:

“Moralizing Genre Scenes in Utrecht: Apparent Morality and Hidden Message”…..………47-58

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………59-60

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….61-63

Illustrations…………………………………………………………………………………...64-96

Strasbaugh 1 List of Illustrations

Figure

1. Abraham Bloemaert, Moses Striking the Rock, 1596

2. , Moses Striking the Rock, 1624

3. Pieter Pietersz, The Three Young Men in the Blazing Furnace, 1575

4. Bartholomaeus Spranger, Venus and Adonis, 1597

5. Cornelis van Haarlem, The Wedding of Peleus and , 1593

6. Abraham Bloemaert, The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, 1590-91

7. Jacob de Backer, The Last Judgement, 1580

8. Joachim Wtewael, The Deluge, 1592-95

9. Joachim Wtewael, Lot and His Daughters, 1597-1603

10. , Lot and His Daughters, 1616

11. Joachim Wtewael, Lot and His Daughters, 1603-1608

12. Gerrit van Honthorst, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1622

13. Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1612

14. Hugo van der Goes, Portinari Triptych, 1476-79

15. Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1623

16. Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1620

17. Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, date unknown

18. , Adoration of the Shepherds, 1608

19. Joachim Wtewael, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1601

20. Joachim Wtewael, A Shepherd with Bagpipes and A Shepherdess with a Lamb, 1623

21. Peter Wtewael, A Shepherd with Bagpipes and A Shepherdess with a Lamb, 1627-1628

Strasbaugh 2 22. Abraham Bloemaert, Landscape with the Parables of the Wheat and Tares, 1624

23. Joachim Wtewael, Kitchen Scene with the Parable of the Great Supper, 1605

24. , Meat Still Life of Flight to Egypt, 1551

25. Abraham Bloemaert, Landscape with the Parables of the Tares, 1604

26. Abraham Bloemaert, Landscape with the Parables of the Tares, 1640s

27. Abraham Bloemaert, The Four Church Fathers, 1632

28. Peter Wtewael, A Kitchen Scene, 1625-1628

29. Joachim Wtewael, A Kitchen Scene with the Supper of Emmaus, 1605

30. Joachim Wtewael, A Kitchen Scene with Christ, Martha, and Mary, 1620-1625

31. Gerrit van Honthorst, A Soldier and a Girl, 1622

Strasbaugh 3 Introduction

Due to the Dutch Calvinist mistrust of traditional religious imagery following the

Protestant Reformation, the artists of the day were faced with the problem of losing their biggest patron, the Catholic Church. However, religious history , which once primarily decorated the walls of Catholic churches and private chapels, were still produced in the predominantly Calvinist nation. These paintings still contained many of the same motifs, but in

Dutch society they took on different or additional meanings.

One of the issues among Dutch historians is how to measure the true effect of the

Calvinist majority on the Catholic minority. This question readily applies to interpreting the imagery that was produced in reaction to the rampant iconoclasm of 1566 when the Protestant mob destroyed much Catholic artwork in the . During the following period, it is easy to discern a significant change in taste among the Calvinist population away from depictions of saints and traditional Catholic devotional stories to images that include a variety of other Biblical narratives and that emphasize different ideas of religious devotion. In the city of Utrecht, the traditional Catholic imagery did not disappear altogether due to the large Catholic population.

Instead, the emphasis of the religious motifs changed from merely satisfying Catholic devotional goals to including additionally the moralizing themes and behavior exemplars favored by the

Protestant population. Focusing on the and development of three typical religious subjects prevalent in the Utrecht Catholic community during the years of 1590-1650, I plan to also supplement the imagery with a socio-historical study by using seventeenth-century documents and historical resources that provide political, religious and social context in order to uncover the motivations surrounding the change in what themes were painted and how those themes changed. The major themes that I will explore are the images of the Moses Striking the

Strasbaugh 4 Rock found in the Old Testament, the Adoration of the Shepherds representing a traditional

Catholic theme, and moralizing genre scenes that combine kitchen, market or landscape with religious messages.

The art historical scholarship regarding the produced in Utrecht from 1590-

1650 is relatively small compared to the huge volume of research done concerning Golden Age

Dutch art over the years. Following the scholarship which overwhelmingly focused on the artistic centers of , Haarlem, Leiden, and Delft, C.H. de Jonge took the first step into the field of Utrecht painting in 1933 for the catalogue for the in Utrecht.

Despite this beginning, the research in the area of religious artwork in Utrecht was relatively quiet until the last two decades. Recently, scholars such as Paul Dirkse (1989, 1991), Marcel

Roethlisburger (1993), Xander van Eck (1993-94), Gero Seelig (1995), and Walter Melion

(1997) began to focus on the Catholic art in Utrecht.1 In addition to these advances, Masters of

Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht During the Golden Age, a cooperative effort of the Fine Arts

Museums of San Francisco, The Walter Art Gallery in Baltimore, and The in

London, was the first major exhibition that brought together the scholarship on the Utrecht school painters and their works.2 A large majority of this scholarship has been written or translated into English which is accounts for many of my references.

These resources, however, seem to avoid a direct discussion of the effects of the Calvinist influences on and persecution of the Catholics during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Utrecht. For instance, van Eck mentions in his article, “Dreaming of an Eternally Catholic

Utrecht during Protestant Rule,” that in 1644 the city leaders arrested the acting Catholic

1 Joaneath Ann Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr, Masters of Light : Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age (Baltimore, Maryland: Walters Art Gallery ; San Francisco,California;: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Distributed by Yale University Press, 1997), 9-11. 2 ibid., 7.

Strasbaugh 5 archbishop, Philippus Roveniuson, on charges of “running an illegal operation” and finally

closed the church completely in 1654.3 However, van Eck does not mention what the effects of

these persecutions might have had upon the imagery that was produced by the Utrecht school.

While this instance of persecution takes place outside of my timeline of study, the problem

remains the same. The research among scholars seems to separate the art and the context that

influenced its religious, iconographic, and political meaning by focusing on the stylistic aspects

of the artwork. 4 By focusing on the political, social, and religious context of these artworks, I

attempt to begin filling this gap in scholarship.

In the first chapter, I will examine the iconographical and contextual information

surrounding the biblical theme of Moses Striking the Rock from the Old Testament. This theme

represents the salvation of the Israelites which was adopted by the Dutch Calvinists as symbols

of Dutch and Protestant independence. The two examples that I explore are Abraham

Bloemaert’s Moses Striking the Rock (1596) (Fig. 1) and the same subject done by Joachim

Wtewael (1566-1638) in 1624 (Fig. 2). These two artists create the foundation of the Catholic

and Calvinist discourse in this thesis since their personal reaction to the corporate beliefs of the

religious affiliation, Bloemaert is Catholic and Wtewael a Calvinist, along with the cultural

context, led them to create religious and political propaganda through this theme.

Chapter two will address the continuation of a traditional Catholic theme, inside the

Calvinist country. The Adoration of the Shepherds was one of the most popular images in

Utrecht during this time and was not only painted by both Catholic and Protestant painters, but also came to embody the religious beliefs of the painter themselves. The two works that I will

3 Xander van Eck, "Dreaming of an Eternally Catholic Utrecht during Protestant Rule: 's Holy Trinity with Sts Willibrord and Boniface," Simiolus , 18. 4 The largest area of interest stylistically of these scholars is surrounding the Utrecht whose style resembles in the use of dramatic lighting.

Strasbaugh 6 focus on in this chapter are Bloemaert’s Adoration of the Shepherds of 1612 (Fig. 13) and

Wtewael’s Adoration of the Shepherds from 1601 (Fig. 19).

In chapter three, I will explore the area of moralizing genre scenes found among the

works of Utrecht painters. The two works that will be the center of this study are Bloemaert’s

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (1624) (Fig. 23) and Wtewael’s A Kitchen Scene with the Parable of the Great Supper (1605) (Fig. 24). I intend to explore in this chapter the origination of this imagery, how it was used in the Dutch Republic during the Golden Age, and how these two artists used this area to further support their religious cause.

Through formal and iconographical analysis of the Utrecht paintings within the context of their artistic, religious, cultural and patronage milieu, and through carefully comparing them to appropriate examples from other seventeenth-century areas, I will be able to provide insight and provoke discussion in an area that has unfortunately been neglected. My thesis will provide

better understanding of the religious art in Utrecht as well as its political, social, and artistic

influences and implications.

Strasbaugh 7 Chapter One: Moses Striking the Rock: The Dutch as the Israelites

During the Golden Age, the people of the Dutch Republic were in need of symbols to visually portray their identity as a robust political and religious society that was able to stand up against the tyranny of religious and political oppressors. This strongly Calvinist society found these symbols in the stories of the Israelites from the Old Testament in the Bible. In Utrecht, these images were depicted much differently than elsewhere in the Northern Netherlands because of the split in religious beliefs between the citizens of this city. The large Catholic population in

Utrecht created a bridge, both culturally and artistically, between the Calvinist Dutch Republic and the rest of Catholic Europe. In order to illustrate how Dutch Catholic images of the Israelites differed from Dutch Protestant imagery, this chapter will focus on the story of Moses Striking the Rock, which is found in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13.1 The two representative artworks that will be discussed are Moses Striking the Rock (1596) (Fig. 1) by the Catholic painter, Abraham Bloemaert (1566-1651) and another work of the same name (1624) (Fig. 2) painted by his Calvinist counterpart, Joachim Wtewael’s (1566-1638)

These two compositions, both in their similarities and differences, offer a wealth of information regarding Utrecht from 1590 to 1625 that has gone relatively unexplored. One of the major reasons for the difference in these two paintings can be traced to the artists’ different religious beliefs. I argue that the artists’ religious affiliation helped to determine their depiction of this single biblical excerpt. In addition to this, the church and civil governments also played a large role by creating the culture in which these paintings were produced. After establishing the context of Utrecht in the Dutch Republic during the seventeenth century, I will discuss how

1 The two Bible translations that I will use most are the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV). Some biblical references that I will mention are found in the Apocrypha which is found in Catholic Bibles as historical background on the period between the Old and New Testaments. All references are found in all Protestant bibles unless I mention its location in the Apocrypha.

Strasbaugh 8 Bloemaert’s Catholic background moved him to resist depicting the typical Dutch Calvinist

propaganda as his Moses Striking the Rock illustrates. After this section, I will address how

Wtewael uses nudity as a tool of judgement by classifying sinner and saint by their clothing or lack there of not only in biblical accounts, but also in contemporary circumstances.

The Dutch Republic: The People and the Golden Age

One of the most important facets in understanding , especially the art produced in Utrecht, is recognizing its unique culture. The Dutch Republic from the middle of the sixteenth century began to develop religious, political, economic, and cultural trends that differed from those throughout the rest of Europe. The Protestant Dutch found themselves fighting battles on all fronts -- opposing the Catholic authorities and the Spanish monarchy, while still trying to maintain a premier trading fleet against threats of pirates and other European navies that wished to take rights over their goods. Religious belief was an important element in Dutch unity and self identity.

Christian Tümpel in the exhibition catalogue, Gods, Saints, and Heroes, acknowledges that in order to grasp the place of religious painting of the Dutch Republic, it is important to understand the culture, and more importantly, the religion that produced it. “[The Dutch

Republic] was largely determined by Calvinism, which not only governed affairs of the state, but also determined cultural affairs even in those instances where major impulses emanated from

Catholic, humanistic or earlier Protestant art.”2 The Calvinists controlled cultural production by assimilating artifacts and motifs that were once used for other purposes. Their goal was to strengthen the Calvinist claim on the Northern Netherlands. Keeping Calvinism in mind as such

2 Albert Blankert, Gods, Saints, and Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of (Washington, D.C.: , 1980), 45.

Strasbaugh 9 an important aspect of Dutch society, I will begin with a brief history of the time surrounding the transformation of the Northern Netherlands from a Catholic stronghold to a Calvinist bastion.

Protestantism began to take hold in the Netherlands based upon the teachings of Martin

Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin in the first half of the sixteenth century.3 These new

Protestant beliefs became interwoven with Dutch political beliefs because of the harshness of the

Spanish monarchy in suppressing what the Catholic Church deemed heretical. As a result of the

rise of Protestantism, the Catholic Church, led by the Spanish monarch Philip II (1527-1598),

began an inquisition that led to the persecution and death of many Netherlandish citizens. It was

this persecution and not the shift of religious orientation of the Dutch Republic that led to the

Dutch break from Spanish rule and papal control. William I of Orange’s (1533-1584) speech of

December 31, 1564, is the best example of the Dutch no longer tolerating the persecution of their

countrymen:

The king goes astray if he thinks that the Netherlands, in the midst of where freedom of religion exists, can continue to endure the blood-stained edicts; just as everywhere, much must here be condoned. No matter how strongly I am attached to the Catholic faith, I cannot approve of princes who wish to govern the of their subjects and to deprive them of their liberty in matters of conscience and religion. 4

As indicated in this speech, the continued religious oppression by the Spanish

government galvanized many Netherlanders to go to war with Spain. The first major violent

actions over religious doctrines were the iconoclastic revolts that began August 10, 1566.

Although these were actions of a mob instead of directly being led and funded by the Dutch

aristocracy, they were the foundation for the country’s fight for independence. Protestant zealots

3 Protestantism is the term for any Christian denomination that was outside of Catholicism during the Reformation. This includes Calvinism, Lutheranism, Mennonite, and Anabaptists which were all present in the Dutch Republic to varying degrees. 4 Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch , 92.

