Jan Muller Antiques Winter catalogue 2019

The Four Elements by Artus Wolffort

2019 – Winter Catalogue

Flemish school, 16th century The adoration of the Christ Child

The outer wings; the kneeling donors with St-John and St-Jacob the Greater

H|w 60,5 x 112 cm open

work Oil on panel

14 15

The lamentation by Marcus Gheeraerts

attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder

Brugge c 1520 – 1586/1604 London The lamentation

The first name association with the lower part of the right wing of the passion triptych by Barend van Orley (1488 / 92-1542) and his studio is evident. This was intended for the main altar of the burial church in Brou of the commissioner (in testament) Margaret of Austria (1480-1530) and Philibert II of Savoy, Margaret's deceased third husband. Margareta van Parma, however, decided that this should be placed in the mausoleum of Charles the Bold in the Bruges Lievevrouwkerk, where it still remains to this day.

At the death of Barend van Orley it remained unfinished. Only in 1560 did Marcus Gheeraerts the elder (Brugge, c 1520-1586 / 1604 London) get the job to finish it. The latter became master in the Bruges painters' guild in 1558. How far Bernard van Orley had advanced in 1542 is not known. The central panel with the Calvary was probably far advanced or finished. The side panels were unfinished. This proved to be the case with the scientific material research conducted by Dr Lars Hendriksman (head curator Bonnefantenmuseum Maastricht) in 2006 and in which I gained insight from him.

From this research it appears that the Lamentation on the right wing shows a difference in execution between the left part of it and the right one. This is mainly reflected in comparing the feet, hands and other parts. The signing is very brief everywhere. She points to a detailed grisaille underpainting that served as a guide for finishing the whole.

The research of the panel concerned, carried out by Prof. Dr Maximilian Martens (Uni Gent Labo), also shows a summary signing, which is highlighted in details. Van Orley was active as a designer of tapestries at the end of his life, since 1530. He adapted his preparatory technique to this medium, probably following Tommaso Vincidor (see Nicole Dacos), who accompanied the Rafael cartons in the lowlands, where the series of carpets was woven. In that period he had most of the work carried out by his capable companions and pupils. His last known pupil received from Orley in 1542: G. Willems. This is also the case in the triptych in the Brugse Lieve Vrouwe church. The execution of the Lamentation discussed here follows very closely the original. In my view, the execution was done by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder, in whose studio the unfinished order for Brou was found. Gheeraerts delivered this finished piece before 1565 to the Bruges church. In 1568 he had to leave for England, condemned for heresy together with his son Marcus II. All his goods in Bruges were then confiscated. It was not until 1577 that he traveled back to Antwerp, where he stayed until 1586. After the fall of the city he left for London where he died in 1604. His style was initially influenced by Orley. After 1565 he followed the Romanism of Maarten De Vos. His ductus and style are also in line with the little-known work of Vincent Sellaer.

I recently consulted Dr Lars Hendriksman for guidance. He indicated that the Lamentation illustrated here must have come from the studio of Marcus Gheeraerts during the period 1560-65. It may have been used as a life sized ‘videmus’. This allowed the client Margareta van Parma to visualise the final result that Gheeraerts would create.

From well known versions of the Lamentation which have been researched, this one is the most consistent with the triptych completed in Bruges during 1565. Dr Lars Hendriksman sent me his articles and report on his research. My hypothesis, parallel to his assessment, is that it may only have arisen in the immediate vicinity of the unfinished, since it also closely matches the work probably completed by Marcus Gheeraerts in Bruges, started by Bernard Van Orley and his studio in Brussels.

literature J. Farmer, Bernard van Orley or Brussels, dissertation Princeton University 1981, pp 189-201 L. Hendrikman, Bernard van Orley's Passion triptych for the main altar at Brou: commissions and Copies, 2006, pp 82-93

The conclusions from the research and the dialogue with Dr Lars Hendrikman and Prof. Dr. Maximilian Martens.

