Rubensbulletin 2011. On the invention and execution of the Coup de Lance by KMSKA

BULLETIN

rubensbulletin KONINKLIJK MUSEUM VOOR SCHONE KUNSTEN ANTWERPEN

Jrg. 3, 2011

BULLETIN

On the invention and execution of the Coup de Lance Nico Van Hout This study of Rubens’s Crucifixion in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp, known as the Coup de Lance, seeks to shed some new light on this celebrated altarpiece (fig. 1).1 It presents the results from a thorough technical analysis of the work, undertaken during the autumn of 2010 in the context of the Getty-funded Rubens research programme at the museum. It forms the latest contribution to a debate that started more than a century ago about who was responsible for the invention of the composition and the execution of the painting. The earliest written sources call the picture a ‘Rubens’, as did an inscription on the marble portico that framed it (see below). The Bolswert print that was made after the composition bears the formula ‘P. P. Rubens pinxit.’2 Was it the master himself or was it his most famous assistant, young Anthony van Dyck? In the course of time, that question took form as a stylistic debate between connoisseurs, which on the whole has generated more heat than light. In the first two sections, the genesis of the altarpiece is recon structed: from sources of inspiration and first rough sketches to the final picture itself. To begin with, all known preparatory material that is directly connected with the painting is listed, as in J. Richard Judson’s The Passion of Christ, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, part VI (2000). Also considered are some further studies that hitherto have not been associated with the creative process of the Coup de Lance or thought to have been preparatory. There follows a critical survey of the arguments that have been used by the scholars in the debate on both sides. Finally, the elements

I am very grateful to Elizabeth McGrath for her comments and for her help with the English. The article has also benefited from discussions with Valérie Herremans and Adri Verburg. 2 Held 1959, p. 135: ‘There are indeed sound historical reasons why at least the invention of the Coup de Lance must be credited to Rubens. Rubens was mentioned as its author in the inscription placed on the altar for which it was painted, an altar commissioned by Rubens’ friend and patron Nicolas Rockox; it was engraved in 1631 by Boetius à Bolswert as Rubens’ work (V.S. 48, 333).’ 1

Fig. 1 Rubens and/or Van Dyck?, Le Coup de Lance, KMSKA

BULLETIN

in the debate are assessed in the light of our own observations on the execution of the painting. An appendix provides and analyses a series of detailed images, the visual evidence on which we base our conclusions.

wing of Rubens’s Raising of the Cross in Antwerp Cathedral.8 The St John in tears is of a type that Rubens had worked out earlier in the design for Christ on the Cross for the Missale Romanum (1616). The same figure is also present on a sheet of Studies of monks, cardinals and a woman, made by Rubens around 1618.9 It has been suggested that the dramatic gestures of Gesmas – the impenitent thief – reflect the mannered figures of Maerten van Heemskerck in some way, but there are more floundering figures that could have inspired Rubens, such as the antique Laocoön and his sons. Rubens had made drawings of this famous statue from various angles during his stay in Rome.10

Sources of inspiration Artistic invention, however innovative, usually started from study of the solutions already arrived at by other artists, past and present. This is also the case for the Coup de Lance. The diagonal placement of the crosses and the positioning of the ladder may have been influenced by Tintoretto’s Crucifixion in Venice (Palazzo Ducale), a composition that was engraved by Agostino Carracci in 1589.3 Also relevant may have been Adriaen Collaert’s print of the same subject after Stradanus.4 A diagonal composition with three crosses was previously used in Rubens’s design of Christ between the two thieves for the Missale Romanum (1616) in the British Museum.5 It has also been noticed that the figure of Christ in the Coup de Lance found an earlier formulation in the background of Rubens’s bozzetto in the Louvre for the Antwerp Elevation of the Cross.6 Furthermore, the figure of Christ has been associated in the literature with another Rubens composition, St Francis in adoration before the crucified Christ in the Liechtenstein collection, and with Jacob Jordaens’s Crucifixion in Rennes.7 The Virgin Mary’s attitude in the Coup de Lance is derived from her pose on the left

The creative process: from preparatory studies to large-scale painting These sources of inspiration working on the artist’s imagination eventually led to the formulation of first thoughts. These earliest ideas about the composition and its components were reflected in quickly drawn rough sketches. The most telling of those related to the Coup de Lance are on the recto and verso of a sheet in the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam (figs. 2–3).11 The recto shows the general composition. From the

Judson 2000, no. 37, p. 144: ‘Her [Virgin Mary’s] position is reminiscent of the one she assumed on the left wing of the Elevation of the Cross (no. 20; fig. 61), which was also used by in Van Dyck’s (?) Crucifixion of c. 1617 in the Louvre. St. Mary Magdalen, kneeling at the foot of the Cross, follows a long-established tradition. Yet the heartfelt pity and the love for Christ in her face and gestures is thoroughly Counter-Reformation in spirit and only achieved with such a high degree of believable passion by Rubens.’ 9 On the verso of a Rubens drawing of c. 1618 in the Stedelijk Prentenkabinet in Antwerp. See Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, I, p. 195, pl. 123v; Judson 2000, p. 144. 10 Judson 2000, p. 144: ‘Above, on the right, the agitated and dramatic movement of the bad thief, with head raised and arms tied behind his back, suggests a more credible rendering of the exaggerated and mannered figures of the sort present in the work of Maerten van Heemskerck (for example his etched Crucifixion, Hollstein, VIII, no. 24). Rubens’s bad thief, as found in Van Heemskerck, has a monumental character similar to the Laocoön, which Rubens had copied and later translated into pictorial images on more than one occasion.’ 11 Pen and brown ink on paper, 206 × 164 mm; Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. Rubens 4; Held 1986, no. 140, pp. 122–123; Judson 2000, no. 37a, pp. 146–148; Meij 2001, no. 19, pp. 110–112. 8

Janson 1938, 1, p. 81, n. 7. Engraving by Agostino Carracci, 511 × 1205 mm (three plates joined together; trimmed); see M. Bury, ‘The Print in Italy 1550–1620’, London, British Museum, 2001, no. 66. 4 Engraving by Adriaen Collaert after Stradanus and edited by Philip Galle, 265 × 193 mm; New Hollstein 349.II (The Collaert Dynasty); New Hollstein 79.II (Johannes Stradanus). 5 Judson 2000, p. 144. 6 Müller Hofstede 1966, p. 451, no. 118. 7 Judson 2000, p. 144: ‘In this way he [Christ] is similar to Rubens’s representation of Christ in St. Francis of Assisi in Adoration Before the Crucified Christ of c. 1618, preserved in a copy in Vaduz, Collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein (Vlieghe 1972, I, under no. 101 copy 1, pp. 155–156.) One might also add that Jordaens used the figure of Christ for his Crucifixion in Rennes, Musée des Beaux-Arts’ (d’Hulst 1982, p. 92). 3

BULLETIN

A third study in black chalk, pen and brown wash of Christ on the cross in profile, formerly in the Amsterdam art trade, has been connected with the conception of the altarpiece.14 It has been noted that the position of Christ on this drawing is similar to that on the recto of the Boijmans sheet and in the oil sketch. The only deviation involves Christ’s knee, which initially was drawn as bent. This led Judson (2000) to suggest the possibility that this sketch is the earliest known study for the painting, a hypothesis difficult to refute or agree with. Nevertheless, some remarks should be added. Unlike the Boijmans sketches, this drawing is in black chalk. At some point, parts of the body were defined in ink and hatched shadows were painted over in brown ink. Altogether, the quality of the

Figs. 2–3 Rubens?, Studies for the Coup de Lance (recto/verso), Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen

start, the three crosses seem to have been planned on the diagonal. Mary Magdalene is kneeling to the left of the foot of Christ’s cross. The soldier breaking the legs of the bad thief is also present at this stage, but strikes a different pose. From the right Longinus thrusts his lance into Christ’s chest. The reverse of the sheet shows a frontal view of the crucified Christ. In the older literature the sketches were attributed to Van Dyck, until Burchard (in 1931) expressed the opinion that they were rather the work of Rubens himself.12 Secondly, as was observed later by Burchard and d’Hulst, a small figure drying his tears with his coat on the verso of the study for the Last Communion of St Francis in the Stedelijk Prentenkabinet in Antwerp (figs. 4–5) is very similar to the figure of St John in the Coup de Lance.13

Regarding the pen scribbles in Rotterdam, Burchard wrote in 1931 to J.G. van Gelder, curator of the Printroom at Boijmans: ‘Jetzt bin ich so gut wie sicher, dass Rubens der Zeichner des Blattes ist, welches als ein erster Entwurf für den Coup de Lance anzusprechen ist’ (see Meij 2001, no. 19, p. 110). He published the sheet as such the following year (Burchard 1932, p. 10). 13 Pen and brown ink on paper, 222 × 310 mm; Antwerp, Stedelijk Prentenkabinet, inv. 108 v. See Burchard and d’Hulst 1956, no. 72, pp. 70–71, plate XXIX; Baudouin and d’Hulst 1971, no. 61, pp. 80–81, fig. 5a and 5b; Held 1986, no. 135, fig. 128. Payment to Rubens for the Last Communion was effectuated 12

Figs. 4–5 Rubens, Study for the Last Communion of St Francis (recto/verso), Antwerp, Stedelijk Prentenkabinet

on 17 May 1619, a year earlier than the Coup the Lance. Both altarpieces were made for the Antwerp Church of the Friars Minor or Recollects. 14 Pen, brown ink, black chalk and brown wash on paper, 335 × 150 mm; whereabouts unknown, formerly with E. Proehl and Lemberger in Amsterdam; Judson 2000, no. 37d, fig. 122, p. 151: ‘[Christ’s] position is similar to Christ’s on the recto of the Boijmans sheet and in the oil sketch. However, the Crown of Thorns is omitted in the grisaille but returned in the altarpiece. The drapery in the Lemberger sheet uncovers Christ’s hip unlike that in the painted version. There is a resemblance between the Lemberger drawing and the figure of Christ on the recto of the Boijmans sheet. This is evident in the relatively thin torso, in the placement of the legs and in the more vertical position of the arms. Pentimenti are visible on Christ’s right leg in the Lemberger drawing, which suggests that originally the artist conceived the leg as bending at the knee and projecting out, which later became straight in the Boijmans sketch, the London modello and the Antwerp altarpiece. This suggests the possibility that the Lemberger drawing may be the earliest known design for Christ in the surviving series of studies for the Coup de Lance.’