Strasbaugh 10 aimed at destroying the physical embodiment of the Church ransacked artworks, stained-glass

windows, and church buildings throughout the Netherlands. These attacks against the imagery of the Catholic Church are an extreme reflection of John Calvin’s suspicions that religious images of saints and the Virgin Mary were unhelpful if not dangerous to the believer.5 Despite

this, Catholic images would continue to be painted in the Northern Netherlands in the late

sixteenth century and throughout the seventeenth century, and on a large scale in Utrecht as will

be explored later.

Yet, the paramount importance of Calvinism in establishing this country is stated by

Simon Schama in his book on Dutch culture in the seventeenth century, The Embarrassment of

Riches. Schama asserts the importance of the Calvinists’ determination in standing up to the

pressures of the Spanish crown in a fight for religious and political freedom. “It is certainly true

that if the Calvinists alone could not have made the Republic, the Republic would not have been

made without the Calvinists.”6 After their declaration of independence (1579) and throughout

the seventeenth century, the Dutch Republic remained, for the most part, a country of religious

freedom. However, though people were able to practice what they believed, they were not

protected against persecution. A.T. Van Deursen, in his book Plain Lives in a Golden Age, states

that despite the free choice of religion, there were also consequences of that choice. “Reformed-

Mennonite- Catholic, in descending order, were stages along the way from privileged through

tolerance to discrimination, which repeatedly crossed boundaries of outright persecution.” 7 In

5 Denis Janz, A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 216. 6 Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1997), 59. 7 Arie Theodorus van Deursen, Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion, and Society in Seventeenth- Century Holland (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 233.

Strasbaugh 11 other words, they were not martyred, but all those outside of the Reformed church were

oppressed and often considered lower class citizens.8

This religious hierarchy was readily apparent in the city of Utrecht though Catholics were

not as small a minority. While most of the northern Dutch provinces had largely converted to

Calvinism or other similar Protestant denominations by the beginning of the seventeenth century,

the Catholic population in Utrecht was enjoying a steady rebirth. There were a few reasons for

this resurgence of Catholic Church membership. Since Utrecht itself had been the seat of the

Dutch archdioceses before the Reformation, much of the Catholic hierarchy remained intact. In

addition to this, as Xander van Eck states in his article “Dreaming of an Eternally Catholic

Utrecht during Protestant Rule” the Catholic Church persevered with significant financial

support from many leading Utrecht citizens.9 Jonathan Israel also points out that the

government, while still Calvinist, was more lenient on the Church and priests than elsewhere in

the Republic.10 However, even though the Church retained much of its past popularity, the

government was still controlled by Calvinist leaders who limited the rights of the Catholic

worshippers. The Dutch government throughout the provinces ruled that despite having

religious freedom, the Catholic followers were no longer able to worship in public spaces. As a

result, the government began to seize church buildings and monasteries as early as the 1570s and

1580s, which caused the Catholics to worship in schuilkerks which were clandestine churches.11

These churches were simply converted residences that were able to accommodate a number of people for services while still appearing to be private homes on the outside.

8 The Reformed church was another name for the government sanctioned Calvinist church. 9 Xander van Eck, "Dreaming of an Eternally Catholic Utrecht during Protestant Rule.” 21. 10 Jonathan Irvine Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806 (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1995), 377. 11 Benjamin J. Kaplan, "Confessionalism and its Limits" in Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, eds. Joaneath Ann Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr (Baltimore, MD; San Francisco, CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Walters Art Gallery, 1997), 61.

Strasbaugh 12

These clandestine churches avoided much persecution early in the seventeenth century.

For various reasons, Catholics were not heavily persecuted until the 1630s and 1640s.12 The

reason for this was the conflict between the two opposing Calvinist sects, the Remonstrants and

the Counter-Remonstrants during the first quarter of the seventeenth century, which distracted them from oppressing other groups.13 This conflict over doctrine grew in intensity throughout

the Dutch Republic from 1610 until the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 and 1619 threatened to tear

the young nation apart. However, through the authority of Stadholder Maurits of Nassau, the

city governments were purged of their Remonstrant incumbents and replaced with Counter-

Remonstrant leaders.14 While this religious turmoil occurred mainly inside the Calvinist camp,

the effects were still felt by many Catholics. Though it was not a Catholic persecution as of yet,

Catholics, such as Bloemaert, who were accepted by and shared power with the Remonstrants,

were replaced by Calvinists for the sake of religious and civil stability.15 Following this move

in 1619, a decade of peace and prosperity ensued in all areas of life in Utrecht and the Dutch

Netherlands.16

It was also slightly later in this period of peace that the hope of Catholic revival was

finally realized under the “milder religious climate under the stadhoulderate of Frederick

12 Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806, 638. 13 The major source of conflict between these two parties was over the doctrine of predestination. The Remonstrants followed the beliefs of Jacob Armenius who suggested a middle ground between the beliefs of free-will and predestination. In his doctrine, he believed that God predestined all men to himself. However, instead of predestining certain people to heaven and others to hell, he called all men to himself (predestined them) as an invitation, but it was ultimately in the hands of mankind to choose for themselves whether they will answer this call and come to salvation. The Counter-Remonstrant were strict believers in predestination only and that God foreknows and determines the ultimate salvation of all people. 14 Benjamin J. Kaplan, “Confessionalism and Its Limits: Religion in Utrecht, 1600-1650,” 62. 15 Kaplan argued that the religious line between Catholic and Protestant was nonexistent and that the two groups worked together in unity regardless of their beliefs. While I believe that this is true in many respects, the religious hierarchy was still apparent or else Bloemaert, the foremost teacher in Utrecht, would not have been replaced as head of the guild because of his religious affiliation. ibid., 72. 16 Xander van Eck, "Dreaming of an Eternally Catholic Utrecht during Protestant Rule: Jan Van Bijlert's Holy Trinity with Sts Willibrord and Boniface," 22.

Strasbaugh 13 Hendrick” in 1625.17 In 1627, Hendrick allowed the Catholic Vicar General, Philip Rovenius,

safe passage to Utrecht, which led to the establishment of Utrecht as the Catholic headquarters of the Dutch Republic. While this did not allow for the reclaiming of seized Church property taken during the height of the Reformation, Catholicism did reclaim much of the importance and popularity that it once held. During this time in Utrecht, an estimated 12,000-14,000 inhabitants of Utrecht (pop. 30,000 in 1622) participated in the various Catholic rites.18

The beginnings of religious persecution in Utrecht started much later than it had

elsewhere in the Dutch Republic. However, unlike the other Dutch cities that started to support

religious toleration during the 1630s, Catholic persecution in Utrecht was just beginning.19 The

first signs of oppression began in the 1630s and were in full swing in the first few years of the

1640s. The most likely cause of this was the city’s establishment of the University of Utrecht in

1636, which intended to make it the leading center of Calvinist thinking in the Northern

Netherlands. This university quickly rose to importance through the appointment of Gijsbertus

Voetius (1588-1676), the leading Calvinist theologian in the Netherlands.20 It was through his

influence and his strict Calvinist beliefs that Utrecht began to see a shift from relative religious

freedom to outright persecution and closing of Catholic clandestine churches in 1640.21

The artists in Utrecht were affected by these various changes throughout the first half of the seventeenth century. Most of the artwork that is mentioned in this chapter was done during the periods of relative religious freedom, and the major events helped shape the artists and their body of work. The political and religious milieu of Utrecht provided the artists there with subject matter, both religious and mythological, that would help to create propaganda images for the

17 Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806, 377. 18 Kaplan, “Confessionalism and Its Limits: Religion in Utrecht, 1600-1650,” 69. 19 Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806, 637. 20 Kaplan, “Confessionalism and Its Limits: Religion in Utrecht, 1600-1650,” 62. 21 Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806, 638.

Strasbaugh 14 cause of freedom for the Dutch. The Dutch primarily looked to the Old Testament for sources of

inspiration, which they found in the various depictions of the Israelites. Over time, the Dutch

saw themselves as modern-day Israelites who were specifically God’s chosen people, and this

lent strength to their fight for freedom.

Bloemaert: Catholic Painter in a Protestant City

One of the creative Catholic artists of this period was Abraham Bloemaert. Though a

Catholic in a Calvinist country, his artwork infused all aspects of his life and culture. Bloemaert

was a leading figure not only because of his artwork, but also because of the influence that he

had over the next generation of Utrecht painters. Christopher Brown stated in his exhibition

catalogue, Utrecht Artists in the Dutch Golden Age, that as “the single most important figure in

painting in Utrecht during the seventeenth century, Bloemaert was responsible for training of successive generations of Utrecht painters during his very long life.”22 In fact, Bloemaert’s students make up the “Who’s Who” of future leaders in the artistic community of Utrecht, including (1588-1629), Jan van Bijlert (1597-1671), Cornelis van

Poelenburgh (1586-1667), and the internationally successful figure, (1590-

1656).

One of the reasons for Bloemaert’s success as an artist and teacher was his openness to the new ideas he gained from his studies in Amsterdam. He also learned from what his students brought back from their studies in .23 The most important influence during his early years of

the late sixteenth century was Sprangian Mannerism, which derived from the work of the

Flemish painter who worked in the Court of , Bartolomeus Spranger (1546-1611).

22 Christopher Brown, Utrecht Painter of the Dutch Golden Age (London, England: National Gallery Publications Limited, 1997), 21. 23 ibid., 21.

Strasbaugh 15 Though similar to the exaggerated poses of Italian Mannerism, Sprangian Mannerism was typified by the addition of dramatic lines and poses. Anne Lowenthal in her monograph on

Joachim Wtewael states that a “distinct feature of Dutch Mannerism is an exceptionally dynamic

quality of movement – of line, pose, and motif.”24 This dynamic quality of the Northern

Mannerism contributed to the even more active and spontaneous character of later Northern

Baroque art.25

Bloemaert was first introduced to the Dutch Mannerist style through copies of Spranger’s work done by Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617), Carel van Mander (1548-1606), and Cornelis van

Haarlem (1562-1638). These artists from the Haarlem school were the framers of the Dutch

Mannerist style that was prominent from 1590 to 1610. Bloemaert was influenced more by these

painters during his stay in Amsterdam (1591 until 1594), than his three years of study in

Mannerist France when he was a teenager.26 Bloemaert worked in the Mannerist style from

1590 to 1610. After this point, he began his Caravaggisti decade which was inspired by his

students, and then he passed into the Classical style of his later work.

In addition to the stylistic influences, Bloemaert’s religious beliefs played a crucial role

in the formation of his artwork. Bloemaert was a devout Catholic throughout his life. Marcel

Roethlisberger declares in his monograph on Bloemaert that “his art reflects a fervent, militant

Catholicism sustained through close contacts with the Jesuits.”27 However, Bloemaert’s artwork

was not only influenced by his beliefs, but was also a product of the culture. The Dutch

24 Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism, 19. 25 ibid., 19. 26 Bloemaert stated in regards to his studies in France “I wish that once during my life have seen some good master in the act of painting or using colors.” Roelisberger argues that this statement answers those who search for the French influence in Bloemaert’s work by saying that he had very little respect or inspiration during those years in France.Marcel G. Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons (The Netherlands: Davaco Publishers, 1993), 17. 27 Marcel G. Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons (The Netherlands: Davaco Publishers, 1993), 16.

Strasbaugh 16 Republic at this time was a growing nation that was still struggling to overcome outside

oppression from the Spanish monarchy and the papacy.

While his Catholic beliefs can be seen in his Moses Striking the Rock (Fig.1), he used a

motif that would be accepted by Calvinists to hide his own message. The citizens of the Calvinist

Dutch Republic saw parallels between themselves and the Israelites as God’s chosen people.

The story of Moses Striking the Rock is a theme of deliverance. The Israelite people were traveling in the Desert of Sin (Sinai Desert) and became overwhelmed with thirst. However, instead of relying on God for their salvation, they became angry and quarreled with Moses over

God’s lack of providence. Moses, in the face of this grumbling mob, went to for an answer. The Lord, out of his mercy for his chosen people, said:

Walk on ahead of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.28

While this theme was easily recognized as both a religious and political propaganda image for

the Dutch Calvinists, Bloemaert’s Catholic preference stood in the way of this being his true message. Being a Catholic in Utrecht meant that you still were able to practice your religion, but

with it came many regulations.

Bloemaert’s Moses Striking the Rock is an assimilation of two important influences in his

early career, Mannerism and the Catholic ideals of the Counter Reformation. The theme is a

perfect motif to show twisting and emotionally charged figures in an act of desperation.

However, though Bloemaert depicted an actual biblical event, the placement and types of the

figures disguise the central narrative. The composition is focused on the various exaggerated

poses of the Israelites who are overcome by their thirst yet taking in the excitement of the

28 Exodus 17:5-6 NIV.

Strasbaugh 17 miracle produced by Moses in the shadows striking the mountain in the middleground. The viewer is not drawn to Moses first, but to the half-naked woman in the center who is bearing on her shoulder a golden ewer overflowing with the blessed water. Her twisting pose and bluish- white flesh, seen through and around the thin cloth that covers her abdomen, attract the viewer and impress upon them the roles of the salvation through the water and the sin that led them there.