Prof Dr Dr hc Jan De Maere - Director DVK vzw

▼ Details of underdrawing and hatches.

H|w 168 x 146 cm work Oil on panel

provenance Bachoven collection 1818 Paravicini collection Basel Sale Estate of Mr & Ms Staechlin-Paravicini, Basel 23 March 1939, lot 18 Sale Parke Bernet New York, 24 October 1962, lot 40 (as B van Orley) exhibitions Basel museum: Exhibition of Art XV-XVIIIthC from Basel private collections

20 21

Francken II. Presumably it is Moses' older brother Aaron, leaning on his staff. He assisted Moses in the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. The bright overall impression of many white-cracked colors creates a harmonious, idyllic atmosphere, which is supported by groups of resting, graceful young women with children. The painting is absolutely characteristic in the work of Frans Francken II, here with the help of his gifted, until now underrated brother Ambrosius Francken II.

Book 2, Moses, 13, 17-14, 31. Comparable mighty rocks can be found in compositions by Frans II in works of the same period, which also draw from the Book of Moses and the episodes for the salvation of the people of Israel, also from around 1620. Simultaneous scenes, here from the book Moses 2, 12-15, are characteristic for the style of Frans Francken II, while in the middle of the picture a musical scene occupies a large space. Mirjam and some women play and dance to praise the salvation of the Egyptians. One of the two older men could be Miriam's brother Aaron. In front, both women look at their jewelery they brought from Egypt. In addition to the rescued children, jewelry and pompos are the precious possessions of women. In raffaelesque style sits a mother with two children and presented, in balance to the setting scene on the right outside, the idyllic atmosphere after salvation from the Egyptian persecutors.

Frans Francken II & Ambrosius Francken

Antwerp 1581 – 1642 Antwerp & Antwerp ca 1590 – 1632 Antwerp The passage of the Red Sea

H|w 93.5 x 123,5 cm work Oil on panel

Certified by Dr. Ursula Härting, 2019

The rescued Israelites are camped on the shores of the Red Sea. They were about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting the children who had fled the slavery of the Egyptians. Her God, in the apparition of a cloud of fire and water accompanied her, he had made her escape from Pharaoh's troops dry feet through the split sea. After passing through the sea, Moses, here on the right bank of the shore with the staff in his outstretched hand, caused the floods of water to fall upon the pursuers, the troops of the pharaoh. Moses was enlightened in the faith, but a false translation of this passage

in the Old Testament spoke of 'horned' Moses and this interpretation was followed by artists over the centuries, including here Frans Francken II, the well-known Antwerp cabinet painter. Characteristic is his depiction of the crowd of small-figured staffage, as well as in the oeuvre of his younger brother Ambrosius Francken II. This painting is a result of their collaboration. Ambrosius painted the rocks and the wandering multitude of the Israelites and also the teenagers on the front monolithic rock. The camped Israelites, parallel to the lower edge of the picture are from the hand of Frans

32 33

Artus Wolffort

Antwerp 1581 – 1641 The four elements

H|w 158 x 200 cm

work Oil on canvas

Artus Wolffort (also Wolffaert) is initially active in Dordrecht (where his parents had emigrated) and returns to his hometown in 1615. Where he stays in the studio of Otto Venius (1556-1629). In 1617 he became master in the Guild of Saint Luke. He has a son who bears the same name and follows in his footsteps. Wolffort is a prominent representative of Antwerp baroque painting and author of, among others, religious and mythological scenes. The painting studied here (canvas, 159 x 201 cm) fits perfectly within that framework. There we recognize from left to right the four elements of nature: 'fire' (Vulcanus / Hephaistos with hammer and armor), 'sky' (character sitting on clouds, with bird of paradise and staff with budded birds), 'water' (Neptune / Poseidon with crown of shells, jug and trident with fish) and 'earth' (Ceres / Rhea with crown of cities and 'horn of plenty'). Furthermore, all sorts of easily identifiable animals and plants.