BULLETIN

sketch is underwhelming, as Held remarked,15 and perhaps its place in the genesis of the Coup de Lance is less obvious than has been assumed. The study may well have been made for some other Crucifixion by Rubens – or by an artist in his orbit. A fourth pen sketch deserves to be discussed in the Coup de Lance context: it is a rough sketch on the reverse of a squared Van Dyck drawing of a Crucifixion in the British Museum (figs. 6–7). It is usually dated to Van Dyck’s second Antwerp period.16 Examination of the reverse of the sheet makes clear that it was cut down on the right, as a horseman with a lance and a crucified thief in agony are cut in half. That this pen sketch is related to the Coup de Lance is suggested by a process of elimination. All known Crucifixions by Rubens show Christ alone17 or between the two thieves, without the centurion Longinus.18 The known Crucifixions by Van Dyck from his second Antwerp period show Christ between the thieves, without Longinus (Mechelen) or, by contrast, a ‘coup de lance’ without thieves (Ghent). Roughly drawn on the same verso of the British Museum sheet, but in another direction, some pen sketches develop alternative positions for a group of the Virgin Mary and St John. The sketch of the horseman with spear (his grabbing it with two hands suggests stabbing rather than carrying) and the thief is not simply a reproduction of the composition of the Coup de Lance, as is usually claimed. The sketch has more the appearance of an exploratory attempt than of a record.19

See Held 1980, under no. 352, p. 485: ‘I am dubious about another drawing connected by Burchard and d’Hulst with this composition, a sketch of the Crucified Christ in the collection of E. Proehl, Amsterdam, a drawing known to me, however, only from a reproduction.’ 16 Pen and brown ink, over some black chalk, on blue paper, 271 × 195 mm; London, British Museum, inv. 1910,0212.207. See Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, p. 262, under no. III.22; Martin and Faigenbaum 1979, pp. 152–153, no. 41. 17 Antwerp, KMSKA, no. 313; Antwerp, Rockoxhuis; and Munich, Alte Pinakothek. 18 Toulouse, Musée des Augustins; Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen. 19 According to Vey 1962 (under no. 124, pp. 192–193), the squared design on the recto of that same sheet in the British Museum shows affinity with the Crucifixion Van Dyck painted for the Church of the Friars Minor in Lille, after his return from Italy, ‘doch ihre Komposition ist andersartig’. For the Lille Crucifixion see Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, III.25. Martin and Faigenbaum 1979 (p. 152) state that ‘the many correspondences in detail between the drawing and the [Lille] altarpiece point unmistakably to a direct relationship; the pose and dress of the Magdalene, the actions of Mary 15

Figs. 6–7 Van Dyck, Study for the Coup de Lance ? (recto/verso), London, British Museum

Figs. 8–9 Van Dyck, Study of trees (recto) and Study for a Crucifixion (verso), London, Courtauld Institute

A fifth pen study has escaped attention in the Coup de Lance lit erature until now and to my mind should definitely enter the debate.

and John, the departing soldiers with the ladder (including the horseman and the man with upraised arm who looks back over his shoulder) all make their appearance in this study’.

BULLETIN

The reverse of another Van Dyck sheet with a study of trees (figs. 8–9) in the Courtauld Institute shows a suggestive draft of a diagonally rendered crucified Christ.20 To the left of his feet, Mary Magdalene is stretching out her arms. As in the Rotterdam pen sketch, Christ’s loincloth is Fig. 10 Van Dyck, The Holy Women at the foot of the Cross, Paris, École Nationale Supérieure tied up high at the back, around des Beaux-Arts the wooden cross. On the left, it is flamboyantly floating in the air. The attribution of the trees to Van Dyck seems pretty secure, and one may assume that the drawing on the verso was made by the same artist, if almost certainly not at the same time.21 The Boijmans and Courtauld sketches are very similar in handling and should discourage all those who claim that they can easily distinguish Rubens from Van Dyck in such cases. Comparison with an undoubted Van Dyck drawing of a similar subject, The Holy Women at the foot of the Cross (fig. 10) only underlines the point.22 After the main forms of the composition had been outlined in pen on paper, the next step in the creative process involved oils on panel. A monochrome oil sketch for the Coup de Lance is preserved in the

Pen and brown ink on paper, 272 × 189 mm; London, Courtauld Institute, inv. D.1978.PG.329. I thank Stijn Alsteens for sharing his opinion on the attribution of the sheet. 21 In the literature, this scribble is linked with a painting of the Crucified Christ with St Francis in Liechtenstein, dating from around the mid-1620s and attributed to Rubens’s studio (panel, 78 × 47 cm; Vienna, Liechtenstein Museum, inv. GE 60; Glück 1931, p. 27; Vlieghe 1972, no. 101; Judson 2000, under no. 37 copy 31; Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, III.A6; Kräftner et al. 2004, no. 69, pp. 270–271). However, this connection seems not very plausible, as the kneeling saint below the cross in the drawing is clearly a female figure and the kneeling saint on the Liechtenstein painting is male. The saint’s outstretched arm can also be found on the Rotterdam sheet, in the figure of Mary. Equally important is the fact that the flamboyant, floating loin cloth is absent in the Liechtenstein painting. 22 Paris, École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, inv. 1710; Vey 1962, no. 123 recto and verso, figs. 159–160. This drawing is believed to relate with Van Dyck’s Crucifixion in the Palais des BeauxArts in Lille (inv. P89) from c. 1630 (Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, no. III.25). 20

Fig. 11 Oil sketch for the Coup de Lance, London, National Gallery

Fig. 12 Rubens, A young man carrying a ladder, Vienna, Grafische Sammlung Albertina

National Gallery in London (fig. 11).23 The composition in this oil sketch is more spacious and at the same time more populated than the altarpiece in Antwerp.24 Given the need to render the features in a painting of such a vast scale more precisely, model studies were made in detail. For the Coup de Lance, few such detailed studies have come down to us, but more must have existed. A chalk drawing of A young man carrying a ladder, done from life, is Panel, 64.8 × 49.9 cm; London, National Gallery, inv. NG 1865; Martin 1970, pp. 193–197, no. 1865; Judson 2000, no. 37c, pp. 149–151. 24 Martin 1970, p. 194: ‘No. 1865 is more complex than the altarpiece as a composition, and differs from it in several respects: it lacks the two spears to the left; the head of the horse on the left is higher; S. Longinus’ horse is farther from the Cross and is placed in deeper foreshortening; a soldier stands between the two horses, with a shield at his feet; the cross on the left is not so high; Christ does not wear the crown of thorns and a piece of his loin cloth falls free; a man carries a ladder in front of a soldier behind Our Lord’s Cross . . . ; the Magdalen is further from the Cross and her left arm is raised upright; a woman stands behind her; there is a soldier on horseback behind the ladder against the right-hand cross, which is placed at a more acute angle, so that the soldier (who does not wear a helmet) breaking the robber’s legs, is farther from Christ; S. John lifts his cloak to his face with both hands; there is a tree on high ground in the right background; S. Mary of Cleophas (?) is seen in profile and does not wring her hands. In the altarpiece, the crosses are placed on high ground, and the heads of two spectators are depicted immediately behind and to the left of the Cross.’ 23

BULLETIN

preserved in the Albertina (fig. 12).25 This figure appears in the background of the oil sketch, but was omitted in the altarpiece. A painted head study in the Kunsthistorisches Museum (fig. 13) relates to the face of Dismas – the penitent thief.26 This head study and two other versions of it in Pittsburgh and Prague have been downgraded to the status of copies in recent times.27 This judgement is, I believe, mistaken, for the head study shows more expression as well as more specific facial features than the corresponding face on the altarpiece. It seems more likely that the head study was copied naer het leven than from the altarpiece. For the physiognomy of Mary Cleophas, a painted head study, now in the Schickman collection, may have Fig. 13 Van Dyck, Study head of a penitent thief, Vienna, been used.28

the Latin inscription on the pediment below the left column of the portico that originally framed the Coup de Lance. This inscription was evidently very explicit not only about the patron but in attributing the work to Rubens. Sanderus wrote: ‘In the year 1620 after the Nativity, Nicolaas Rockox . . . arranged for a high altar to be set up, a magnificent work in variegated marble [or different kinds of marble], the picture within which shows, with great artistry, Christ crucified between the two thieves. Rubens painted it in such a way that he would surpass himself: for he is thought to have produced scarcely anything to match it. Justly is the altar inscribed: “Burgomaster Rockox put up this altar to Christ./ Its picture was made by the hand of Rubens./ Whether you look to the handiwork of the artist or the heart of the donor,/ nothing could have been given in a nobler spirit.”’29 An archival document records that the cost of making the portico around the work amounted to 1,300 guilders.30 The painting is also mentioned in Bellori’s biography of Rubens (1672).31 It is worth mentioning