The aspect of a disguised narrative is the most striking facet of this painting. This contrasts with religious that conforms to the Counter-Reformation ideals that the clarity of the message is as important as the appearance. In fact, hiding the narrative contrasts with the majority of Sprangian Mannerist works on similar themes. This is also contrary to

Roethlisberger’s statement that hiding the central narrative was “a standard mannerist practice.”29

When compared to previous Dutch Mannerist works, Bloemaert’s Striking stands apart from similar works of his contemporaries. For instance, there are very few examples of Old

Testament themes depicted in the Mannerist style. Among one of the few examples of Old

Testament imagery in this style is the painting The Three Young Men in the Blazing Furnace

(1575) by the Amsterdam painter, Pieter Pietersz (1540-1603) (Fig. 3).30 Despite the fact that it was a confusing narrative because of the frenzied action, the story is still readily apparent. The three bound young men are placed in the foreground with the fiery furnace blazing on the viewer’s right. This is much different from Bloemaert’s Striking where the story is hidden in the shadows.

29 ibid., 92. 30 Wtewael’s Moses Striking the Rock is another example which I will explore in depth later in this chapter.

Strasbaugh 18 More typical of Netherlandish Mannerism is Spranger’s painting Venus and Adonis

(1597) (Fig. 4). In Spranger’s work, the main action is pressed to the front in order to clearly portray the message. The characteristics that make Netherlandish Mannerist works mannerist are the ambiguous space, awkward movements, and the serpentine, elongated forms. However, the narratives are usually clear. This is Bloemaert’s point of departure.

Regarding the disguised main narrative, the closest Dutch painting to Bloemaert’s is

Cornelis van Haarlem’s (1562-1638) The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis (1593) (Fig. 5). Another large group scene, the main action of the marriage banquet is placed in the left background.

Unlike Bloemaert’s Striking, in Cornelis’s painting the storyline is never lost since the banquet area is brightly lit and framed with crimson. Bloemaert also depicts this theme in 1590-91 (Fig.

6), but again the occasion of the wedding is still clearly illustrated so that it is immediately recognizable to the viewer. The question is, why in this one painting did Bloemaert confine the main narrative figure (Moses) to the shadows thus also hiding the traditional meaning of this story?

Gero Seelig argues that Bloemaert’s main purpose was not in depicting a story, but in displaying his skills as an artist. Seelig states that “in the absence of precise information on

Bloemaert’s motivation for painting this work, one is left to assume that the subject was chosen because of the opportunity it provided to display the artist’s virtuosity.”31 Though I think that

Bloemaert painted this to showcase his Mannerist style, I don’t think that is the sole reason for

this narrative. If he wanted to display his talent, he could have done typical Dutch Mannerist

themes of mythology or allegory. Instead, he chose an Old Testament scene, which the Calvinist

majority was already mining for political symbolism. Without information as to the patronage of this painting, it forces us to make assumptions as to the reasons surrounding this work.

31 Spicer and Orr, Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, 133.

Strasbaugh 19 In this painting, Bloemaert was making a statement with the central female figure as the

main bearer of meaning. However, I think the greater question is who is in need of deliverance?

By specifically disguising the main narrative Bloemaert instead places emphasis on the

desperation and plight of the people in the foreground. According to the biblical account, the

Israelites are in desperation because of their doubt, but are delivered by God. Through the

emphasis on the worry of humankind found in the thirst of the Israelites, matched with salvation

found in water as the purifying agent in baptism; this painting and its female focus becomes a

valid Dutch symbol of deliverance. The Dutch Calvinist would recognize the various symbols

used in this painting such as water representing deliverance and the Dutch being linked as the

Israelites, but this painting does not completely fit the typical symbolic function of this type of

theme. The reason for this is the figures were placed as sinners and not already redeemed, which

was unusual when placed in the realm of a typical Dutch religious painting.

There are three possibilities as to whom the Israelites could represent; the Dutch Republic

in need of deliverance from the Spanish, the Catholics in Utrecht under Calvinist rule, or their

Calvinist counterparts need to return to the fold. During the time that this painting was executed,

the Catholics still enjoyed relative freedom and equality with their Protestant neighbors. The

second and most likely possibility is that the Israelites represent the Dutch as God’s chosen

people in need of deliverance. However, instead of being the delivered people of God, they are

the disobedient children who went against God’s will. Although there is no contemporary

evidence to confirm this definitively, there are a few factors that might recommend this negative

interpretation of the Dutch as God’s rebellious people. First, Bloemaert was a devout Catholic

who himself was well connected to the Jesuits, the militant arm of papal authority.32 In addition to this, Bloemaert felt most at liberty to depict these Catholic images in the guise of Dutch

32 Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons, 16.

Strasbaugh 20 propaganda during this time. The reason for this is at the time that the Striking was painted, most

of the religious and political attentions were on the conflict between the Dutch and the Spanish

as well as the development of a strong Reformed church.

Through his connection with the Jesuits, Bloemaert was also heavily influenced by the

Counter-Reformation ideals and desires to return the rebellious Protestants back to the papal fold. When juxtaposed with religious imagery by other Catholics, Bloemaert’s works share

characteristics of Counter-Reformation imagery and the Dutch Old Testament images used as

political statements about deliverance from the Spanish. After the Council of Trent, the Catholic

Church decided that in order to combat the Protestant outbreak, they would place emphasis on

imagery central to Catholic doctrine. These images would focus less on the Old Testament

prefigurations of the and the images of saints, and more on the life and death of

Christ and the attributes of the Blessed Mother Mary. Despite this influence, Bloemaert in the

years from 1594 through 1610, explored Old Testament themes such as Judith, Joseph in Egypt,

Tobias, Hagar, Moses, and the flood.33 All of these stories carry similar themes to Moses

Striking the Rock but are divided into two areas, his chosen people being delivered by God from

oppression or those being destroyed by sin and pride.34 What is unusual about Bloemaert

turning to these themes was that they were typically used by his Calvinist counterparts as stories

that stood up against the religious and political oppression that the Dutch nation faced.

33 ibid., 22. 34 Judith had become a popular theme throughout the Netherlands and the rest of Europe as a symbol of overcoming oppression. In her story (Judith 13:1-11)she saves the Israelites by seducing the Assyrian General Holofernes with her beauty and then cutting off his head. Tobias, the son of Tobit, is also a representative of the Lord redeeming His chosen. Tobit, who was a devoted follower of God, is afflicted by blindness caused by a bird. God, however, sends the angel to guide his son Tobias in healing his father, as well as delivering his fiancé from an evil spirit on their wedding night.34 Joseph also fits into the role of one of the delivered; despite being sold into slavery by his brothers and then later being thrown into jail on false accusations by his master’s wife, he eventually rises to the position of second-in-command of all of Egypt, eventually saving his whole family during a severe famine. In the other themes are the sinners who are destroyed by sin and pride. This includes Hagar who, through her pride and Abraham’s disobedience for not waiting on the Lord for a child with his wife Sarah, was cast into the desert but was still redeemed from death. Those in the great flood are destroyed because of their complete turn from God.

Strasbaugh 21 While Catholic painters generally avoided scenes such as Moses Striking the Rock, their

influence can still be felt in Bloemaert’s work. An example of this is seen in the The Last

Judgement (1580) (Fig. 7) by Jacob de Backer’s (1555-1590). Backer’s work is a definitive

Catholic Counter-Reformation reassertion of the importance of the Catholic Church – those who

were faithful received the blessings of heaven, while rebels and sinners are doomed to an eternity

in hell. Although, there is not an outright damnation of Protestants in Bloemaert’s Striking, such as seen in the bottom of the central panel in The Last Judgement, the emphasis is placed on the pious Catholic protected by the Church, blessed by Christ as the and the Babe who bore the sins of the world (on the shoulders of St. Christopher).35 Another detail that

supports the Catholic message is that in addition to the Christ child bearing the sins of the world,

He is also holding the orb symbolizing papal authority. Although Bloemaert’s Striking does not

contain any definite Catholic symbolism that this Last Judgement contains, it does place

emphasis on the Israelites who, while being linked to the Protestant Dutch nation by being a

typical theme of Dutch propaganda, are seen as sinners in need of redemption.

While this painting can be interpreted as a typical Dutch religious motif, it was clearly

done in a very different fashion with an emphasis on sin. In view of his religious affiliation in a

town where Catholicism was not heavily oppressed at that current time, all lend to the possibility

that this painting was Catholic political propaganda, calling the Protestant audience back to the

one true faith. Patronage could also play a role in understanding this image. With little known

about this painting’s early ownership, there are a few possibilities. If it were a Catholic

commission it would again point to the Protestants being outside of the faith while encouraging

the patrons that salvation is theirs. However, with an active art market, lotteries, and a local art

35 There were many benefits that Catholics saw about being under the Church including the receiving sacraments and having traditional imagery that was rejected by the Calvinists.

Strasbaugh 22 guild which required masters to provide paintings for the public gallery, the possibilities of this

being a stock image for Protestant or Catholic viewing would point towards the emphasis on it

being an acknowledged image of Dutch propaganda work.36 Without the patronage records, it is

hard to know Bloemaert’s intended meaning.

The only other aspect that might lend strength to this argument is that this type of

possible Catholic imagery condemning the Protestants was only seen in his early work. This

could be because it was the period in which Catholics enjoyed the most religious freedom. It was not until the political upheavals of 1617-19 that Bloemaert would start to recognize the consequences of his pro-Catholic imagery. Since Bloemaert was a Catholic, he was replaced as dean of the Painter’s Guild by Paulus Moreelse (1571-1638) who was a Calvinist during the period when the Counter-Remonstrants were taking control of most government positions.37

From this point on, Bloemaert abandoned this type of imagery for mythological, moralizing

landscape, genre, or private Catholic commissions of Saints and other traditional Catholic

themes.

Wtewael: Creating and Adapting a Moralizing Language

Jaochim Wtewael, though a mannerist artist like Bloemaert, was very different from his

Catholic contemporary. A wealthy flax merchant and artist, he painted as a passion which is

reflected in being his own largest patron.38 Unlike Bloemaert, Wtewael enjoyed an

apprenticeship that included an extensive journey to Italy to learn from the masters. However,

36 Marten Jan Bok, "Artists at Work: Their Lives and Livelihood" in Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, 97. 37 One reason for the oppression of the Catholic population during these years was the struggle between the Calvinist factions of Remonstrates and Counter-Remonstrates. Once the Counter-Remonstrates took control of Utrecht, then the persecution of the Catholics slowly began and culminated during the years of 1633-54. 38 Anne W. Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism, 32.

Strasbaugh 23 the most important difference between these two men for the sake of this discussion was their

religious beliefs. Though it is often difficult to determine the religious orientation of any Dutch person and to the degree to which they follow their beliefs, Wtewael is known to have been a

Calvinist. Lowenthal acknowledged this not through records of baptisms or marriages since

those held more social value than religious value at this point, but through an anonymous letter

to Hugo de Groot, a member of the Remonstrant sect. In this letter, Wtewael was considered

“very partial to the Calvinist religion.”39 It is his religious beliefs that determined how Wtewael lived, and above all, worked.

Moses Striking the Rock (Fig. 2) by Wtewael is a much different depiction than

Bloemaert’s although also in a Sprangian Mannerist mode. In Wtewael’s painting, the narration

is of utmost importance in contrast with Bloemaert’s image. Moses is clearly presented striking

the rock on the right causing it to cascade water into the pool in the middle. The Israelites,

though thirsty to the point of despair, are seen in a winding procession witnessing the deliverance once again brought by God. The animals and people in the foreground and left middle ground are the first to quench their thirst and attempt to save the precious water in the various brass and clay containers that are strewn through the center. There are a large number of people in the background awaiting their opportunity by the water, but yet are surprisingly content to wait.

Also, compared to the work by Bloemaert, the characters here are much less panicked and frenzied which helps to illuminate the full situation and focus more on deliverance and not desperation. This idea of deliverance of God’s chosen people would have been easily understood by the Calvinist Dutch. This focus places the painting well inside the realm of accepted political propaganda of Dutch in the role of Israelites mixed with a moralizing theme of baptism and forgiveness.

39 ibid., 32-33.

Strasbaugh 24 There is much more to this painting than the narration when compared with

Bloemaert’s Striking and other religious works by Wtewael. The most intriguing difference in

Wtewael’s work from that of other Dutch Mannerists’ religious work is the lack of nudity. It is

difficult to find in any Northern Mannerist work of mythology or religious history without the

inclusion of some degree of nudity. Nudity is even seen in Bloemaert’s depiction of the same

theme. Wtewael, who is not opposed to depicting both the male and female nudes, chose only to

represent fully clothed figures in what is deemed an appropriate image for nudity based on

previous models such as Bloemaert’s Striking. The combination of strict narrative function with

the lack of nudity, leads me to believe that Wtewael was making a statement through these and

created a visual language to express his beliefs through art. This visual language transforms

typical religious themes into carriers of hidden religious or political meaning that would apply to

contemporary events. Upon investigation of his body of work, I found that he used nudity as a

tool of judgment, distinguishing the sinner from the saint. In the Striking, the lack of nudity

downplays the Israelites’ sinful disobedience, and emphasizes their redemption.

Wtewael, himself Calvinist, rarely painted religious themes.40 His preference for

mythological nudes is seen in around two-thirds of his work. However, it is in the religious

paintings that he has the most to say. In order to understand the motivations behind his Striking, it is important to look back to two other themes that he painted that suggest this juxtaposition of saint and sinner. The first image that I would like to analyze is The Deluge (1592-95) (Fig. 8).

This image illustrates the flood that God sent to destroy humankind for their wickedness in

40 Since the Calvinist Church was against many religious images that were once considered devotional in nature by the Catholic Church, they only encouraged images that would represent the Dutch Calvinists in more of a propagandistic manner. Though he did have a few commissions for Catholic patrons, such as various images of saints, he typically painted themes from the Old Testament that would uphold the Calvinist ideals.

Strasbaugh 25 Genesis chapter six.41 Wtewael clearly shows his Mannerist influence through the twisted and exaggerated movements of those who are about to perish in the rising waters. Regardless of their efforts, they will succumb to the flood in the end. This story has both deliverance and punishment, yet only the sinners are shown by Wtewael. It is in this image that he begins his visual language of salvation and sin in which offenders are depicted nude.42

The second image that represents this contrast of sinner and saint is Wtewael’s painting of Lot and His Daughters (1597-1603) (Fig. 9). Found in Genesis 19:31-38, this image depicts

Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and seducing him after they were spared from the destruction of Sodom, which appears in the upper right. Lot’s wife was turned into salt for her disobedience, so the daughters keep the family line going through incest. When viewing this work, it is imperative to know who the saint and sinners were according to the Dutch. The contemporary opinion of this story was that Lot was a precursor to Christ. Lowenthal gives this account:

Duality also pervaded attitudes to Lot, who was regarded with ambivalence, having been judged the only just man in Sodom, but then having given in to drunkenness and incest. Calvin’s commentary on the incident reflects this ambivalence, deploring Lot’s lechery and drunkenness but then arguing that this very drunkenness had made Lot oblivious to his incestuous deed. Calvin found this “holy patriarch” could serve as a lesson in temperance.43

What makes this work important to this theory is that Lot, who is considered still holy

and not at fault for the sensual occasion, is fully clothed, while both daughters are naked in the

act of seduction. This distinction between good versus bad through dress versus nudity is

unusual among paintings on this theme. For example, Hendrick Goltzius’ Lot and His Daughter

(1616) (Fig. 10) shows the scene at the point where Lot is intoxicated and his daughters are

making their advance, but all three figures are nude. This Mannerist painting would have been

41 Genesis Ch. 6:5-7. 42 One reason that sinners are depicted nude is that nudity and sexual frivolity have been used as representations of human carnality as seen in the Biblical terms of flesh being the sinful side of humankind. 43 Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism, 92.

Strasbaugh 26 known to Wtewael either first hand or through his fellow Utrecht painter, Bloemaert. What

makes Wtewael’s painting even more important is that he painted this same theme again in 1603-

1608 (Fig. 11) in which Lot is again depicted clothed while his frivolous daughters are naked.44

With this trend of sinners depicted as nudes while the redeemed fully clothed in

Wtewael’s religious paintings, it bears to apply this theory to the Striking and what his meaning

for this piece was.45 According to the biblical account of the Striking of the Rock, the Israelites

were sinners who were redeemed. In fact, the addition of Aaron next to Moses in this painting

points to the reference of this story found in Numbers 20:1-13. In this passage, even Moses and

Aaron disobeyed God, for He told Moses to "take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron

gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water.

You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."46

It was the act of defiance in striking the rock that kept Moses and Aaron from entering the promised land. So, with the inclusion of Moses and Aaron into the ranks of sinners, this entire canvas depicts a people who are in need of salvation. However, when the theory of Wtewael’s religious visual language of nudity is applied to this painting, the theory is at odds with these

“sinners” being fully clothed. When compared to Bloemaert’s Striking, which was painted earlier and probably known to Wtewael since they were acquaintances throughout these years, the lack of nudity in an image where it has been historically the norm is strange.47 Bloemaert

himself depicted in his canvas a number of nude figures, but Wtewael refrained in his painting

44 There is one painting on this theme in which Wtewael paints Lot and one of his daughters clothed. This painting executed from 1607 to 1610, is at odds with this theory since, according to the biblical account and contemporary views, both daughters are involved in the sin. However, since the clothed daughter is still in the act of seduction, she would still be considered a sinner to the Dutch regardless of her draped clothing. 45 The only other known Old Testament image that Wtewael painted is his Susanna and the Elders (1611-1614). Since Susanna is bathing in the biblical account and she does not give into the elders, it is appropriate that she is nude while being pure, while they are clothed and in the act of sin. In fact, this is the only depiction that would clearly tell the narrative and fit into the role of Susanna, who represents the Dutch, overcoming oppression. 46 Numbers 20:8. 47 ibid., 69.

Strasbaugh 27 on the same subject. This begs asking what Wtewael was trying to say or to accomplish through this painting. Wtewael, by depicting this narrative with clarity and applying his visual language of fully clothed, well-behaved people in a theme that lends itself to nudity and despair, was placing the focus not on the sin of the people, but on the forgiveness bestowed by God on his chosen people. In Wtewael’s depiction, they are not only being delivered from sin, but their sins are purified by baptism from the Lord. This painting to the Dutch contemporaries would have clearly fit two roles, that of being a religious moralizing image with emphasis on baptism and also representing the Dutch being God’s chosen people whom he will lead to the promise land of independence.

Both of these images of Moses striking the rock revolve around the distinct ways that artists in Utrecht transformed religious motifs in order to express their own beliefs which also shows the religious turmoil between Protestant and Catholic populations in Utrecht and Europe as a whole. Despite this chapter revolving around one theme represented in two very different paintings, these paintings represent the importance of the symbolic function of the Dutch being the chosen people of God. However, both Bloemaert and Wtewael invested their images with their own specific message. Bloemaert may have been hiding a Catholic message about the sinfulness of the Protestants and their need to return to the one, true Church, while Wtewael placed emphasis on the narrative, applying his symbolic attributes of sinner and saint, which placed the Dutch people in the arms of God’s saving grace.

Strasbaugh 28 Chapter Two: Adorations of Utrecht: Catholic Imagery in Protestant Land

Typically considered a Counter-Reformation theme, the Adoration of the Shepherds was often

used as religious and political propaganda by the Catholic Church to reestablish its essential centrality in

the spiritual life of true believers. Yet, the theme was painted in Utrecht by both Catholic and Protestant

painters around the turn of the century until about 1625. When combined with the artists’ different

relegious beliefs, this traditional Catholic theme is transformed through the influence of the uniquely

diverse religious culture of Utrecht. In this chapter, I plan to investigate the theme of the Adoration of the Shepherds, as depicted by two different artists, in order to identify the shift of meaning created by the combination of the cultural context and beliefs of the artist. As in the last chapter, I address these issues by choosing one Catholic and one Calvinist artist to explore the similarities and differences in their versions of the Adoration of the Shepherd. First, I will compare the Adorations by the Catholic

Bloemaert to versions by other Catholic artists with which he may have been familiar. Once this is established, I plan to determine the subtle differences in composition and iconography that identify each artist’s work within his own faith tradition. I would like to compare and contrast these images made in

Utrecht in order to gain insight into the religious situation of this city.

Counter-Reformation Aesthetics: Creation of a Visual Language

Before any discussion can be made, it is essential to understand more about Counter-

Reformation images. As the Reformation leaders were wrestling with the proper place of religious imagery in the church and daily lives of their congregations, the Catholic Church was deliberating on how to address the concerns that started this rift among their faithful. Martin Luther’s “Ninety-five

Theses” written in 1517 gave the Catholic Church a specific list of reforms to address since these theses

ultimately are what led to the Reformation. In his theses, Luther sought reform by claiming that the

Strasbaugh 29 Church had lost sight of the scriptures leading to greed through indulgences, ungodly priests, idolatry,

and falsely insisting that the salvation of the believer was solely in the hands of the Church.1 While

Luther’s teaching heavily influenced another Reformation leader, John Calvin, Calvin went beyond

Luther’s much more tolerant views of religious imagery and viewed most religious art with suspicion,

and saw Catholic art as “idols for adoration.”2

The Protestant charges were debated in a series of meetings of all the leaders of the Catholic

Church at the Council of Trent, held from December 13, 1545 to December 4, 1563. One of the key

areas of discussion was how to react to the iconoclasms where the Protestants attacked what they

considered to be graven images that were banned through the Law of Moses.3

While some Protestant sects chose to eliminate religious imagery or to counteract its misuse in

favor of promoting the Word of God, the Catholic leaders defined and supported the correct use of

imagery in the Church. The records of the Council of Trent’s twenty-fifth session states:

Great profit is derived from all holy images, not only because the people are thereby reminded of the benefits and gifts bestowed on them by Christ, but also because through the saints and the miracles of God and salutary examples are set before the eyes of the faithful, so that they may give God thanks for those things, may fashion their own life and conduct in imitation of the saints and be moved to adore and love God and cultivate piety.4

In addition to this call for the use of artworks to meet the needs of followers of the Church, they also

stressed the importance of correct understanding of artwork in order to avoid leading the uneducated to

error.5 By combining these two aspects, the Church established the foundation for the Counter-

Reformation imagery war against the Reformation churches.

1 Denis Janz, A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 81-85. 2 ibid., 216. 3 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Exodus 20:4 NIV 4 Henry Joseph Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder Book Co., 1950), 216. 5 ibid., 216.

Strasbaugh 30 Despite Calvin’s misgivings about religious imagery, the Dutch Calvinists often avoided any hint

of idol worship by using Old Testament imagery to carry religious, moral, and political messages that

promoted certain actions or feeling among the people. As was discussed in the previous chapter, there

already existed a northern tradition of infusing artwork with multiple levels of meaning and

interpretation to convey a variety of messages. The Catholic Church had an even longer tradition. Since

the Early Christian period, Christian artists had created an easily recognizable visual language of various

symbols, attributes, events, people, and messages. For instance the Catholic population, both educated

and uneducated, were trained to identify St. Stephen by his attribute of a stone which was the instrument

of his martyrdom. Now the Church was calling upon this preexisting visual language to step beyond

education into appealing to the emotions to further the mission and defense of the Holy Roman Catholic

Church. R. Po-Chia Hsia further illuminates this point in his book The World of Catholic Renewal

1540-1770 when he stated:

New saints and new themes aside, the art of Catholic Europe continued to depict traditional iconography: the , the , the , the …the medieval legends of the Virgin and the ; and stories of apostles and saints. The frescoes, altarpieces, painting, and statues created a new iconography of Catholic renewal while forging continuity with traditional devotion; they would grace a landscape dotted with the churches and the palaces of princes and prelates in a triumphant Catholic world.6

The most effective use of this newly adapted visual language was made by the new Catholic

order of the Jesuits. Most often considered the militant arm of the Counter-Reformation Church, their

major goals were the delivery of the Church’s message to all reaches of contemporary society,

conversion of all the world’s peoples including Reformation heretics, and the further growth in the

recognition of the order’s patron saints and founders, Saint Ignatius Loyola and Saint Francis Xavier.7

During the period after Trent, the order experienced enormous growth in both followers and influence in

6 R. Po-chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 171. 7 Marcel G. Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons (The Netherlands: Davaco Publishers, 1993), 16.

Strasbaugh 31 not just Italy, but also in the north, mainly centered in Antwerp. The Jesuits also found a stronghold in

Utrecht because of the existing Catholic population and still existing church structure, which led to their

founding of an outpost in Utrecht in 1613.8 Through their tremendous influence, the Jesuits employed

artwork to convey their message and to propagate growth. In the book The Catholic Reformation,

Michael A. Mullet confirms that the Jesuits’ subordinated “form to function” in order to fulfill these

goals of expanding the Society’s borders of influence.9 Though much of this religious propaganda

artwork was for the elevation of their patron saints, the Church encouraged it because “visual arts

propaganda for each [order of Catholicism] bolstered the causes of the whole church.”10 Overall, the

Church waged a full propaganda battle by creating its own visual language in order to combat the heresies of the Reformation. By using the dedication of the Jesuits, these messages were able to be carried into the heart of the religious battle: the Netherlands.

Adorations: Tradition of Religious Promotion

Two of the themes that appear frequently among Counter-Reformation works are the Adoration of the Magi and the Adoration of the Shepherds. Both of these themes surround the birth of Christ. The

Adoration of the Magi tells the Biblical tale of the Magi from the east who followed a star that had rested over the birthplace of the Christ child.11 They set out bearing gifts of , , and

, which they present to the babe. The Adoration usually depicts this moment where the richly-

adorned men humble themselves at the feet of this young child. This was a very important theme to the

Church because it represented not only the birth of through the Savior, but also the gifts

8 Joaneath Ann Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr, Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age (Baltimore, MD; San Francisco,CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Walters Art Gallery, 1997), 19. 9 Michael A. Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (London ; New York: Routledge, 1999), 201. 10 Marcus B. Burke, Jesuit Art and Iconography, 1550-1800 (Jersey City, NJ: 's College Art Gallery, 1993), 1. 11 :1-10

Strasbaugh 32 symbolized the three major aspects of Christ’s life. The gold represented Christ’s kingship,

frankincense that he was divine, and the myrrh emphasized his mortality. The myrrh became especially

important because it was used historically as a spice for embalming the deceased and thus came to also

embody the Eucharist.12

This importance of the gifts alone does not explain why the Adoration of the Magi became a

popular propaganda tool for the Catholic Church; it was also important in a didactic sense. Barbara

Haeger mentions in her article on Ruben’s Adoration of the Magi that because it is the revelation of the

Christ child to the Gentiles, “it was for this reason that the subject became particularly popular during

the Counter Reformation, replacing the previously more frequently represented Nativity scenes.”13 This revelation to the Gentiles was expanded throughout the development of the Church to represent all people outside the Catholic faith, including the Reformation heretics. Ironically, with such a large number of strong Catholic painters in Utrecht, instead of depicting the typical Counter-Reformation

Adoration of the Magi, the Adoration of the Shepherds is much more commonly painted in Utrecht for various reasons that I will explore.