Kunsthistorisches Museum

Critical reception The earliest description of the painting is given in a text on the monastery of the Friars Minor in Antwerp by Antoon Sanders or Sanderus (Antwerp 1586–Affligem 1664), published only in 1727. In this text, the author noted

Black chalk, heightened with white bodycolour, 346 × 272 mm, Vienna, Albertina, inv. 8298; Held 1959, no. 99, pl. 102, p. 73; Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, no. 120, pl. 120, p. 188 under no. 118; Kuznetsov 1974, pl. 84; Held 1986, no. 141, pl. 141, p. 235; Judson 2000, no. 37b, fig. 114; Logan and Plomp 2005, no. 66, pp. 205–208. The man with the ladder is more clearly legible in a seventeenth-century copy of the London oil sketch, which belongs to the Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum in Aachen (Panel, 65 × 50 cm; Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, catalogue 1932, no. 442). 26 Panel, 56.3 × 46.5 cm; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 533; Judson 2000, p. 140, under no. 37 copy 19. Inferior copies of this head study are found in Prague (Panel, 28.5 × 23.5 cm; Prague, Národní galerie, inv. O 2874; Judson 2000, p. 141, under no. 37 copy 20) and Pittsburgh (Panel, 37.75 × 36.2 cm; Pittsburgh, Carnegie Institute, Museum of Art [as P.P. Rubens]; Jaffé 1989, no. 544 (as P.P. Rubens); Judson 2000, p. 141, under no. 37 copy 21.) 27 Judson 2000, p. 141, under no. 37 copy 21. 28 Panel, 46.3 × 63.5 cm, New York, Shickman collection; Held 1980, no. 446; Jaffé 1989, no. 405. At present stored at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, this head study is usually considered as being by Rubens, but a reattribution to Jordaens should be seriously considered. 25

See A. Sanderus, Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae, sive celebrium aliquot in ea Provincia Abbatiarum, coenobiorum . . . descriptio . . . The Hague 1727, III, p. 200: ‘Anno post Virginis partum 1620. Nicolaus Rockox, vir ingenti prudentia, & moderatione, vetustoque Belgarum more atrium, & communis boni amans, atque hinc meritò septimum Antverpiensium Consul, uti erat egregia in divini cultus amplificationem, & Ordinem Seraphicum pietate, Altare summum è vario marmore magnificum opus poni curavit, cui pictura imposita Crucifixum medium inter latrones exhibit, rara arte. Rubenus hanc ita pinxit, ut seipsum superaverit: putatur enim vix huic secundum elaborasse. Meritò hinc altari inscriptum: Hanc Christo posuit Consul Roccoxius aram,/ Expressit tabulam Rubeniana manus./ Seu dextram artificis, dantis seu pectora cernas,/ Nil genio potuit nobiliore dari.’ At the time of the painting of the Coup de Lance, Sanderus was a priest in Sleidinge and Oosteeklo and may have had direct contact with the Friars Minor in Antwerp. 30 Rooses 1888, p. 97: ‘Le 14 septembre 1619, Melchior van Boven, sculpteur anversois, fit un accord avec Jean Brigaude, maître-tailleur de pierre à Namur, par lequel ce dernier s’engagea à livrer les pierres nécessaires au grand autel des Récollets, à Anvers, au prix de treize cents florins (Bulletin de l’Académie d’Archéologie, Anvers, 1885, IV, 86).’ 31 Bellori 1672, p. 224: ‘Seguito à fare per la Chiesa de’ Francescani la tavola del Crocefisso in mezzo alli due ladroni, e Longino à Cavallo, che con la lancia lo trafigge; dove apparisce l’affetto di Maddalena, che apre le braccia, e pare voglia ritenere il colpo, mentre la Vergine à piedi la croce vien meno fra le Marie, e San Giovanni.’ [Translation Wohl, Wohl and Montanari 2005, p. 195:] ‘He went on to paint for the Church of the Franciscans the altarpiece of Christ on the cross between the two thieves, with Longinus on horseback, piercing Christ with his lance; here the emotion of the

BULLETIN

Joshua Reynolds’s long and appreciative comments on the altarpiece (1781).32 He thought the Coup de Lance to be ‘one of the first pictures in the world, for composition, colouring, and, what was not to be expected from Rubens, correctness of drawing’. In his Voyage pittoresque (1792) Descamps lauded the altarpiece as a most beautiful model for contemporary artists.33 The work was also thoroughly analysed by Eugène Fromentin (1820–1876), the author who probably gave the picture its nickname, in Les

Maîtres d’autrefois (1876).34 The French painter was more critical about the painting than Descamps, though. He called it ‘incoherent with large empty spaces, large areas of paint put in arbitrarily, beautiful as such, but with a questionable correlation. Two large and red areas without nuance, badly applied, surprise us by being so out of place.’ According to Fromentin, the Coup de Lance is ‘somehow conceived from fragments, which, isolated, give an idea of Rubens’s best pages.’35

Magdalen is apparent as she spreads her arms and seems to want to restrain the blow, while the Virgin is at the foot of the cross swooning between the Marys and Saint John.’ 32 Mount 1996, pp. 63–67: ‘The altar of the choir is the famous crucifixion of Christ between the two thieves, by Rubens. To give animation to this subject, he has chosen the point of time when an executioner is piercing the side of Christ, whilst another with a bar of iron is breaking the limbs of one of the malefactors, who in his convulsive agony, which his body admirably expresses, has torn one of his feet from the tree to which it was nailed. The expression in the action of this figure is wonderful: the attitude of the other is more composed; and he looks at the dying Christ with a countenance perfectly expressive of his penitence. This figure is likewise admirable. The Virgin, St. John, and Mary the wife of Cleophas are standing by with great expression of grief and resignation, whilst the Magdalen, who is at the feet of Christ, and may be supposed to have been kissing his feet, looks at the horseman with the spear, with a countenance of great horror: as the expression carries with it no grimace or contortion of the features, the beauty is not destroyed. This is by far the most beautiful profile I ever saw of Rubens, or, I think, of any other painter; the excellence of its colouring is beyond expression. . . . The genius of Rubens nowhere appears to more advantage than here: it is the most carefully finished picture of all his works. The whole is conducted with the most consummate art; the composition is bold and uncommon, with circumstances which no other painter had ever before thought of; such as the breaking of the limbs, and the expression of the Magdalen, to which we may add the disposition of the three crosses, which are placed prospectively in an uncommon picturesque manner: the nearest bears the thief whose limbs are breaking; the next the Christ, whose figure is straighter than ordinary, as contrast to the others: and the furthermost, the penitent thief: this produces a most picturesque effect, but it is what few such a daring genius as Rubens would have attempted. . . . I have dwelt longer on this picture than any other, as it appears to me to deserve extraordinary attention: it is certainly one of the first pictures in the world, for composition, colouring, and, what was not to be expected from Rubens, correctness of drawing.’ 33 Descamps 1792, p. 175: ‘Le Maître-Autel, dans le Choeur, est de beau marbre & d’une belle architecture; le Tableau, peint par Rubens, représente notre Seigneur crucifié entre les larrons; un bourreau perce le côté de Jesus-Christ; un autre bourreau rompt les jambs d’un des larrons: la Vierge, S. Jean & la Magdeleine sont au bas du Tableau ; plusieurs soldats à pied & à cheval terminent cette composition : c’est l’ouvrage de ce maître qui m’a le plus frappé, l’effet en est prodigieux, tout y est correct, sur-tout le nud ; le Christ est peint avec finesse & force; les figures das larrons sont dessinées d’une nature chargée, mais avec des mouvemens exacts & corrects; tout y est savamment prononcé d’une fierté de pinceau qui étonne; j’ose proposer ce tableau comme le plus beau modèle aux artistes: il est gravé par B. A. Bolswert. L’esquisse de cet excellent Tableau se trouve dans une des chambres de ces Pères, elle est aussi de toute beauté.’

Rubens or Van Dyck? A debate on the functioning of the Rubens studio Van Dyck According to Max Rooses (1888) the inferior quality of the Coup de Lance was likely to have been the result of it having been executed by a studio assistant (probably Van Dyck) and only partly retouched by Rubens himself. Among the less impressive features he named the figures of Mary Cleophas, St John and the two spectators in the background.36 This view

Fromentin 1877, p. 93: ‘Le Coup de lance est un tableau décousu avec de grands vides, des aigreurs, de vastes taches un peu arbitraires, belles en soi, mais de rapports douteux. Deux grands rouges trop entiers, mal appuyés, y étonnent parce qu’ils y détonnent. La Vierge est très belle, quoique son geste soit connu, le Christ insignificant, le saint Jean bien laid, ou bien altéré, ou bien repeint. Comme il arrive souvent chez Rubens et chez les peintres de pittoresque et d’ardeur, les meilleurs morceaux sont ceux dont l’imagination de l’artiste s’est accidentellement éprisé, tels que la tête expressive de la Vierge, les deux larrons tordus sur leur gibet, et, peut-être avant tout, le soldat casqué, en armure noire, qui descend l’échelle appuyée au gibet du mauvais larron, et se retourne en levant la tête. L’harmonie des chevaux, gris et bais, découpés sur le ciel, est magnifique. Somme toute, quoiqu’on y trouve des parties de haute qualité, un temperament de premier ordre, à chaque instant la marque d’un maître, le Coup de lance me paraît être une oeuvre incohérente, en quelque sorte conçue par fragments, dont les morceaux, pris isolément, donneraient l’idée d’une de ses plus belles pages.’ 35 See note 34. 36 Rooses 1888, p. 97: ‘Nous n’admettons pas que les parties moins réussies doivent leur inferiorité à un nettoiement inhabile, comme Michel le prétend; les parties claires et les figures principales que Rubens avait l’habitude de repeindre, ont gardé tout leur éclat et leurs empâtements. . . . L’œuvre n’a pas été peinte sans le secours d’un élève. Rubens l’a presqu’entièrement achevée de sa main; mais il y a des parties moins réussies comme forme et couleur qu’on ne saurait lui attributer. Telles sont la tête de Marie Cléophas et celle de St. Jean, celles des deux spectateurs dans le fond et celles des deux soldats casqués. Le travail de l’élève, imparfaitement couvert par les retouches du maître, est 34

BULLETIN

was reiterated by Oldenbourg (1922), who placed the Coup de Lance in the category of works that were largely executed by Van Dyck but famous as works ‘by’ Rubens, such as the Michielsen Triptych (‘Christ à la Paille’) in Antwerp, the Lion Hunt in Munich and the Madonna with Saints in Kassel.37 Burchard (1931) maintained that Van Dyck was responsible for the figures of Mary, John, Mary Magdalene and the figures in the background. He compared them with Van Dyck’s Crucifixion in the Louvre.38 The opinions of Rooses and Burchard were repeated by Judson (2000).39 Müller Hofstede for his part (1966) thought not only that parts of the altarpiece were painted by Rubens’s most famous assistant, but that the young artist had executed the whole altarpiece after the master’s design.40 The question of the authorship of the London oil sketch plays a central role in the Van Dyck/Rubens controversy: an attribution to Van Dyck would imply that the altarpiece was entirely invented by that artist.41 Rubens’s authorship of the London sketch was doubted for the first time by Glück (1931).42 He thought that it was painted by Van Dyck, and this view

gained some approval with other scholars. Burchard and d’Hulst (1963) considered the sketch to be a modello for the print that Bolswert had made after the painting.43 The two authors believed that they had found an extra argument in a passage in which Bellori writes about Van Dyck as a draughtsman of modelli for Rubens engravings. This argument proved wrong, as another drawn modello for this print (and of the same size as the print) happened to exist at the British Museum.44 Soon, scholars lined up to wipe the floor with the ‘extra’ argument and it seemed that discussion was closed.45 Quod non, for meanwhile the debate has been reopened by Arnout Balis (1994), who explores alternative explanations with respect to invention and execution, while firmly defending the attribution of the London sketch to Van Dyck. He does so on stylistic grounds and points to the calligraphic character of the brushwork, atypical of Rubens.46

d’ailleurs fort habile et cette circonstance, jointe à la date de l’exécution du tableau, nous fait croire que c’est Van Dyck qui, dans l’occurrence, a assisté son maître.’ 37 Oldenbourg 1922, pp. 11–12: ‘Eine vorzügliche Probe dieser Zusammenarbeit besitzt das Berliner Museum in der Auferweckung des Lazarus, die im wesentlichen von des Schülers Hand [Van Dyck] gemalt und vom Meister vielleicht nur in ein paar Stunden retuschiert, doch als unzweifelhaft Besitz des letzteren zu gelten hat. Ebenso verhält es sich mit der Löwenjagd in München, dem Coup de Lance und dem ‘Christ à la Paille’ des Antwerper Museums, der Madonna mit Heiligen in Kassel und einer Reihe ähnlicher Bilder, die als Werke von Rubens berühmt sind.’ 38 Burchard 1931, pp. 19, 519. 39 Judson 2000, p. 145: ‘Rubens must have had some help from his atelier in the completion of this altarpiece. The uneven quality in the rendering of some of the figures seems to show at least one other hand at work. This can be seen in the figures of St. Mary Cleophas and the two spectators at the foot of the Cross. It is also possible that St. John the Evangelist, the Virgin and the soldier were not painted by Rubens, but touched up by him, especially the faces. Longinus’s head was probably painted by Rubens, while his horse and his mounted colleague in front of him were by Van Dyck.’ 40 Müller Hofstede 1966, p. 139. 41 Held 1959, p. 135. 42 Glück 1931, p. 519, under no. 19: ‘[on the Crucifixion for St Winoksbergen (Bergues) in the Louvre] Die ausführung ist aber ohne Zweifel von Van Dyck, dem wohl auch die Komposition gehört, die einen unverkennbaren Zusammenhang mit Rubens’ “Coup de Lance” im Antwerpener Museum zeigt, dessen Exekutant ebenfalls Van Dyck gewesen zu scheint, wofür auch eine von seiner Hand herrührende Grisailleskizze in der National Gallery zu London (Nr. 1865) spricht. Die Haltung Mariens auf dem hier vorliegenden Gemälde ist fast identisch mit der rechts stehenden Mutter

Gottes auf dem “Coup de Lance”. Die heilige Magdalena kehrt fast genau gleich auf Van Dycks Kreuzigung in St. Rombouts zu Mecheln (s. 240) wieder, wo auch ähnliche Hintergrundfiguren vorkommen.’ 43 Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, p. 190, under no. 120: ‘This sketch belongs to the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (no 1865) but is now exhibited in the National Gallery, where it is erroneously attributed to Rubens. It is, in fact, by Van Dyck. It should be remembered that Gio: Pietro Bellori in Le Vite de’ Pittori . . . , Rome, 1672, p. 254, writes that Van Dyck made sketches for Rubens after works by Rubens in preparation for engravings. The sketch exhibited in the National Gallery is the only known example of this procedure.’ 44 British Museum, inv. 1994,0514.39, on permanent loan from the National Gallery. See Müller Hofstede 1966; Rowlands 1977, no. 160, p. 119: ‘Burchard–d’Hulst has surprisingly seen it as the only known example by Van Dyck of a practice recorded by Bellori of a sketch being done for an engraver. But there is no corroborative evidence, such as a contemporary engraving, to support this. . . . ’ 45 Müller Hofstede 1966: ‘The oil sketch for the Crucifixion in the National Gallery in London (no. 1865) is not by Van Dyck, but by Rubens. The designs made by Van Dyck after works of Rubens as models for the printmakers, which were mentioned by Bellori, are probably the drawings in the Louvre mentioned by Burchard–d’Hulst under no. 75.’ 46 Balis 1994, p. 111: ‘I see no way to accommodate the rather calligraphic character of the brushstrokes in Rubens’s oeuvre and it [the London oil sketch] reminds me very strongly of Van Dyck. This attribution to Van Dyck has been vigorously attacked, but I think on faulty grounds. Here we may have a case of stylistic judgement being overly influenced by one’s conception about how art is made. . . . Held thought that “to attribute the London oil sketch to Van Dyck is tantamount to attributing the invention of the Coup de Lance to Van Dyck, too.” . . . This need not be the case. It is conceivable that the young assistant was only asked to contribute to further elaboration of the composition which had been previously formulated more succinctly by Rubens himself (one such composition drawing for the Coup de Lance drawing has come to light, but there may have been others, drawings as well as oil sketches).’

BULLETIN

Rubens The altarpiece was surely delivered to Rockox as a ‘Rubens’, proof of which is the inscription on the pedestal of the altarpiece, mentioned before, even if Rooses wrote that ‘il est evident que cette inscription fut posée après la mort de Rockox’.47 That seems likely, as it would have been far from modest for Rockox to have himself described in such favourable words during his lifetime. The Bolswert print that was made after the Coup de Lance bears the formula ‘P.P. Rubens pinxit.’48 One might think this is evidence that supports Rubens’s authorship, but on closer look, this seems not so selfevident. Perhaps surprisingly, some prints after non-autograph works, made in the Rubens studio, mention the ‘Rubens pinxit’ formula as well. This is the case with the Panneels and Natalis prints after Christ in the House of Simon in the Hermitage, a painting that according to most scholars resulted from the collaboration between Anthony van Dyck and Jacob Jordaens.49 The same is true for the Schelte Bolswert prints after a rather dull Nativity attributed to Jan van den Hoecke that was on loan to the National Gallery in London for a while and for a Return of the Holy Family from Egypt, de-accessioned by the Metropolitan Museum. This picture is now on the art market.50 For the time being, the view that the Coup de Lance was invented and/or painted by Van Dyck is not supported by a majority of scholars.

Rooses 1888, p. 97. Engraving, 602 × 431 mm; Voorhelm Schneevoogt, p. 49, no. 333; Dutuit, VI (3), pp. 68–69, no. 87; Rooses, no. 296; Van den Wijngaert, no. 31; Hollstein, III, p. 62, no. 9; Bodart 1977, pp. 25–26, no. 21. 49 Canvas, 189 × 254 cm; Rooses 1888, pp. 30–32, no. 254; Jaffé 1989, no. 508: see M. Varshavskaya and X. Yegorova, Peter Paul Rubens. Paintings from Soviet Museums, Leningrad 1989, pp. 88–91. For the Panneels and Natalis prints, see Hollstein XV, p. 113, no. 8, and Bodart 1977, p. 93, no. 188, and p. 129, no. 272. 50 The Nativity in the collection of the Marquess of Normanby (Rooses 1888, p. 190, no. 148; Jaffé 1989, no. 660) is attributed to Van den Hoecke by Balis 1994 (p. 116 and n. 197) and by McGrath. For the Bolswert print, see Holstein, III, p. 72, no. 7, and Bodart 1977, p. 37, no. 49. With good reason, the Return from Egypt, commissioned by Nicolaas Rockox for the chapel of St Joseph in the Antwerp Jesuit Church (canvas, 262 × 178 cm; Rooses 1888, p. 246, no. 183; Jaffé 1989, no. 661), and formerly in the Metropolitan Museum, was not considered to be an autograph Rubens picture by Goris and Held 1947 (p. 51). For the Bolswert print after this picture, see Holstein III, p. 78, no. 183 and Bodart 1977, p. 37, no. 43. 47