The Adoration of the Shepherds is found in :15-20. After hearing the good news of

Christ’s birth from the angels, the shepherds found Jesus who was in the .14 The tradition for this image began to take shape in the tenth century. One of the reasons for its sustained popularity is that it continually evolved, adopting more levels of meaning to meet the needs of the Church.15 This theme was becoming one of the most popular images depicted in Utrecht around the turn of the seventeenth-

12 Barbara Haeger, "Rubens's Adoration of the Magi and the Program for the High Altar of St Michael's Abbey in Antwerp," Simiolus 25, no. 1 (1997), 48. 13 ibid., 48. 14 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. Luke 2:16-20 NIV 15 Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art [Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst.], Vol. 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1971), 67.

Strasbaugh 33 century; both the Catholic and Calvinist painters developed this theme into a tool to articulate their

specific political or religious messages. Marcel Roethlisberger discussed its popularity in his Bloemaert monograph, noting that the artist “was to treat [this theme] more frequently than any other.”16 He also mentions that Wtewael was very fond of this subject as well, yet he does not mention why these two artists from different religious background would continuously depict this theme throughout their career.

Lowenthal, in her monograph on Wtewael, describes this scene as “signifying the old order on which the new one would be built.”17 It is building the new order over the old that sets the foundation for the

religious discourse between the artists in Utrecht who use this theme to project an image of their

denominational beliefs. 18

Catholic Artists: Catholic Message

There were many Catholic artists who chose to depict this theme. Besides Abraham Bloemaert,

who I will focus on in this section, the Caravaggisti artists also loved to depict this theme. The leading

Caravaggisti in Utrecht was the Catholic painter Gerrit van Honthorst. Honthorst’s The Adoration of the

Shepherds (1622) (Fig. 12) is a beautiful rendition of the scene where a small group of shepherds surround the babe who is emanating a great light. While much of the central aspects of this work follow the tradition for the Adoration, he changes many of the important details in order to emphasize not the

16 Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons, 112. 17 Anne W. Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism (Doornspijk, The Netherlands: Davaco Publishers, 1986), 85. 18 The old order or old dispensation, which is centered on animal sacrifice as the only temporary remedy for sin, was replaced by the new dispensation which places Christ as the final sacrifice, permanently absolving the sins of anyone who places their belief in him. The dispensation was a popular theme in the Netherlands and established a tradition under fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Netherlandish artists. Early in the tradition, painters showed the Dispensation as Christ’s body being lowered from the cross such as seen in Hugo van der Goes Dispensation (1480). However, the dispensation gradually began to be included in the Adoration through the appearance of the ruins symbolizing the old order of animal sacrifice for sins replaced by Christ’s coming sacrifice for humanity. While the Catholic would have used this as a means of supporting the importance of the Church sacraments, the Protestants used this to show the ability of personal salvation through faith alone.

Strasbaugh 34 didactic function of this work, but his stylistic influences.19 Honthorst and the group of Catholic and

Protestant painters that have been categorized as the Utrecht Caravaggisti, owe their painting style not to

the religious circumstances of the town, but to their imitation of the works of Caravaggio, which they saw during their studies in Italy.20 All of them came back to Utrecht and continued to select themes that

would highlight Caravaggio’s emphasis on compositions with lighting from one discrete

source that illuminates a few highly detailed figures in the extreme foreground of the painting.21 This

Adoration by Honthorst follows this formula. Honthorst only uses the attributes of tradition that he decides would best illustrate his style.

Bloemaert’s work, as seen in the previous chapter, was more directed by the circumstances of

Utrecht and his personal beliefs than by an imported style. He used style to create a visual statement.

Though Bloemaert depicted this scene numerous times in his career, his Adoration of the Shepherds from 1612 (Fig. 13) clearly shows how he as a Catholic took this theme and again adapted it to fit the cultural context of early seventeenth-century Utrecht. This artwork retains Mannerist figure poses and coloring while also demonstrating his movement toward clearer narrative as required by the Counter-

Reformation mandate for images. It is loaded with symbolism. The Christ child is lying in a cloth- covered manger while his mother is caring for him at the viewer’s left. The stable is filled with shepherds. A shepherdess standing behind Mary and a kneeling bearded shepherd behind the manger

19 This glowing Christ derived from the tradition started by the vision of Bridget of Sweden that became internationally known by the fifteenth century. Bill and Linda Murray describe the vision and artistic representation of this vision, which came to Saint Bridget upon her visit to the in , in their book Oxford Dictionary of Christian Art. They state that St Margret said that, “Mary is taking off her blue mantel and her shoes and kneeling on the ground, dressed in a white tunic, and adoring the naked Child, who lies on a bundle of hay on the ground. A brilliant light emanates from the child, outshining the candle which is always held by Joseph.” Peter Murray and Linda Murray, A Dictionary of Christian Art (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 378. 20 Despite Christopher Brown stating that Utrecht was a perfect town for the Caravaggisti because the large Catholic population provided a foundation of support for the Catholic themes that they adopted from Caravaggio, I believe that though they painted in the town, their paintings they did not provide anything new that would provide political or religious meaning beyond what the motifs already embodied. 21 Christopher Brown, "The Utrecht Caravaggisti" in Gods, Saints, & Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt (Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1980), 101.

Strasbaugh 35 look up in wonder, praising God the Father, (here represented by the golden sky above) for fulfilling his

promise of a savior, while three shepherds worship the Son as the fulfillment of the promise and symbol

of the new covenant. Above the shepherds, the angels also join in the festive occasion while signaling

the start of a new age.

However, when delving into the scene, it is obvious that it contains multiple levels of meaning as

it tells the whole story of Christ’s life. Though the actual definitions of this symbolic visual language

have not been addressed by the majority of religious scholars and art historians, the art itself gives many

clues into the various meanings when placed under the discerning filter of cultural context. In this

painting, Bloemaert tells the before and after of Christ. The angels who takes up the top half of the

painting serve two roles, that of heavenly host found in biblical reference of the Adoration of the

Shepherds in Luke 2:13 and of the Annunciation of the Virgin in Luke 1:26-38. 22 The combinations of

these two themes began to develop around the late tenth century. Gertrud Schiller in her book

Iconography of Christian Art states that the “Annunciation and its fulfillment have been conflated into

one scene, or, in other words, that an angel proclaims the miracle of God’s human birth to both Mary

and to the Shepherds.”23 The way that this scene is combined is very unusual based on both scripture

and tradition. In Luke 2:19, the virgin hears the stories of the shepherds and “treasured up all these

things and pondered them in her heart.” This pondering of the shepherds’ story was folded into her

remembering her own Annunciation, thus the conflation of these two angelic proclamations. However,

none of the records of Christ’s birth place angels at the actual nativity. In fact, traditionally the

Annunciation of the Shepherds, if present in the scene were placed in the landscape background in order to show a before and after; if there were angels in the foreground, as in Hugo van der Goes’ Portinari

Nativity (1476-79) (Fig. 14), they would only be kneeling in positions of prayer and praise.

22 On this point of before and after, Roethlisberger noted that Bloemaert depicted the Annunciation to the Shepherds in all of his Adoration of the Shepherds paintings.Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons, 95. 23 Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, 67.

Strasbaugh 36 Bloemaert places the Annunciation in the foreground of a painting in only this one instance. In

all other cases, Bloemaert either reserves proclaiming angels to the background, while angels in the

foreground are used for additional adoration. The two putti in the canvas of the Adoration of the

Shepherds from 1623 (Fig. 15) are not interacting with the human figures, but holding the scroll that

reads Gloria In Excelsis Deo. The light in the background subtly symbolizes an Annunciation to the

Shepherds in the hills. Light emanating from the clouds to denote an Annunciation to the Shepherds

was also used in other examples of the Adoration. In his 1620 canvas (Fig. 16), the image of an angel

floats in the light but in another one (Fig. 17) probably painted soon before the 1623 canvas Bloemaert

eliminates the angel using just diagonal rays of heavenly light.

Bloemaert uses the Annunciation in the 1612 Adoration as a means of connecting the two

realms, the heavenly and the earthly together.24 The two angels on the sides of the painting are directly addressing the shepherdess standing behind the Virgin Mary. This shepherdess appears to be standing in two different times, as part of the Annunciation, which proceeded the Adoration, and yet due to her proximity to Mary, the Christ child, and the other worshippers, she is part of the Adoration as well.

When comparing this painting to Peter Paul Rubens’ (1577-1640) Adoration of the Shepherds

from 1608 (Fig. 18), we can begin to see Bloemaert’s unique message by exploring its differences from

the Rubens example. Rubens was well known to the painters of Utrecht through various prints after

Rubens’ work that made their way north.25 Since Rubens was considered the prime example of

Counter-Reformation art in the North and painted heavily for the Jesuit order, he would have been the

perfect example of the trends in Catholic art for Bloemaert to follow.

24 Latin for Glory to God on High 25 Marten Jan Bok, "Artists at Work: Their Lives and Livelihood" in Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, eds. Joaneath Ann Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr (Baltimore, MD; San Francisco,CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Walters Art Gallery, 1997), 87.

Strasbaugh 37 Each artist handled the top of his composition quite differently, though both make reference to

the good news of God spoken by the angels to the shepherds. Yet, in the Rubens work, the angels of the

Annunciation, as they look at each other or at the Christ child, are more actively worshipping Christ than

in proclaiming the good news to the shepherds. Bloemaert’s angels are interacting with a shepherd and shepherdess, as well as worshipping the Child. The Word is depicted in both paintings but represented

differently.26 Rubens uses the traditional symbol of a winding scroll that signifies prophecies of the coming savior. But instead of referring back to Old Testament prophecy, the winding banner held by

the hovering angels has the words from Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to

men on whom his favor rests.” This banner of praise that they hold is the only link between the

Annunciation to the Shepherds and the Adoration since there is no interaction between the heavens and

humanity. However, in Bloemaert’s work, not only is there interaction between the angels and

shepherds, but there is also another clue that points to greater emphasis on the Word of God. The angel that is reading from a book in the top center does not appear to be directly part of either the

Annunciation or Adoration scene since it is pressed to the background, but it has to be more than just decoration. Though this angel does not show the words on the page but instead holds a large volume, presumably the Word of God, it is more than likely a pictorial device acknowledging that the Christ child’s birth fulfills all the Old Testament prophecies of a savior, and also includes the New Testament angelic praises from Luke as well. Bloemaert’s book symbolizes the whole story.

There are more differences between the two artists’ versions of the Adoration of the Shepherds than in the actions of the angels. One of the most important motifs in the tradition of the Adoration of the Shepherds is the inclusion of an ox and an ass to represent an additional level of meaning.

According to Schiller, these two beasts represent the conflicting peoples that Christ came to save. The ox, who could be led by his master, has represented two groups of people. Originally the ox represented

26 The Word refers to the Biblical prophecies from the Old Testament that foretold Christ’s birth.

Strasbaugh 38 the Jewish people also known as his chosen people, but by the beginning of the first century it had come

to stand for all members of the Christian Church instead. The ass on the other hand became a symbol of

its legendary stubbornness and has come to represent all heathens, non-Christian Gentiles, and even

Jewish populations depending on the time. However, throughout the tradition of ascribing roles to these

animals, their inclusion indicates that “salvation comes to all, but it is accepted by some only while

others close their minds to it.”27 However, when observing these two Catholic works by Rubens and

Bloemaert, the roles of these two animals have been changed or, in the case of Rubens’ work, have

disappeared altogether. Why would the premier Counter-Reformation artist in the North omit these traditional characters in the Nativity and Adoration? How would leaving out these motifs actually reinforce the Catholic over Protestant mission of the Counter-Reformation Church? While no one appears to know why this shift away from depicting both the ox and the ass, it is clear that Catholic imagery had already begun to eliminate the symbolic animals.

While Rubens eliminates both animals, Bloemaert only eliminate the ass and retains the ox.

Though he would have been aware of the current tradition to leave out both, Bloemaert purposefully reverted back to a past symbol to further build his Catholic message. Based on the tradition of the ox representing the chosen of God, it appears that Bloemaert has intended to represent the Catholic Church as the open-minded religion bearing the promise of salvation in his 1612 painting. He excludes any reference to the ass as symbol of the unwilling heathen. However, as the persecution of the Catholic

Church ramped up starting in 1617-1619, the inclusion of ass begins to appear again, such as seen in his

Adoration of the Shepherds from 1620 and 1623, pointing to the stubborn Calvinists not receiving the salvation of the faithful Catholics.

Another animal that often naturally accompanies the shepherds in traditional Adoration scenes is the complacent sheep or lamb; however, Bloemaert depicts it in a way that places extra emphasis on

27 Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, 61.

Strasbaugh 39 salvation – he includes a bound lamb at the feet of Christ. The lamb is the essential part foretelling of

Christ’s ultimate death as the pure Lamb of God who was a sacrifice for the salvation of the chosen

people. This is accomplished not only by its close proximity at Christ’s feet, but that it is also bound and

prepared for sacrifice. But this sacrifice leads to life as the ribbons of dark reds leading from the lamb

represent the blood of Christ, its purifying power, and also the Catholic sacrament of Eucharist. The

combination of the bound lamb representing the Eucharist and the ox further reinforces the possibility

that the ox represents the promise of salvation of the Catholics by emphasizing Catholic ceremony

originating from God.28 The previously mentioned angel reading a book also holds dual meaning when

placed with the lamb. While representing the foretelling in prophecy of the event of Christ’s birth,

emphasis is also placed on why Christ came; to offer salvation through his death, again as foretold in the

prophecies and by .