Reference is usually made to arguments put forward by Held, who took the view that the London oil sketch was by Rubens’s hand.51 It was pointed out that it was typical for Rubens around 1620 to paint grisaille sketches, before making more formal and coloured modelli. Comparison was made with the sketches for the ceiling paintings for the Antwerp Jesuit Church.52 And it was assumed that a comparison with oil sketches by Van Dyck would demonstrate obvious differences.53 However, Rubens’s use of grisaille (or rather brunaille) sketches does not exclude the possibility that Van Dyck followed Rubens’s working procedures. The sharply and nervously rendered brushstrokes in the London bozzetto are very similar in handling to those in oil sketches by Van Dyck, such as the Raising of the Cross in Bayonne, the Crucifixion in Brussels or the Ecstacy of St Augustine in Antwerp, even if these works were painted at a later date.54 The sinuous highlights in the London sketch clearly differ from Rubens’s boldly executed bozzetti for the Jesuit ceiling. It has been more assumed than argued that Rubens would not have left the invention of such a prestigious commission to an anonymous studio

Held’s opinion was followed by scholars such as Vey 1956, p. 174: ‘Zum Anschluss der frühen Zeit ist ein Problem anzudeuten, mit dem sich eine eingehendere Behandlung der Ölskizzen entschiedener Auseinandersetzungen hätte: Skizzenartige Kopien mit Abweichungen nach Rubens, die Van Dyck zugeschrieben werden, wie: Der Wunderbare Fischzug in London nach dem Mechelner Triptychon; Der Lanzenstoss daselbst nach dem Antwerper Bild; Die Anbetung der Könige nach dem Brüsseler Bild. Jedes der kopierten Werke stammt aus den Jahren der Werkstattgenossenschaft beider Meister; bei der Ausführung der ersten beiden Gemälde wird Van Dyck beteiligt gewesen sein; endlich bestehen die Stecherzeichnungen Van Dycks nach Rubenskompositionen. Dennoch fällt die Stellungsnahme schwer; die Lanzenstoss-Skizze wird jedenfalls schwerlich von Van Dyck herrühren.’ 52 Martin 1970, p. 195: ‘ . . . the use of brown and black oil washes, combined with white oil paint with touches of red and grey, is typical of Rubens, while the handling compares with that in his grisaille sketches for the ceiling paintings for the Jesuit Church, Antwerp, of 1620’. 53 Held 1980, under no. 352, p. 484: ‘While less common with Rubens than sketches done in color, grisaille sketches are extant in his work as well as in Van Dyck’s. It was precisely around 1620 – the period from which this sketch dates – that Rubens painted grisailles before making more formal modelli. Indeed I consider it most likely that Van Dyck’s interest in this technical procedure was stimulated by Rubens’ experimentation with it, at a time when Van Dyck was in closest personal contact with the master. Yet any comparison of Van Dyck’s grisailles with those of Rubens – the London sketch included – will show far-reaching differences.’ These differences Held failed to explain, though. 54 Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, nos. III.20, III.23 and III.40. 51

BULLETIN

assistant.55 This seems a rather bold statement, for it denies any creative talent to collaborators and overlooks the fact that assistants must have been less anonymous to Rubens than they are to us. Maybe Rockox knew perfectly well about Van Dyck’s role in the execution. After all, didn’t a contract inform the Antwerp Jesuits about Van Dyck’s participation in the execution of the ceiling paintings in their new church? Again, it is stated that it is only common sense to believe in Rubens’s authorship, considering the importance of the work.56 But is the Coup de Lance really that more prestigious a commission than all the other imposing pictures for churches in Flanders, (present-day) Northern France and Bavaria that were leaving the workshop around this period? Between 1609 and 1620 the Rubens studio alone produced more than fifty large-scale altarpieces with a total surface of around 570 m2 (see Appendix II)! The Capuchins commissioned from Rubens altarpieces for churches in Antwerp, Brussels, Lille, Cambrai, Tournai, Lier and Aachen, a costly business that caused much irritation to the head of that order, Paolo da Cesena.57 The Friars Minor, as Franciscans, saw poverty as a virtue, and it can be doubted whether the community was rich enough to commission a Rubens altarpiece without sponsorship. To be sure, the altarpiece was made for Nicolaas Rockox, who had been in

strumental in several important commissions for Rubens in his hometown. But let us not forget that Rockox had a budget too. Besides, he was pro moting Van Dyck as well, a young painter who from 1618 onwards lived in a house in his immediate neighbourhood – ‘Den Dom van Ceulen’ in the Minderbroedersstraat . . . opposite the Friars Minor! The unquestioned attribution of the Vienna drawing of A young man carrying a ladder (fig. 12) to Rubens was used by Held as an argument in favour of assigning the invention of the Coup de Lance to Rubens.58 The case can be resumed as follows. (1) The London sketch is preparatory to the Coup de Lance and not a copy of the finished work. This is attested by the drawing of A young man carrying a ladder in Vienna, depicting a figure omitted in the altarpiece. (2) The Vienna drawing is by Rubens. It elaborates on the London sketch and therefore the conception of that sketch must be by Rubens. (3) If not, one would have to assume a very complex mode of collaboration (such as Rubens making studies from nature for a composition invented by Van Dyck). The second step in this reasoning may be less watertight than it might at first seem, for it is based on the conviction that Rubens was the only creative and authoritative mind in the workshop and personally involved in the conception of every work that left the studio. But authorship and use of studies may have been less obviously connected than it is customary to believe: the author of a study of a model was not necessarily the one to employ it, and vice versa. The third statement is indeed a logical deduction, though the idea of contemplating such complex patterns of collaboration

Martin 1970, p. 195: ‘Held has argued that the basis of both the attribution to the School of Rubens and to van Dyck assumes the absurd – that Rubens was prepared to entrust to an anonymous studio assistant or to van Dyck the task of a share in both evolving and executing an important commission.’ 56 Rowlands 1977, no. 160, p. 119: ‘As there are differences between the design of this sketch of about 1619 and the final work, the high altar of the Church of the Recollects, Antwerp, installed in 1620, it is unlikely this was the final modello from which Rubens’s assistants would have worked. Despite the obvious connection between this sketch and the altarpiece, common sense has not always prevailed about its authorship, as a number of leading authorities have supported the idea that it was executed by Van Dyck. Burchard-d’Hulst has surprisingly seen it as the only known example by Van Dyck of a practice recorded by Bellori of a sketch being done for an engraver. But there is no corroborative evidence, such as a contemporary engraving, to support this. . . . Similarly the notion that the present sketch could have been executed by Van Dyck is highly improbable as Rubens would hardly have given work of this kind, connected with such a prestigious commission to anyone in his studio. It seems most probable that the present painting [NG 1865] was an initial sketch submitted for consideration to the Recollects to give them an indication of what he had in mind and as a modello for discussion by members of the community. Its early history would seem to lend support to this idea.’ 57 See P. Hildebrand, ‘Rubens chez les Capucins. Un témoignage de 1617’, Études franciscaines 47 (1935), pp. 726–729. 55

Held 1959, pp. 135–136 : ‘It is hard to see on what grounds the London sketch can be taken away from Rubens and given either to an anonymous pupil or to Van Dyck. First of all, it certainly is a sketch for the Coup de Lance and no other painting; nor is there any indication that it is not a preparatory work. It differs from the finished canvas [sic] in ways characteristic of preparatory sketches, but not found in later copies. Indeed, the presence in the sketch only of the man carrying a ladder is one of these features. He was eliminated from the finished version when the master had decided for the sake of clarity to turn the horse of the centurion and the lance more towards the Cross. Nor is the sketch wanting in quality. . . . The Vienna drawing of the man with the ladder offers an additional argument in favour of reclaiming the London oil sketch for Rubens. The drawing is so clearly Rubens’ work that one would have to assume a very complex manner of collaboration (such as Rubens making studies from nature for a composition sketched by Van Dyck) if the London sketch were indeed Van Dyck’s work.’ This view was repeated in Martin 1970 and Logan and Plomp 2005. 58

BULLETIN

has been severely criticized and even considered absurd.59 In fact, one gets the impression that some scholars want to reduce the organization of the Rubens workshop to a simplified, hierarchical structure that has more to do with conviction and a sense of neatness than with the messy historical reality. Both invention and execution were likely to be teamwork in an enterprise that was flooded with commissions, as the Rubens workshop certainly was.

with the transparent painting characteristic of Rubens from 1614 until the 1620s.60 In contrast to the situation for Rubens’s autograph work on panel, the stripy priming does not play any pictorial role whatsoever in the carnations on the altarpiece. The impasto brushwork, however, is in accordance with the stiff paint substances we find in compositions and portraits by the young, preItalian Van Dyck. In my opinion, Rubens’s chief assistant must be held responsible for the extensive retouching of the altarpiece, which had been dead-coloured by (an)other assistant(s). This underlying work is still visible in the less important and darker areas of the painting. Rowlands in particular rejected any contribution by Van Dyck to the execution of the altarpiece and wrote that the participation of Rubens’s collaborator is not supported by any clearly discernible visual evidence.61 This sweeping pronouncement, no doubt written from a desk, is to my mind flatly con tradicted by observations that can be made from the scaffolding. Other idiosyncrasies in the picture point towards Van Dyck. The red draperies in the Coup de Lance are not in balance with the rest of the painting. They are delineated rather sharply and seem more inserted than assimilated into the colour scheme. These flat and disconnected local colours may have led Fromentin to call the picture ‘incoherent’. The folds lack the contrast and depth we expect from Rubens draperies. Usually this is explained as being the result of harsh cleaning in the past. However, overly present red draperies are a phenomenon we also encounter in other pictures by young Anthony, for instance in St Martin’s cloak in the altarpiece in Zaventem, painted around the same time, or in Scipio’s cloak in the Continence of Scipio (Oxford, Christ Church), painted slightly later. Both of these paintings have been restored and are in an excellent state of preservation.62 Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the original

Conclusions in the light of technical examination (see Appendix I) Compared with the design of the London oil sketch, the composition of the altarpiece is more compact. Space between the figures is reduced and the entire surface of the picture has been filled. The decision to omit the man with the ladder in the background and some other secondary figures undoubtedly resulted from this compositional tightening. Initially, Christ was given a fluttering loincloth and the horse of Longinus had a curly mane, but in the next stage of painting these elements were eliminated, arguably for reasons of legibility. The choice of dark grey for the sky in the painting is certainly inspired by the biblical description of the Passion, but it also makes the figure of Christ more prominent in the composition and increases the dramatic effect. This dark grey is not part of a later restoration campaign, as has sometimes been suspected, for it is overlapped by original paint in several areas. The corrections and pentimenti, listed in Appendix I, were done in a very consistent way and by one hand. Until now, scholars have be lieved that Rubens himself was responsible for the retouching, but this assumption is contradicted by the brushwork, which is very different from the master’s hand. The heavy impasto technique, demonstrated in the flesh tints on the Coup de Lance – even in shadowed areas – is incompatible

For Rubens and the use of imprimatura, see N. Van Hout, ‘Meaning and Development of the Ground Layer in Seventeenth Century Painting’, in Looking through Paintings. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11 (Baarn and London 1998), pp. 199–225, and N. Van Hout, with A. Balis, Rubens Doorgelicht. Meekijken over de schouders van een virtuoos, Antwerp 2010, pp. 42–45. 61 Rowlands 1977, p. 119. 62 To these examples, one may add the red garments of Decius Mus in Decius Mus relating his dream, in The interpretation of the victim, The obsequies of Decius Mus and of Virtus in Victoria and Virtus (all Vienna, Liechtenstein Museum). 60

Martin 1970, p. 195: ‘In fact, it is not absolutely necessary to associate this drawing with no. 1865 [the London oil sketch]; at the most it would appear to be an elaboration of the motif first sketched in no. 1865. If such was the case the manner of collaboration would be equally complex, if not ridiculous (such as Rubens elaborating a pose invented by van Dyck).’ 59

BULLETIN

loincloth of Christ in the Coup de Lance (fluttering in the wind before it was painted out) is a feature that reappears in several Crucifixions painted by Van Dyck in his second Antwerp period.63 In addition, there is some circumstantial evidence. Several ele ments in the composition of the Coup de Lance almost literally reappear in a Crucifixion in the Louvre, painted for the Jesuits of St Winoksbergen (now Bergues in France) in 1620 or 1621.64 One can even see the latter as a more simplified and static version of the dramatic altarpiece in Antwerp. Payment for that commission was made to Rubens too. Gustav Glück attributed the Louvre canvas to Van Dyck (1931).65 In the painting, Mary strikes the same pose as on the Coup de Lance (except that she raises up her eyes more towards Christ) and wears a greyish white dress and a blue mantle, gently swept by the wind. The bottom of her mantle shows a pentimento in which the textile originally fell in the same way as the Virgin’s dress in the Coup de Lance. Mary Magdalene’s profile on the altarpiece in the Louvre is identical with that in the Coup de Lance. Moreover, Christ’s loincloth is fluttering towards the left and recalls the overpainted detail of the altarpiece in Antwerp (see further below on the creation of the altarpiece itself ). The Vienna/Prague/Pittsburgh head was also used in the Drunken

Silenus in the National Gallery in London, a work traditionally attributed to Rubens and his studio, but recently given to the young Van Dyck.66 It also reappears as a background figure on the left in Rubens’s autograph Adoration of the Magi in Cambridge of c. 1633–34.67 Mary’s sorrowful face reappears in the Michielsen Triptych (‘Christ à la Paille’) in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp.68 According to Nora De Poorter, the dark horse in Van Dyck’s St Sebastian bound for martyrdom in Edin burgh, seen from behind, replicates in reverse Longinus’s grey horse in the Coup de Lance. The contour of the horse is identical, as is the low-lying horizon that gives way to light bands of sky between the animal’s legs. According to the author ‘Van Dyck undoubtedly derived this motif from Rubens’s painting in which he probably assisted.’69

In the Kortrijk Raising of the Cross and the Crucifixions in Mechelen, Ghent, Lille, Dendermonde, Antwerp and Vienna (Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, nos. III.21–29). 64 Canvas, 333 × 282 cm; Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. 1766, Rooses 1888, no. 302, p. 102; Oldenbourg 1922, p. 263; Glück 1931, p. 519; Foucart 2009 (Catalogue des peintures flamandes et hollandaises du musée du Louvre, Paris 2009), p. 245: ‘Selon un document des archives municipales de Bergues (communication écrite de J.C. Guillemin, 1986), acquis de Rubens par la ville de Bergues vers 1620–1621, pour être offert aux Jésuites de cette cité pour le maître-autel de l’église de leur collège (la ville tenait beaucoup à ce collège fondé en 1600 – église bénie en 1612 – et aidait les Jésuites à son embellissement : paiement de 3600 livres dans les comptes de la ville à l’année 1621 pour ce tableau et un Jugement dernier de Rubens destiné à l’hôtel de ville) ; apparemment cédé par les Jésuites à une date inconnue car acquis en 1747 à Anvers par le restaurateur de tableaux Colins (1699–1760); vendu par ce dernier à Louis XV, 1749, Colins insistant sur l’éventuelle concurrence de Frédéric II de Prusse, grand acheteur de tableaux nordiques (lettre au roi citée par Courajod [1873], t. II, note 1, p. xxiv) : destiné initialement au maître-autel de l’église Saint-Louis à Versailles (cf. Engerand), mais placé dès 1750 au Luxembourg avec une partie de la coll. Royale alors exposée publiquement en ce lieu ; exposé à l’ouverture du Museum (Louvre), en 1793, no. 30 (cf. Dubreuil).’ 65 Glück 1931, p. 519 under no. 19. 63

Considering the scholarly arguments of the past in the light of the observa tions made on the altarpiece in situ, one can conclude the following. Several stylistic and technical features suggest that Van Dyck was seriously involved in the execution of the altarpiece, mainly in the overall revising and retouching of the composition. There is no visual evidence at all of Rubens’s participation in the painterly process. Though it cannot be concluded with certainty who was the final decision maker behind these corrections, it has to be assumed that in a large studio of the seventeenth century, work was not only planned by means of rough drawings, oil sketches and model studies, but also managed with oral instructions, of which no tangible evidence exists. Therefore, supervision of the work in progress by Rubens is not excluded. There are good reasons to believe that Van Dyck was involved not only in the execution of the picture, but also in its design. The pointed brushwork displayed in the London oil sketch hints in the direction of Rubens’s illustrious collaborator. It finds resonance in the equally nervous preparatory drawings in pen and ink which Van Dyck made for a handful

Canvas, 133.5 × 197 cm; London, National Gallery, inv. NG 853; See Keith 1999. Panel, 328 × 246.5 cm, Cambridge, King’s College Chapel; Jaffé 1989, no. 1095. 68 Panel, 138 × 108 cm, Antwerp, KMSKA, inv. 300. Judson 2000, no. 64, pp. 222–225. 69 Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004, under no. I.47, p. 63. 66 67

BULLETIN

of compositions earlier on. In working on the Coup de Lance, Van Dyck probably adopted the working procedure of his master, by making a bozzetto, painted on panel. Before 1620, Van Dyck planned his own compositions, such as the Brazen Serpent, the Mystic Marriage of St Catherine, the Taking of Christ or the Crowning with Thorns in sequences of drawings in black chalk and brown ink, but this soon changed after.70 All of this would point to the situation in which ‘a Rubens’ is a painting for which payment is made to Rubens, but which is not necessarily painted or even invented by Rubens. Comparison with contemporary fashion houses that employ star designers and rock bands that engage different songwriters, players and singers may be relevant to understanding the functioning of the Rubens studio.

See Brown 1991, nos. 2–4; 6–7; 26–28; 32–34.