With all of this symbolism, Bloemaert is carefully following the Church’s requirements for this

theme of appealing to emotions and creating a clear didactic message supporting the Church. However,

I think that there is a reason why he chose to depict this theme so often and why this particular painting

of 1612 contained different motifs from traditional images and from those of his contemporaries. I think

that clues can be found in his mixture of Mannerism with the didactic clarity of Counter-Reformation

imagery. Beside the shepherdess, a small girl points to the center of the scene to make sure, in the

Mannerist tradition, that we do not miss any of the pointed symbolism. Through his frequent depiction

of the Adoration of the Shepherd scenes with their combination of all of the figures in the act of

worship, the proclamation of the angels to the shepherd and shepherdess, the reading of the Word

showing the past and future of Christ, and the use of symbolic animals of the faithful and sometimes the

28 The emphasis on the Eucharist further separated Catholicism and Protestantism during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. While the Catholic believed in transubstantiation, that the wine and bread physically turning into the blood and body of Christ, and that it was essential to maintaining a believer’s salvation, the Protestants dismissed this for emphasizing the Eucharist as a ceremonial remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice.

Strasbaugh 40 heathen, culminating in the tied lamb of sacrifice, I propose that Bloemaert identifies with the shepherds as one who appreciates the full meaning of the birth, life, and death of the Savior, as a member of the one true church, the Catholic Church.

Wtewael: Creating a Dutch Adoration

The theme of the Adoration of the Shepherds was as immensely popular with Wtewael as it was with his Catholic counterpart and friend, Bloemaert; however, Wtewael chose to include motifs that clearly set his versions apart and identify his Calvinist beliefs. One of his best examples of this theme, the Stuttgart Adoration of the Shepherds (1601) (Fig. 19), not only illustrates Wtewael’s participation in a long-standing tradition, but also demonstrates the changes he made to create a unique version of this scene. What is truly striking about this Adoration when compared to the Bloemaert or other Catholic painters’ depictions of this theme is that the figures and objects seem to share enough in common with tradition to carry a devotional aspect, but different enough to make one question why Wtewael showed this scene in this way. The Stuttgart Adoration has a very open composition with ruins, representing the old order of the Jewish traditions of the Old Testament, set in a landscape that includes various contemporary seventeenth-century objects. Depicting ruins as symbols of the Jewish laws is a long- standing artistic tradition that further emphasizes that the birth of Christ establishes a new order that will supersede the old.29 In addition, Wtewael’s figures seem very Dutch in appearance and garb, and may

indicate that Wtewael is attempting again to create political propaganda for the Dutch Republic using a

religious theme.

As is typical of Adorations, the baby is placed in the middle foreground surrounded by his

mother and a group of shepherds who are in various poses that convey awe and praise. Similar to

29 Panofsky also reinforces this in his book. Early Netherlandish Painting p. 134-136, by concluding that the broken pillar also represents the old order being replaced by the new.

Strasbaugh 41 Bloemaert’s Adoration, the ox appears in the midst of everything in this canvas as it does in all of

Wtewael’s paintings of this theme. However, the Calvinist Wtewael also includes the ass which is off to

the side, which is a departure from the imagery of the Northern Catholic painters in the seventeenth- century. Wtewael depicted both the ox and ass in all but two of his over twenty drawings and paintings on this theme, showing that he probably wishes to convey an alternate message from his Catholic colleagues. While the large majority of his Catholic counterparts represent the ox as the symbol of the chosen people of God, meaning those who stayed within the Catholic fold, the Calvinist Wtewael uses the ox to represent God’s chosen people as his Dutch Calvinist brethren. He then intends for the

Catholics to correspond to the stubborn ass that does not recognize or refuses to accept the new order.

This is even more clearly identifiable in that the ass is never facing Christ, which is much different from

Bloemaert who places the ass observing the child. The old order ruins also now stand for the Catholic

Church rather than the Jews.

In all of his Adorations, Wtewael separates himself and his Protestant countrymen from Catholic control. Because Protestant’s deny the necessity of the Church’s role in salvation, he deemphasizes

Christ’s sacrifice and its Catholic sacramental Eucharistic reference, leaving the Church out of the equation. He does this in a variety of ways. The most obvious way is his exclusion of the bound lamb, which is the most obvious foretelling of Christ’s sacrifice in Bloemaert’s canvas. 30 Wtewael may have

seen the earlier Bloemaert painting, and is purposefully leaving this reference out. The reason for this is

likely that he was distancing himself from the central purposes of the Counter-Reformation themes of the Adoration of the Shepherds and the Magi -- always balancing Christ’s birth with his death and emphasizing participation in the Eucharist in order to keep the Catholic Church as the necessary

30 There is one painting in which he shows the bound lamb at the feet of the babe. However, based on the sketchy patronage of this work, it appears that it was painting for a patron in Antwerp which might have commissioned to have a stronger Catholic message. Despite this, Wtewael still paintings all the other motifs that make his Adorations hold a strong Calvinist message. Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism, 147.

Strasbaugh 42 mediator between the believer and God. Protestant sects wanted to counter the Catholic insistence on

the believer needing the intercession of a priest with the Protestant doctrine of a priesthood of believers

where all could individually come to God through Christ.

In addition to this, Wtewael also reinforces this separation from Catholicism through his

depiction of the Annunciation to the Shepherds. While Wtewael keeps with the tradition of including it

with the Adoration, he combines these two themes much differently than both Bloemaert and Rubens

do. While both Bloemaert and Rubens integrate the Annunciation into the foreground of the Adoration

and thus creating a scene where the angels fulfill the dual roles of proclaimers and worshippers,

Wtewael always places the Annunciation in the background. In the Stuttgart Adoration, he depicts the

Annunciation through the archway in the background to the viewer’s left (Fig. 19a). The light is

streaming down from heaven upon a group of shepherds who are receiving the good news. In addition

to Wtewael’s removal of the Annunciation from the main scene, only one barely visible hovering angel

is present within the golden light that slants diagonally toward the bewildered shepherds. By placing

the entire Annunciation with a single angel in the background, Wtewael shows the biblical account

according to Luke 2:9. When combined with the Calvinist emphasis on personal salvation, the study of

the scriptures, and not depending on priests for a person’s own salvation, the removal of the foreground

angels could be another way that Wtewael reinforces the Calvinist opposition to the Catholic Church

while creating an example of personal salvation for the Dutch to follow.

The last clue to deciphering Wtewael’s use of the Adoration as religious and political propaganda is how he uses the shepherds themselves to place the Dutch, and more specifically Dutch

Calvinists, into the role of God’s chosen people. Already, the shepherds, through the long Catholic

tradition of this theme, have come to represent the chosen people and part of the new order established

by Christ’s birth. Wtewael sets the Calvinist/Shepherds in the role of God’s chosen, placing them

Strasbaugh 43 among ruins, representing only the trusting ox and the stubborn ass, and excluding angels from their

position of co-worshipers. He makes a strong connection between the shepherds and seventeenth- century Dutch Calvinists by depicting the Adoration shepherds in Arcadian shepherd guise, in order to draw in his audience through a genre that was enormously popular in contemporary art and society. By doing this, I believe Wtewael was attempting to remind his Dutch Calvinist countrymen that the humility embodied by the shepherds seen in Catholic tradition still had a message for an affluent

Calvinist society.

Shepherds were already popular subjects in seventeenth-century Netherlandish art and literature and one that Wtewael used to draw the viewer into the painting. Wtewael and his son Peter both painted pendant paintings of shepherds and shepherdesses (Fig. 20) and (Fig. 21). These couples undoubtedly depict popular characters from contemporary plays about the idealized inhabitants of timeless Arcadia.

Sometimes they were anonymous genre figures, but often they were portraits of individuals who wished to be depicted as these characters. When comparing the shepherds in the Stuttgart Adoration to of those in Wtewael’s pendant paintings, many similarities in clothing are apparent between the biblical shepherds and the contemporary Dutch portrayed in the roles of shepherd and shepherdess. In both examples, Wtewael depicts the shepherds and even Joseph with loose-fitting tunics and floppy felt or straw hats, often with a feather in the front of the hat. However, it is not just in the clothing that

Wtewael brings the past and the present together, but also in the ideals that the shepherds came to represent seventeenth-century Dutch society. Alison McNeil Kettering in her book, The Dutch Arcadia, states that “the life of the shepherd or countryman in literature and art would have stood for the vita contemplative, for tranquility, for freedom from hardship and worry, and for the pleasure and leisured

Strasbaugh 44 ease afforded those with time on their hands.”31 This emphasis on freedom for pleasure and ease led to

the popularity of the Dutch Arcadian imagery.

By using the Arcadian shepherds to draw the attention of the viewers, Wtewael was then able to

fulfill the Calvinist call by combining the Catholic tradition of this theme with the Calvinist emphasis on humility. One of the reasons for later success of this theme in the Catholic Church was that is was adopted for its humility by the Franciscan order. Schiller states that “in the eyes of Francis of Assisi the poor men of the people were the privileged ones, for it was they to whom the glad tidings were first announced, who first saw, adored and loved the Child born in poverty.”32 This desire for piety was a

central ideal in the Calvinist church. Throughout the development of the Dutch Republic under the

influence of the Calvinist church, the people were in a constant battle between the economic success of

this growing nation and the call to throw off those material things that threaten the of the people.

Simon Schama illustrates this call to piety and the seriousness of the issue when he determines that

“while God would stand guard against enemies from without, the real menace would come from

within…the danger to which all prophets of doom drew attention was materialism.”33 By painting this

theme so frequently and placing the contemporary Dutch Calvinist into the nativity, Wtewael was not

only providing a call to the Dutch to live a life avoiding the luxury or excess, but also to proclaim to the

rest of the world that the Calvinist nation was God’s new chosen people that are being lifted up over the

ruins of the past, the Catholic Church.

While the theme of Adoration of the Shepherd was typically considered a Catholic theme, it was

once again changed by both Bloemaert and Wtewael in order to better suit their needs. Bloemaert,

though familiar with the trends and traditions of this motif for the Counter Reformation, he adjusts

31 Alison McNeil Kettering, The Dutch Arcadia: Pastoral Art and its Audience in the Golden Age (Totowa, N.J.; Montclair, N.J.: Allanheld and Schram; Distribution, A. Schram, 1983), 10. 32 Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art 87. 33 Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1997), 124.

Strasbaugh 45 elements to address his position as a Catholic in a Protestant land. His inclusion of dialogue between the heavenly and earthly characters and the use of the traditional images of a bound lamb and the ox all combine to create an image where the Catholics were praised and their dogma of the Eucharist further supported against the oppression at the hands of the Calvinists. Wtewael on the other hand, took these

Catholic themes and used it as a stepping point in order to create the visual statement that the Calvinists were God’s chosen people, built over the top the ruins of the fallen Catholic Church. In addition to supporting the Calvinist church, he also attempted to use the Catholic tradition of shepherds as symbols of humility in order to encourage the Calvinists to also fight against materialism that could be their ultimate demise. Both of these works, not only were outpourings of the artists’ individual beliefs, but were used to support their religious cause.

Strasbaugh 46 Chapter Three: Moralizing Genre Scenes in Utrecht:

Apparent Morality and Hidden Message

With the rapid decline of the amount of religious imagery produced in the Northern

Netherlands after the rise of the Calvinist Church, painters of the day had to find different

avenues to make up for this loss in patronage. The decline of religious artwork saw the rise of

genre, still life, and landscape paintings. However, artists continued to paint Christian messages;

they just placed them in new surroundings. This chapter shows that some Dutch artists integrated

various religious motifs into still life, genre, or landscape scenes to appeal to a wider audience.

By doing this, they created a moralizing framework that was approved by the Calvinist church

and easily found a place in Dutch homes.

Two images that I would like to focus on are Bloemaert’s Parable of the Wheat and Tares

(1624) (Fig. 22) and Wtewael’s Kitchen Scene with the Parable of the Great Supper (1605) (Fig.

23). Bloemaert’s work is a landscape and Wtewael’s kitchen scene combines genre and still life elements. While they both fit into different categories, they are both heavily infused with

Christian moralizing themes. In the following chapter I will analyze these two works and determine if each painter expressed his own beliefs in his work to further that chosen faith, or if

they were just creating interesting canvases that would be popular at the art market for both

Catholic and Protestant clients.

Adapting Traditions: Dutch Retention of Various Influences

By the time that Bloemaert and Wtewael were painting these images, artists had already

been grappling for some time with the suspicion or even opposition to religious imagery brought on by the Reformation. One of the first to include religious messages in still life and everyday life scenes was the Antwerp painter, Pieter Aertsen (1508-1575). Aertsen’s painting Meat Stall

Strasbaugh 47 of 1551 (Fig. 24) is one of the most widely discussed images in what has become known as the

moralizing or inverted genre. Elizabeth Honig describes this field as, “Paintings which in their

view bizarrely combine two ‘genres’ of painting, the properly important religious and the now

dominant secular.”1 While this piece is a prime example of the newly developed moralizing

genre, he and fellow Antwerp artist Joachim Beuckelaer (1530-1574) continued to paint scenes

that combined religion and the everyday in order to emphasis the virtues of piety, charity and

holiness against the sins of indulgence of the palate, greed, drunkenness, and ultimately sexual

immorality. In Aertsen’s piece, the viewer is automatically drawn to the large table spilling over with meat in various forms of preparation. However, through the window, the viewer is treated to a scene of the Flight to Egypt where the Virgin Mary is giving a begging child a piece of bread. Scholars have poured over every detail of this image including the brothel/inn scene in the right background and the sign in the right foreground signifying an unscrupulous land speculation deal that took place at the same time this painting was produced; they have found that the imagery alludes to two ways of life: godly living as illustrated by the Virgin’s example of charity; or sinful living by succumbing to the temptation of excess in the world, illustrated by the various examples of indulgences of the palate and of sexual desire.

The power of this image is that such a still life and genre scene became the perfect vehicle for delivery of the message of religious morals. Margaret A. Sullivan in her article

Aertsen’s “Kitchen and Market Scenes: Audience and Innovation in Northern Art,” states, “This tradition of telling the truth in an entertaining way made the genre uniquely qualified to fill a moralizing role.”2 While both Bloemaert’s and Wtewael’s genre-like paintings are clearly

1 Elizabeth A. Honig, Painting and the Market: Pictures of Display and Exchange from Aertsen to Snyders, 1992) 61. 2 Margaret A. Sullivan, "Aertsen's Kitchen and Market Scenes: Audience and Innovation in Northern Art," The Art Bulletin 81, no. 2 (June, 1999), 246.

Strasbaugh 48 indebted to this idea spawned by Aertsen over fifty years before in Antwerp, the culture of the

seventeenth-century Northern Netherlands with its religious and political struggles provided a

different context for such works and thus other potential meanings. The turmoil the new country

was in led the Dutch to believe that their possible demise would come at the hands of that which

would also lead to their ultimate prosperity, wealth gained through successful trade. Simon

Schama further emphasizes this point when he states, “If the Dutch ever imagined their ruin it

was not at the hands of some neighboring predator power but at their own. They could be the

authors of their own undoing simply by overdoing things.”3 Avoidance of materialism was balanced by the desire for representing the qualities of a godly life. This play between morality and sin was overtly present in Aertsen’s piece and the tradition is continued in the images by both of these Utrecht artists.

Bloemaert: Religious Critique Inside Moralizing Landscape

Though Bloemaert and Wtewael introduce moralizing elements into painting specialties primarily identified as secular, they chose different ones, and use differing degrees of moralizing.

Bloemaert’s piece, while much later than Wtewael’s Kitchen Scene, is much more direct in its religious message. The majority of this canvas is taken up by a rural scene of rolling fields in the background with a farmhouse, dovecote, and farming implements in the left middle and foreground, which together illustrate a typical Dutch rural landscape. However, this canvas clearly shows how Bloemaert combined the two genres of religion and landscape through the

inclusion of two groups of figures. The group of figures in the front illustrates a moral message

against drunkenness, sloth, and sexual immorality. This message is made evident by the close

proximity of the figures to objects of excess such as bowls, pitchers and basket strewn

haphazardly near the objects of labor. Instead of the figures using the implements, they seem to

3 Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age, 326.

Strasbaugh 49 have fallen asleep in a drunken stupor. The nudity of one male and one female figure hint at sexual activity as well. While these drunken figures sleep in the foreground, a small figure in the

background (Fig. 22a) is walking through the field spreading seed as he goes. Upon closer examination, this figure is clearly the devil complete with horns, tail, and scowl; yet, he must be

pleased that the foreground farm workers fell into the trap of impropriety. With the inclusion of

these sleeping workers and Satan treading the fields, this painting refers to the parable of Jesus

found in Matthew 13:24-30:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this,' he replied. The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”

This passage and Jesus’ later explanation found in verses 36-40, are Bloemaert’s

inspiration for this canvas. Based on the context of the time, I believe that Bloemaert again

attempted to create dual levels of meaning, one for possible Calvinist viewers, and another to

support and encourage his fellow Catholics. For the Calvinist viewers, he included many

attributes of sinfulness in order to emphasize further the moralizing message loved by the general

Protestant religious public. This is best seen by comparing this 1624 version to his earlier example of the Landscape with the Parables of the Tares from 1604 (Fig. 25), which is much

simpler in composition. This painting presses the workers in the foreground and only allows a

small view of Satan in the field framed between the farmhouse on the left and the cow on the

Strasbaugh 50 right. What sets the 1605 version apart is that the workers are shown in more of a position of rest and not of a drunken slumber. All of the workers appear to be mostly clothed or at least clothed properly for their type of work. While the bowl and pitcher dominate the front center, they appear to represent more of a light lunch rather than an overindulgence of the palette. In the 1604 image, the workers are peacefully resting near the orderly pots, which contrasts with the 1624 version where they are in various degrees of dress and the man and woman on the right are leaning on the fallen pitcher.

This increase of sinful extravagance by the farm workers in the later painting has been debated among various scholars. Marcel Roethlisberger focuses his study of this work on the appearance of the two nude figures about which he states, “They are the most eye-catching feature, unique and ultimately unaccountable in the context of this subject.”4 However, he then downplays the importance of the nudity by determining that it was just the heat that caused them to disrobe for an afternoon nap. While heat is certainly something that plagues farm workers, the

symbolism of the nude male cradling the then empty pitcher further emphasizes drunkenness

which was commonly believed to lead to sexual intercourse. In his article “Ministrae

Voluptatum: Stoicizing Ethics in the Market and Kitchen Scenes of Pieter Aertsen and Joachim

Beuckelaer,” Günter Irmscher states, “In classical literature itself, there are many allusions to the

common wisdom that with rich food, alcoholic drinks, and sexual desire, one appetite leads to

the others.”5 He also goes on to mentions that this “analogy between the act of consuming food

[and drink] and that of consummating sexual desire” is found in the New Testament in Romans

13:13-14 lending an additional religious aspect.6 This additional sinfulness embodied in the

4 Marcel G. Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons 260. 5 Gunter Irmscher, "Ministrae Voluptatum: Stoicizing Ethics in the Market and Kitchen Scenes of Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer," Simiolus 16, no. 4 (1986), 221-222. 6 ibid., 222.

Strasbaugh 51 naked couple of Bloemaert’s Wheat and Tares was also acknowledged by Edgar Peters Bowron,

Peter Sutton and J. Bruyn. While Bowron and Sutton seem to go too far by trying to cast the

nude sleeping couple in the roles of Adam and Eve, supporting their claim by classify every

animal in some sort of symbolic role, I agree with Bruyn that the nudity and the position of all

the figures help to illustrate sloth and lust.7 With these additional symbols of sinfulness,

Bloemaert is able to assert a typical Dutch message for abstaining from these forms of

indulgence.

However, I think that there is a deeper meaning that can be found by including Christ’s

explanation of this parable, through further comparisons with his earlier painting, and by

exploring the context of the time of this image. A short time after telling this parable to the

people, Christ further explained the meaning to His disciples. In verses 37-40, Jesus stated:

The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.

The main players in this drama are Christ and Satan, planting seeds that will either lead to life or

destruction. With this said, I find that Bloemaert carefully and subtly changed the roles of a few of the figures in order to further illustrate the byproduct of the harvest. While the figures in the foreground would clearly be seen as those who fell asleep while the enemy spread the seed, I find that they also embody sin and seem to match more with the description of the weeds that were sown, making them sons and daughters of the evil one. This attribution would lend strength to Bloemaert’s typical moralizing message that these acts of sin will ultimately lead to

7 Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons, 260.

Strasbaugh 52 destruction where “the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire.”8 While this message is

acceptable to both Reformed and Catholic viewers, I find that there is a reason why he so

severely changed his original motif from 1605 to include more evidence of sin and corruption.

Based on Bloemaert’s emphasis on sin that leads to destruction, I think that Bloemaert is

further casting various contemporary entities into the roles in the 1624 canvas. While Christ

continues to represent the sower of good seed and Satan of the weeds, it is possible that

Bloemaert placed his fellow Catholics into the role of the good seed who are the children of God

and the Calvinists into the role of the weeds who are condemned. Joeneath Spicer recognizes

that if there is to be a Counter-Reformation critique within a Protestant-dominated society, then

it would have to look different from the imagery used in Catholic-dominated nations. She states that, “The aggressive image of the Virgin as the Church triumphing over heresy…does not play a role in Utrecht; it would be inflammatory. A more subtle commentary on heresy is found in

Bloemaert’s Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.”9

There are two clues that might support this additional level of interpretation. The first is

that Bloemaert might be reacting to another Catholic crackdown that started in Utrecht just a few

years earlier with his removal from the chair of the art guild during the religious upheavals of

1617-1619. The second aspect is that after this painting, he began to paint more devotional

images that removed direct emphasis on sin. While the persecution of Catholics in Utrecht

further increased around 1640, Bloemaert was painting the 1624 painting during a period that

saw little religious pressures on the Catholics since most of the persecution was on the defeated

Remonstrants, which gave him a feeling of freedom to express any resentment about the rising

8 Matthew 13:40 NIV 9 Joaneath Ann Spicer, "An Introduction to Painting in Utrecht, 1600-1650" in Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, 21.

Strasbaugh 53 oppression of the Catholics at the hands of the Calvinist majority.10 It is difficult to determine if

there was another particular event that caused him to paint this critique; however, by analyzing

the remainder of his works, including the final painting on the theme of the Wheat and Tares in

the 1640s (Fig. 26), we are able to see that he was moving away from expressing his feelings in

paint regarding religion and politics. He instead moved to subjects that would be much less

controversial and even more accepted to Calvinists.

His subject matter changed. Instead of painting religious history paintings or genre

scenes that could possibly be interpreted as having a anti-Calvinist message, his works were

strictly for Catholic uses, as in The Four Church Fathers (1932) (Fig. 27), had only secular

messages as in a number of mythological paintings, or Christian moralizing images of godly

living, excluding any sinner or sinfulness. This is seen in his 1640 Wheat and Tares, which

contains only a family of sleepy workers resting in the heat of the day with no nudity or symbols

of excess in sight. With this large shift in subject matter, it appears that the 1624 Wheat and

Tares is the last in his line of loaded religious images providing a critique of the Calvinist

Church.

Wtewael: Making a Tradition of His Own

Compared to Bloemaert, who preferred the landscape as a means of transporting morals

into everyday life, Joachim Wtewael’s Kitchen Scene with the Parable of the Great Supper

(1604) almost directly follows the tradition begun by Aertsen’s Meat Stall. This painting is a combination of two very different scenes. The foreground shows the servants preparing the vast array of food for the feast. The background is reserved for the great supper itself on the right as

10 Benjamin J. Kaplan, "Confessionalism and its Limits" in Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, 63.

Strasbaugh 54 well as a cityscape with possible guests on the left. The foreground of this painting contains all

the sins of indulgence, from gluttony to sexual immorality. The man on the right prepares the

large quantity of fish while various vegetables lay at his feet. The mixture of the fish, the

hanging poultry and hare, and the lettuce all embody symbolic representation of the sin of

gluttony.11 Directly next to his left foot, a line of oyster shells which were considered by

contemporaries to be an aphrodisiac, the artist has cleverly put a young maiden who is placing

prepared poultry on the spit. This figure is overtly intended to be a sexual symbol by Wtewael

combining the reference of poultry with the phallic symbol of the spit. His son Peter Wtewael,

also used this motif created by his father in his A Kitchen Scene (1625-1628) (Fig. 28). Peter’s painting best establishes the context of sexual innuendo of the traveling poultry sellers, known by the Dutch as birders, as this charged scene shows not only the woman placing birds on the spit, but also the birder coming to the house to solicit business from the young woman.

According to E. de Jongh in his book Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch

Seventeenth-Century Painting, the word “birding”, the act of selling capturing and selling poultry and foul, was interchangeable with the word “copulating” in the seventeenth-century

Netherlands.12 In addition to this, he also points out that skewering of poultry was “an action of

unmistakable sexual connotation” when placed in the context of a birder or other sexually

charged symbol.13

The woman as a symbol of sexuality is also seen in the fact that Joachim Wtewael used

her again in two other paintings in the realm of sinfulness, the 1605 version on this theme (Fig.

29) and A Kitchen Scene with Christ, Martha, and Mary (1620-1625) (Fig. 30). In Wtewael’s

11 Anne W. Lowenthal, Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism), 113. 12 Eddie de Jongh, Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Primavera Pers, 2000), 24. 13 ibid., 36.

Strasbaugh 55 Kitchen Scene with Great Supper, as we move to her left, we can bypass the two supporting

characters of the child and the older cook, and the animals and finish the path of sinfulness

resting with the couple intertwined by the fire. This couple represents the fires of passion caused by excess food and drink. While the girl turns her head to look away from her seducer and more toward the viewer, he holds a glass of wine and a basket of eggs with his right hand, and his left hand is slowly going up her dress. With the man holding the basket of eggs, he is placed in the role of a birder which heightens the sexual attribution. Due to her half-heartedly pushing him away while still allowing his advances, the viewer knows where this encounter is headed. This sexual advance is also reinforced by their proximity to the fire. Fire and burning coals as symbols of the flames of passion were acknowledged symbols by this time. Jacob Cats, who was a leading writer of emblem books representing contemporary morality, also referred to this attribution as he wrote:

It shall soil or burn, Friend watch your hands… Thus I am in danger where I place my fingers; Your coal does as a woman, she burns, or she soils.14

The symbolic link between fire and lust is most applicably illustrated in Gerard van

Honthorst’s A Soldier and a Girl (1622) (Fig. 31). Lynn Federle Orr states in regards to

Honthorst’s work that “fire and passion [are] simultaneously fanned, as implied by flying

sparks.”15 This can again be applied to the Kitchen Scene with Great Supper where the fire

burning so close to the couple represents the danger of this encounter, and how difficult it is to

escape.