BULLETIN

APPENDIX I Observations on the painting technique of the Coup de Lance The painting technique of the Coup de Lance was studied by the Rubens Research Team at the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerp in the summer of 2010. Besides the author of this contribution, the team consisted of Christine Van Mulders, Valérie Herremans, Lizet Klaassen, Marie Geeraerts, Adri Verburg and Arnout Balis. Examination of the paint ing was done from nearby, on scaffolding, under visible and raking light, in infrared, false-colour infrared, infrared fluorescence and UV light. The following chapter describes the numerous pentimenti and other observa tions that were made in the course of this investigation. Initially, Christ’s loincloth on the altarpiece was fluttering to the left, as in the London oil sketch. This piece of drapery was subsequently painted over with the dark grey paint of the sky. The white impastos of this pentimento are visible in raking light and shimmer through the abraded grey upper layer (fig. A1). While painting in the floating scroll above Christ, a reserve in the underpainting stage was not precisely followed. The turnedup edge was touched up in a later stage. The horizontal beam of the cross was not as deep as it is today and was equally corrected in a later phase (fig. A2). The folds of the Virgin’s dark grey headscarf were painted over a lighter colour. It is not clear whether this repainting was done during the painting process, or whether it was part of a later restoration. A piece of red cloak shimmers through in St John’s face and can be seen even better in a false-colour infrared image (figs. A3, A4). Initially, the saint covered his nose with his sleeve. A fold of this sleeve was changed. The red paint of St John’s cloak covers the blue cloak near Mary’s shoulder. The delineation of the grey zone next to St John’s left foot, between the red, yellow and blue clothing, is most unclear (fig. A5). Mary Magdalene’s face is heavily impasted, even in the shadowed parts. This manner of painting is not consistent with the transparent painting technique which Rubens practised from 1614 onwards (fig. A6). The Magdalene’s sleeve was touched up at a later stage to make it wider. The eyes, cheeks and nose of Mary Cleophas were touched up with thicker brushstrokes upon a smooth, dull-coloured underpainting (fig. A7). 27

A10

A12

A14

A11

A18

A17

A13

A15

A19

A16

A20

BULLETIN

The impastos that delineated the initial contour of Longinus’s cloak, running parallel with the contour of the soldier next to him on the left, are visible in raking light and with the naked eye (fig. A8). At a subsequent stage, the view on the grey-blue sky was made smaller and the cloak was enlarged by means of red paint. Longinus’s dark grey pupils were touched up with black paint and moved towards the right (fig. A9). His breastplate was extensively retouched with impasto brushwork. The mane of the brown horse was painted over Longinus’s coat and horse. The fingers of Longinus’s right hand were enlarged and on his knuckels light pinkish highlights were added. In comparing the altarpiece with the Boetius Bolswert print during his stay in Antwerp, Joshua Reynolds observed the different hand and arm positions of Longinus and of the soldier with the iron bar. He concluded that Rubens had made these changes in his composition after Bolswert had engraved it.71 Examination of the painting from close by refutes this statement as no pentimenti can be found in these areas, either in raking light or in infrared light. The deviating positions on the engraving follow the drawn modello for this print in the British Museum rather than a presumed intermediate stage in the picture. The left hand of Longinus is painted over the penitent thief’s cross. The right contour of the white horse’s head was enlarged and the ears were made pointier. The mane of the horse, under Mary Magdalene’s underarm, was painted over with the dark grey paint of the sky (fig. A10). The head of the soldier with the iron bar is connected with the rest of his body in a rather awkward way (fig. A11). It seems that an existing head study was incorporated in the composition, but not without effort. An attempt was then made to distract attention from the clumsily painted

neck by the addition of some pink highlights on the collarbones. The left eye of this soldier is repainted higher up than in an earlier phase of the creative process. This results in the presence of two pupils and two reflective lights (fig. A12). An impasto reflection on the metal breastplate was initially placed next to the soldier’s underarm (something which is impossible, for light reflections occur in the middle of spherical objects). This mistake was corrected. The initial impasto was covered and painted anew in the middle of the breastplate (fig. A13). One gets the impression that the whole piece of armour was heavily reworked. At first, the armour covered the soldier’s thighs as well, but this area was painted over at a later stage with a pinkish skirt. The pentimento can be seen in visible light, as well as in infrared and false-colour infrared (figs. A14–A16). The mouth and moustache of the penitent thief were touched up with black brushstrokes. In his face as well, the pupils of his eyes were shifted in a separate, ‘corrective’ painting stage. This resulted in two light reflections, one above the other (fig. A17). The roughly cut cross of the penitent thief was given an edge and a side that catches the light. Further observations were made regarding the two spectators in the background. From nearby, the connection of the head with the turban and the shirt with vertical lines is rather unsatisfying and seems to suggest that an existing head study was used to insert in this part of the composition (fig. A18). Possibly, the form of this shirt was originally planned as a contour for the right thighbone of the kneeling Magdalene, as this round form continues in the foot of Christ’s cross (fig. A19). It seems as if the contour of Mount Golgotha was raised to hide the fact that the two figures are actually too big for background figures. This ad hoc solution was an attempt to make their proportion more acceptable to the viewer, not entirely without success. The thinly painted lances on the left are an afterthought (fig. A20). The brushstrokes of the sky run underneath. These lances are also missing on the London oil sketch.

Mount 1996, pp. 63–66: ‘It appears that Rubens made some changes in this picture after Bolswert had engraved his print from it. The horseman who is in the act of piercing the side of Christ, holds the spear, according to the print, in a very tame manner, with the back of the hand over the spear, grasping it with only three fingers, the fore-finger straight lying on the spear; whereas in the picture, the back of the hand comes under the spear, and he grasps it with his whole force. The other defect which is remedied in the picture is the action of the executioner, who breaks the legs of the criminal; in the print, both his hands are over the bar of iron, which makes a false action: in the picture the whole disposition is altered to the natural manner in which every person holds a weapon, which requires both hands; the right is placed over, and the left under it.’ 71

BULLETIN

APPENDIX II List of major altarpieces that left the Rubens studio between 1609 and 1620

•

The altarpieces are ordered according to their numbers in Michael Jaffé’s Rubens. Catalogo Completo, Milan 1989. In calculating the surface areas of the paintings (given in square centimetres in bold type), both the interior and exterior of triptych wings were taken into account. Original locations (if different from the work’s present whereabouts) are given in brackets.

•

Jaffé 88: Dispute of the Holy Sacrament, Antwerp, St Paul’s Church, panel, 377 × 248 cm. 93,496 cm² Jaffé 98: Adoration of the Magi, Madrid, Museo del Prado [City Hall, Antwerp], canvas, original dimensions: 346 × 488 cm. 168,848 cm² Jaffé 121: Adoration of the Shepherds, Antwerp, St Paul’s Church, canvas, 400 × 294 cm. 117,600 cm² Jaffé 135: Raising of the Cross, Antwerp Cathedral [St Walburga, Antwerp], panel, 462 × 340 cm, wings 462 × 150 cm each. 434,280 cm² Jaffé 167: Triptych for Jan Moretus, Antwerp Cathedral, panel, 138 × 98 cm; wings 136 × 40 cm each. 35,284 cm² Jaffé 189: Descent from the Cross, Antwerp Cathedral, panel, 421 × 311 cm; wings 421 × 153 cm. 388,583 cm² Jaffé 200: Crucifixion, KMSKA [Friars Minor, Antwerp], canvas, 221 × 121 cm. 26,741 cm² Jaffé 219: Christ giving the keys of heaven to St Peter, Berlin, Gemäldegalerie [Brueghel epitaph Kapellekerk, Brussels], canvas, 182.5 × 159 cm. 29,017 cm² Jaffé 221: Triptych for Nicolaas Rockox, KMSKA [Friars Minor, Antwerp], 143 × 123 cm, wings 145 × 55 cm each. 49,489 cm² Jaffé 241: Assumption of the Virgin, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum [Jesuit Church, Antwerp], panel, 458 × 297 cm. 136,026 cm² Jaffé 258: Dilemma of St Augustine, Madrid, Real Academia de San Fernando [Jesuits, Alcalà de Henares], canvas, 237 × 179 cm. 42,423 cm² Jaffé 259: Four Evangelists, Potsdam, Bildergalerie Schloss Sanssouci, canvas, 224 × 270 cm. 60,480 cm² Jaffé 269: St Peter, private collection [Capuchins, Antwerp], canvas, 218.5 × 110 cm. 24,035 cm²

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• •

• • • • • • •

• •

Jaffé 270: St Paul, private collection [Capuchins, Antwerp], canvas, 218.5 × 110 cm. 24,035 cm² Jaffé 275: Descent from the Cross, Valenciennes, Musée des Beaux-Arts [SaintAmand-les-Eaux, Abbey Church], canvas, 320 × 195 cm. 62,400 cm² Jaffé 277: Holy Trinity, KMSKA [epitaph Jan de Pape and Judoca van de Capelle, Friars Minor, Antwerp], panel, 158 × 152 cm. 24,016 cm² Jaffé 287: St George Triptych, Bordeaux, Musée des Beaux-Arts [St Gummarus, Lier], panel, 195 × 159; wings 188 × 80 cm each. 46,045 cm² Jaffé 291: Martyrdom of St Catherine, Lille, Musée des Beaux-Arts [high altar St Catherine, Lille, donated by Jean de Sueur, councillor of the archdukes], panel, 364 × 243 cm. 88,452 cm² Jaffé 294: Martyrdom of St Laurence, Munich, Alte Pinakothek [Kapellekerk, Brussels], panel, 244 × 174 cm. 42,456 cm² Jaffé 297: Christ triumphant over Death and Sin, Strasbourg, Musée des BeauxArts, panel, 175 × 135 cm. 23,625 cm² Jaffé 337: Entombment, Cambrai, St Géry [Capuchins, Cambrai], canvas, 398 × 280 cm. 111,440 cm² Jaffé 339: Pietà with St Francis, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique [Capuchins, Brussels], canvas, 420 × 332 cm. 139,440 cm² Jaffé 348: Christ triumphant over Death and Sin, whereabouts unknown, panel, 189 × 143 cm. 27,027 cm² Jaffé 349: ‘Great’ Last Judgement, Munich, Alte Pinakothek [high altar Jesuit Church, Neuburg a/d Donau], canvas, 606 × 460 cm. 278,760 cm² Jaffé 382: Assumption of the Virgin, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique [Unshod Carmelites, Brussels], canvas, 500 × 340 cm. 170,000 cm² Jaffé 395: Christ giving the keys of heaven to St Peter, London, Wallace Collection [Epitaph for Nicolas Damant, Chancellor of the Council of Brabant, and his wife in St Gudula, Brussels], canvas, 141 × 115 cm. 16,215 cm² Jaffé 414: God the Father, Christ, SS Paul and John the Evangelist, Weimar, Schlossmuseum, panel, 214 × 144 cm. 30,816 cm² Jaffé 422: St Stephen’s Triptych, Valenciennes, Musée des Beaux-Arts [SaintAmand-les-Eaux, Abbey Church], 427 × 280 cm, wings 400 × 126 cm each. 321,160 cm² Jaffé 424: St Ambrose refuses the Emperor Theodosius entrance to the Church, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, canvas, 362 × 246 cm. 89,052 cm² Jaffé 434: Descent from the Cross, Lille, Musée des Beaux-Arts [Capuchins, Lille], canvas, 425 × 295 cm. 125,375 cm²

BULLETIN

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Jaffé 435: Descent from the Cross, St Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum [Capuchins, Lier], canvas, 298 × 202 cm. 60,196 cm² Jaffé 457: Flagellation of Christ, Antwerp, St Paul’s, panel, 219 × 161 cm. 35,259 cm² Jaffé 462: St Francis receives the infant Jesus from the hands of Mary, Antwerp, St Anthony [Capuchins, Antwerp], canvas, 230 × 173 cm. 39,790 cm² Jaffé 463: St Francis receives the infant Jesus from the hands of Mary, Lille, Musée des Beaux-Arts [Capuchins, Lille], canvas, 234 × 184 cm. 43,056 cm² Jaffé 464: St Ivo of Tréguier, Detroit Institute of Arts [St Peter’s, Leuven], canvas, 295 × 216 cm. 63,720 cm² Jaffé 480: Miracles of St Ignatius of Loyola, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum [high altar Jesuit Church, Antwerp], canvas, 535 × 395 cm. 211,325 cm² Jaffé 481: Miracles of St Francis Xavier, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum [high altar Jesuit Church, Antwerp], canvas, 535 × 395 cm. 211,325 cm² Jaffé 482: St John’s Triptych, Mechelen, St John, panel, 318 × 276 cm; wings 318 × 115 cm each. 234,048 cm² Jaffé 489: Calvary, Paris, Musée du Louvre [Jesuits, St Winoksbergen/Bergues], canvas, 333 × 282 cm. 93,906 cm² Jaffé 491: Triptych for Jan Michielsen, KMSKA [Antwerp Cathedral], panel, 138 × 108 cm; wings 136 × 40 cm each. 36,664 cm² Jaffé 501: Last Communion of St Francis, KMSKA [Friars Minor, Antwerp], panel, 422 × 266 cm. 112,252 cm² Jaffé 503: Adoration of the Magi, Lyons, Musée des Beaux-Arts, canvas, 251 × 328 cm. 82,328 cm² Jaffé 504: Triptych for Lier, central panel: Lier, St Gummarus; wings: Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts, panel, 181 × 157 cm; wings 181 × 64 each. 74,753 cm² Jaffé 505: Triptych for Onze-Lieve-Vrouw over the Dijle, Mechelen, 301 × 235 cm, wings 301 × 106 cm each. 198,359 cm² Jaffé 517: Miracles of St Ignatius of Loyola, Genoa, St Ambrogio, canvas, 400 × 275 cm. 110,000 cm² Jaffé 523: Assumption of the Virgin, Düsseldorf, Kunstmuseum [high altar Kapellekerk, Brussels], panel, 423 × 281 cm. 118,863 cm² Jaffé 526: Adoration of the Magi, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique [Capuchins, Tournai], canvas, 384 × 280 cm. 107,520 cm² Jaffé 532: Adoration of the Shepherds, Rouen, Musée des Beaux-Arts [Capuchins, Aachen], canvas, 340 × 248 cm. 84,320 cm² Jaffé 536: Adoration of the Shepherds, Neuburg a/d Donau, Staatsgalerie [Jesuit Church, Neuburg], canvas, 475 × 273 cm. 129,675 cm²

• • •

Jaffé 537: Pentecost, Neuburg a/d Donau, Staatsgalerie [Jesuit Church, Neuburg], canvas, 470 × 273 cm. 128,310 cm² Jaffé 541: Madonna, adored by four penitent Sinners, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, canvas on panel, 257 × 202 cm. 51,914 cm² Jaffé 542: St Dominic and St Francis protecting the world against Christ’s anger. Lyon, Musée des Beaux-Arts [high altar Dominican Church, St Paul’s, Antwerp], canvas, 555 × 361 cm. 200,355 cm²

Total surface: 5,712,879 cm² = 571.29 m²

BULLETIN

Bibliography

d’Hulst 1982 R.-A. d’Hulst, Jacob Jordaens, Antwerp 1982.

Balis 1994 A. Balis, ‘“Fatto da un mio Discepolo”: Rubens’s Studio Practices Reviewed’, in T. Nakamura (ed.), Rubens and his Workshop. The Flight of Lot and his Family from Sodom, Tokyo 1994, pp. 97–127.

Fromentin 1877 E. Fromentin, Les maîtres d’autrefois, Paris 1877.

Barnes, De Poorter, Millar and Vey 2004 S. Barnes, N. De Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Van Dyck. A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven and London 2004.

Goris and Held 1947 J.-A. Goris and J.S. Held, Rubens in America, Antwerp 1947.

Baudouin and d’Hulst 1971 F. Baudouin and R.-A. d’Hulst, Rubens en zijn tijd (exhibition catalogue Rubenshuis), Antwerp 1971. Bellori 1672 G.P. Bellori, Vite, Rome 1672. Bodart 1977 D. Bodart, Rubens e l’incisione nelle collezioni del Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe (exhibition catalogue), Rome 1977. Brown 1991 C. Brown, The Drawings of Anthony van Dyck (exhibition catalogue New York, Pierpont Morgan Library; Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum), 1991. Burchard 1931 L. Burchard, ‘Rubens ähnliche Van Dyck-Zeichnungen’, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft (1931–32), pp. 8–12. Burchard 1932 L. Burchard, ‘Rubens ähnliche Van Dyck-Zeichnungen’, Sitzungsberichte des kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft, Berlin 1932. Burchard and d’Hulst 1956 L. Burchard and R.-A. d’Hulst, Tekeningen van P.P. Rubens (exhibition catalogue Rubenshuis), Antwerp 1956. Burchard and d’Hulst 1963 L. Burchard and R-A. d’Hulst, Rubens Drawings, 2 vols., Brussels 1963. Descamps 1792 J.-B. Descamps, Voyage pittoresque de la Flandre et du Brabant, Nouvelle Edition, Paris 1792.

Glück 1931 G. Glück, Van Dyck (Klassiker der Kunst), 1931.

Held 1959 J.S. Held, Rubens. Selected Drawings, 2 vols., London 1959. Held 1980 J. . Held, The Oil Sketches of Peter Paul Rubens, Princeton 1980. Held 1986 J.S. Held, Rubens. Selected Drawings, Oxford 1986. Jaffé 1989 M. Jaffé, Rubens. Catalogo Completo, Milan 1989. Janson 1938 C. Janson, L’Influence du Tintoret sur Rubens’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 19 (1938), 1, p. 81. Judson 2000 J. R. Judson, Rubens. The Passion of Christ (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, VI), Turnhout 2000. Keith 1999 L. Keith, ‘The Rubens Studio and the Drunken Silenus supported by Satyrs’, The National Gallery Technical Bulletin 20 (1999), pp. 96–104. Kräftner et al. 2004 J. Kräftner et al. (ed.), Rubens in Wien. Die Meisterwerke, Vienna 2004. Kuznetsov 1974 Y. Kuznetsov, Peter Paul Rubens, Leningrad 1974. Logan and Plomp 2005 A.-M. Logan, in collaboration with M.C. Plomp, Peter Paul Rubens. The Drawings (exhibition catalogue Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) New Haven and London 2004–05.

BULLETIN

Martin 1970 G. Martin, National Gallery Catalogues, The Flemish School 1600–1900, London 1970. Martin and Faigenbaum 1979 J.R. Martin and G. Faigenbaum, Van Dyck as Religious Artist (exhibition catalogue Art Museum Princeton University), Princeton 1979. Meij 2001 A.W.F.M. Meij, Rubens, Jordaens, Van Dyck and their circle. Flemish Master drawings from the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam 2001. Mitsch 1977 E. Mitsch, Die Rubenszeichnungen der Albertina, Vienna and Munich 1977. Mount 1996 H. Mount (ed.), Joshua Reynolds. A Journey through Flanders and Holland, Cambridge and New York 1996.

Vey 1956 H. Vey, ‘Anton Van Dycks Ölskizzen’, Bulletin Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels 1956, pp. 167–208. Vey 1962 H. Vey, Die Zeichnungen Anton Van Dycks, Brussels 1962. Vlieghe 1972 H. Vlieghe, Saints (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, VIII, I–II), Brussels 1972. Wohl, Wohl and Montanari 2005 A. Sedgwick Wohl, H. Wohl and T. Montanari, Giovan Pietro Bellori. The Lives of the Modern Painters, Sculptors and Architects. A new translation and critical edition, New York 2005.

Müller Hofstede 1966 J. Müller Hofstede, ‘Review L. Burchard, R.-A. d’Hulst, Rubens Drawings’, Master Drawings 4 (1966), pp. 435–454. Oldenbourg 1922 W. von Bode (ed.), Peter Paul Rubens. Sammlung der von Rudolf Oldenbourg veröffentlichten oder zur veröffentlichung vorbereiteten Abhandlungen über den Meister, Munich and Berlin 1922. Reynolds 1781: see Mount 1996 Rooses 1888 M. Rooses, L’Œuvre de P.P. Rubens, II, Antwerp 1888. Rowlands 1977 J. Rowlands, Rubens. Drawings and Sketches (exhibition catalogue British Museum), London 1977. Sanderus 1727 A. Sanderus, Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae . . . , The Hague 1727. Van der Meulen 1994 M. Van der Meulen, Copies after the Antique (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XXIII, I–III), London 1994.