This foreground of immorality and indulgence is then balanced by the biblical scene of

charity in the two background openings. The parable of the Great Supper, which these two

14 Joaneath Ann Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr, Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, 239. 15 ibid., 239.

Strasbaugh 56 scenes combine to create, is found in Luke 14:12-24. In this passage, Christ tells of a rich man

who plans on throwing a large feast. After sending his servant out to invite all of his friends,

family, and notable citizens, the servant returns with news that no one would come for various

reasons. So in an act of anger towards his closest companions, he opens his feast to all the outcasts of the community in an act of charity. In this parable, Christ’s emphasizes charity to earn an eternal reward. Both Wtewael’s Kitchen Scene with Great Supper and Aertsen’s Meat

Stall demonstrate that the sin of indulgence leads to destruction while charity leads to salvation.

The drama in Wtewael’s Kitchen Scene shows the contrast between those who were invited but ultimately rejected, and the lowly in spirit who were allowed to share in the great feast. On the viewer’s left, we see the servant blocking the path of two ornately clothed guests whose invitation was revoked out of their lack of acceptance, while in the top right scene are the festivities of charity.

This combination of sinfulness and godliness opens up two possible interpretations. The first interpretation would be that this is a moralizing scene in the tradition of Aertsen showing the two ways of life. While I feel that this is a correct interpretation, when taken one step further it can rise above the moralizing tradition, depicting the good one ought to do and the sin one should shun, that was so popular in seventeenth-century society and emphasis his personal beliefs once again through the medium of painting. While this second option is much more difficult to find supporting evidence, I think that it holds enough worth to mention. In this second interpretation, the Catholic Church members are the guests who received the invitation from the rich man, God, but rejected it for their own mistaken beliefs and worldly devices.

Wtewael, as a Calvinist, places the Reformed Church as the lowly and humble in spirit that

accepted this call from the Master. With the lack of historical context on this point, the only

Strasbaugh 57 thing that would support this interpretation would be his religious propaganda that he used in his

other religious scenes such as Moses Striking the Rock and The Adoration of the Shepherds

discussed in the previous chapters. Regardless of whether the second interpretation is feasible,

the image clearly places Wtewael inside the tradition of moralizing genre scenes that combined

religious imagery that was being removed from the church and placed inside scenes of everyday

life.

With the decline of religious painting, this area of moralizing genre became a popular

means of depicting the virtue of both churches. However, while it already played an important

role in proclaiming a godly message, it also became the perfect arena for religious propaganda

that could be hidden even deeper within the symbolism of these canvases. While not easily

understood by all contemporary viewers, they still provided both Bloemaert and Wtewael a means of continuing the discourse of the religiously diverse citizens of Utrecht.

Strasbaugh 58 Bibliography

Alpers, Svetlana. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

Blankert, Albert. Dutch Classicism in Seventeenth-Century Painting. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Museums Boijmans Van Beuningen; Städelsches Kunstinstitut, 1999.

———. Gods, Saints, & Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1980.

Brown, Christopher. "The Utrecht Caravaggisti." in Gods, Saints, & Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt, 307. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1980.

Brown, Christopher. Utrecht Painter of the Dutch Golden Age. London, England: National Gallery Publications Limited, 1997.

de Jongh, Eddy. Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting [Kwesties van betekenis.]. Leiden, The Netherlands: Primavera Pers, 2000.

Franits, Wayne E. "Emerging from the Shadows: by the Utrecht Caravaggisti and its Contemporary Reception." in Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age, edited by Joaneath Ann Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr, Baltimore, MD; San Francisco,CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Walters Art Gallery, 1997, 480.

Haak, Bob. The Golden Age: Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century. , The Netherlands: Waanders Publishers, 2003.

Haeger, Barbara. "Rubens's Adoration of the Magi and the Program for the High Altar of St Michael's Abbey in Antwerp." Simiolus 25, no. 1 (1997): 45-71.

Hall, James. Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art. London, England: John Murray, 1974.

Held, Julius Samuel and Donald Posner. Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Art; , Sculpture, Architecture. Library of Art History. New York, NY: H. N. Abrams, 1972.

Honig, Elizabeth A. Painting and the Market: Pictures of Display and Exchange from Aertsen to Snyders, 1992.

Strasbaugh 61 Hsia, R. Po-chia. The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Irmscher, Gunter. "Ministrae Voluptatum: Stoicizing Ethics in the Market and Kitchen Scenes of Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer." Simiolus 16, no. 4 (1986): 219-232.

Israel, Jonathan Irvine. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806. Oxford History of Early Modern Europe. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Janz, Denis. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999.

Kahr, Madlyn Millner. Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century. 1st ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1978.

Kaplan, Benjamin J. Calvinists and Libertines: Confession and Community in Utrecht, 1578- 1620. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1995.

Kettering, Alison McNeil. The Dutch Arcadia: Pastoral Art and its Audience in the Golden Age. Totowa, N.J.; Montclair, N.J.: Allanheld and Schram, 1983.

Lowenthal, Anne W. Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism. Doornspijk, The Netherlands: Davaco Publishers, 1986.

Mullett, Michael A. The Catholic Reformation. London: New York: Routledge, 1999.

Murray, Peter and Linda Murray. A Dictionary of Christian Art. Oxford Paperback Reference. [Oxford companion to Christian art and architecture.]. Oxford: New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

North, Michael. Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1997.

Porteman, Karel. Emblematic Xxhibitions (Affixiones) at the Brussels Jesuit College (1630- 1685): A Study of the Commemorative Manuscripts (Royal Library, Brussels). Brepols, Belgium: Kbr, 1996.

Prak, Maarten. "Guilds and the Development of the Art Market during the Dutch Golden Age." Simiolus 30, no. 3/4 (2003): 236-251.

Strasbaugh 62 Roethlisberger, Marcel G. Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons. The Netherlands: Davaco Publishers, 1993.

Schama, Simon. The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1997.

Schiller, Gertrud. Iconography of Christian Art [Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst.]. Vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1971.

Schroeder, Henry Joseph. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder Book Co., 1950.

Spicer, Joaneath Ann and Lynn Federle Orr. Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age. Baltimore, MD; San Francisco,CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco; Walters Art Gallery, 1997.

Stechow, Wolfgang. Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century. National Gallery of Art. Kress Foundation Studies in the History of European Art, no. 1. London: Phaidon, 1966.

Sullivan, Margaret A. "Aertsen's Kitchen and Market Scenes: Audience and Innovation in Northern Art." The Art Bulletin 81, no. 2 (June, 1999): 236-266.

Sutton, Peter C. The Age of Rubens. Boston, MA: Museum of Fine Arts in association with Ludion Press, Ghent, Belgium, 1993.

Tümpel, Christian. Het Oude Testament in De Schilderkunst Van De Gouden Eeuw. Zwolle, The Netherlands: Waanders, 1991.

van Deursen, Arie Theodorus. Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion, and Society in Seventeenth-Century Holland [Kopergeld van de Gouden Eeuw.]. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

van Eck, Xander. "Dreaming of an Eternally Catholic Utrecht during Protestant Rule: Jan Van Bijlert's Holy Trinity with Sts Willibrord and Boniface." Simiolus 30, no. 1/2 (2003): 19-33.

Westermann, Mariet. "After Iconography and Iconoclasm: Current Research in Netherlandish Art, 1566-1700." The Art Bulletin 84, no. 2 (June, 2002): 351-372.

Strasbaugh 63

(Fig. 1)

Abraham Bloemaert, Moses Striking the Rock, 1596,

Oil on canvas, 80 x 108 cm,

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. 1972.171.

Strasbaugh 64

(Fig. 2)

Joachim Wtewael, Moses Striking the Rock, 1624,

Oil on canvas, 44 x 66 cm,

The National Gallery, Washington, acc. 2610.

Strasbaugh 65

(Fig. 3)

Pieter Pietersz, The Three Young Men in the Blazing Furnace, 1575,

Oil on panel, 223 x 182 cm,

Frans Halsmuseum, Haarlem, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 66

(Fig. 4)

Bartholomaeus Spranger, Venus and Adonis, 1597,

Oil on canvas, 163 x 104.3 cm,

Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 67

(Fig. 5)

Cornelis van Haarlem, The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, 1593,

Oil on canvas, 246 x 419 cm,

Frans Halsmuseum, Haarlem, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 68

(Fig. 6)

Abraham Bloemaert, The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, 1590-91,

Oil on canvas, 101 x146.5 cm,

Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich acc. 6526.

Strasbaugh 69

(Fig. 7)

Jacob de Backer, The Last Judgement, 1580,

Oil on panel, 140 x 105 cm (centre panel), 140 x 52 cm (wings),

O.-L. Vrouwekathedraal, Antwerp, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 70

(Fig. 8)

Joachim Wtewael, The Deluge, 1592-95,

Oil on canvas, 148 x 183 cm,

Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, acc. 1212.

Strasbaugh 71

(Fig. 9)

Joachim Wtewael, Lot and His Daughters, 1597-1603,

Oil on canvas, 165 x 208 cm,

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, acc. M.81.53.

Strasbaugh 72

(Fig. 10)

Hendrick Goltzius, Lot and His Daughters, 1616,

Oil on canvas, 140 x 204 cm,

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 73

(Fig. 11)

Joachim Wtewael, Lot and His Daughters, 1603-1608,

Oil on copper, 15 x 20.5 cm,

State , Leningrad, acc. 1443.

Strasbaugh 74

(Fig. 12)

Gerrit van Honthorst, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1622,

Oil on canvas, 164 x 190 cm,

Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 75

(Fig. 13)

Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1612,

Oil on canvas, 287 x 229 cm,

Musée du , , acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 76

(Fig. 14)

Hugo van der Goes, Portinari Triptych, 1476-79,

Oil on wood, 253 x 586 cm,

Galleria degli , Florence, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 77

(Fig. 15)

Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1623,

Oil on canvas, 216 x 172 cm,

St. Jacobus, The Hague, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 78

(Fig. 16)

Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1620,

Oil on canvas, 172 x 217 cm,

Old Catholic Church, Utrecht, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 79

(Fig. 17)

Abraham Bloemaert, Adoration of the Shepherds, date unknown,

Oil on canvas, 95.5 x 156.5 cm,

Private Collection, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 80

(Fig. 18)

Peter Paul Rubens, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1608,

Oil on canvas, unknown dimensions,

St.-Pauluskerk, Antwerp, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 81

(Fig. 19)

Joachim Wtewael, Adoration of the Shepherds, 1601,

Oil on canvas, 15.8 x 21.1 cm,

Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, acc. 3408.

Strasbaugh 82

(Fig. 19a)

Joachim Wtewael, detail of Adoration of the Shepherds, 1601,

Oil on canvas, 15.8 x 21.1 cm,

Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart, acc. 3408.

Strasbaugh 83

(Fig. 20)

Joachim Wtewael, A Shepherd with Bagpipes and A Shepherdess with a Lamb, 1623,

Oil on panel, 50 cm diameter,

Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge on loan from Seiden & de Cuevas, Inc., New York acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 84

(Fig. 21)

Peter Wtewael, A Shepherd with Bagpipes and A Shepherdess with a Lamb, 1627-1628,

Oil on canvas, 107.5 x 142 cm and 105.5 x 134 cm,

Private Collection, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 85

(Fig. 22)

Abraham Bloemaert, Landscape with the Parables of the Wheat and Tares, 1624,

Oil on canvas, 100.3 x 137.8 cm,

The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, acc. 37.2505.

Strasbaugh 86

(Fig. 22a)

Abraham Bloemaert, detail of Landscape with the Parables of the Wheat and Tares, 1624,

Oil on canvas, 100.3 x 137.8 cm,

The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, acc. 37.2505.

Strasbaugh 87

(Fig. 23)

Joachim Wtewael, Kitchen Scene with the Parable of the Great Supper, 1605,

Oil on canvas, 65 x 98 cm,

Staatliche Museen, Berlin, acc. 2002.

Strasbaugh 88

(Fig. 24)

Pieter Aertsen, Meat Still Life of Flight to Egypt, 1551,

Oil on Panel, 122 x 199 cm,

Uppsala University Art Collections, Sweden, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 89

(Fig. 25)

Abraham Bloemaert, Landscape with the Parables of the Tares, 1604,

Oil on canvas, 47.5 x 62.5 cm,

Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia, acc. 6164.

Strasbaugh 90

(Fig. 26)

Abraham Bloemaert, Landscape with the Parables of the Tares, 1640s,

Oil on canvas, 97.7 x 122 cm,

Private Collection, England, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 91

(Fig. 27)

Abraham Bloemaert, The Four Church Fathers, 1632,

Oil on canvas, 210 x 155 cm,

Private Collection, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 92

(Fig. 28)

Peter Wtewael, A Kitchen Scene, 1625-1628,

Oil on canvas, 113.7 x160 cm,

Metropolitan Museum Art, New York, acc. 06.288.

Strasbaugh 93

(Fig. 29)

Joachim Wtewael, A Kitchen Scene with the Supper of Emmaus, 1605,

Support and measurements unknown,

Private Collection, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 94

(Fig. 30)

Joachim Wtwael, A Kitchen Scene with Christ, Martha, and Mary, 1620-1625,

Canvas mounted on panel, 102 x 72 cm,

Location unknown, acc. unknown.

Strasbaugh 95

(Fig. 31)

Gerrit van Honthorst, A Soldier and a Girl, 1622,

Oil on canvas, 82.6 x 66 cm,

Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, Germany, acc. 178.

Strasbaugh 96