I knew this representation because in Stuttgart [Staatsgalerie, inv. 2223] another version is kept (also on canvas, 182 x 240 cm), initially attributed to Jan Boeckhorst (1604-1668) and Frans Snijders (1579-1657), but Hans Vlieghe rightly associated it with Artus Wolffort. The presence of numerous animals was an obvious reason to opt for two hands at the (initial) attribution of the large canvas in Stuttgart.

nus, in collaboration with Adriaan van Utrecht (1599-1652). I saw similarities with the style of Wolffort ... but finally it was opted to re-auction it as Jan van den Hoecke (1611-1651). It reminded me for a moment of the story also associated with a work named 'Neptune' in Dieppe.

In conclusion, the quoted examples offered a solution to finally come to Artus Wolffort (1581-1641) in the case of the present Allegory of the Four Elements of Nature. With the obvious conclusion that the canvas can be considered as being made by him. With a second but larger version in Stuttgart.

— Text by dr. Jean-Pierre De Bruyn

1 Een boeiende vergelijking kan gemaakt worden met Pieter van Mol (1599-1650),

Portrait of Artus Wolffort by Antony van Dyck

Personificatie van de Lucht (doek, 120 x 97,5 cm) in het Musée des Beaux-Arts te Valence,inv. P.133. De Paradijsvogel kan ook gelinkt worden aan Urania, godin van de lucht.2Hans Vlieghe, Zwischen Van Veen und Rubens: Artus Wolffort (1581-1641), ein vergessenerAntwerpener Maler, Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 39, Keulen, 1977, pp. 93-1363Zie daaromtrent Jean-Pierre de Bruyn, Erasmus Quellinus, in de voetsporen vanRubens (Cassel, Musée de Flandre, 2014, cat. nrs. 3.4 en 3.5)The version studied here was brought to my attention because of (clear) analogies with a painting attributed to Erasmus II Quellinus (1607-1678) in collaboration with Peter Boel (1622-1674) [Prague, Narodni Galerie, inv. DO4357] and even more with a version in the Château-Musée of Dieppe (entry 4861-974.2.1). Neptune is portrayed on both of these works, and the analogy with his counterpart to the work studied here is immediately striking.

As far as the canvas in Prague is concerned (which, like the Dieppe version, is very close to the Wolffort style) I could refer to a number of 17th-century documents that allowed a possible link with Quellinus: '1 Seegodt of Quellinus, the fish of Peeter Boel ... and on the other hand a painting not yet recovered with a representation of 1 Vulcanus by Quellinus, the resurfaces by Peeter Boel ... In this context fascinating because both works fit in a series around the 'Four elements of nature'.

But doubts remained and Vlieghe suggests that Quellinus may have copied a prototype of Wolffort (version in Prague). Finally, he prefers Artus Wolffort as the author of the canvas in Dieppe, which he dates back to around 1620. I follow his opinion.

It is interesting, however, that in the art collection of Erasmus II Quellinus mention is made of a judgment of Salomons, of Wolfaert. Wolffort was certainly no stranger to him. In any case, the problem concerning this type of paintings remains up to date. Recently, September 2018, my opinion was asked about a (coincident) similar presentation; 'Allegory of the four elements of nature', Christie's, New York. That work was once offered as Jan van den Hoecke and later also associated with Erasmus II Quelli-

The Four Elements are represented here by four nearly life-size figures, shown together and sitting around a brook. From left to right we successively see Fire, Air, Water and Earth. Fire is represented here by Vulcan with a burning torch or a big candle and a forge-hammer. Air is visualized by a young naked man, probably representing the sun god Apollo. He is shown here, sitting on clouds and having in his hands a bird of paradise and a stick from which dead birds hang. Water is represented by Neptune, shown here with his trident and pouring out water and fishes into the brook. Earth finally appears as Ceres, the goddess of fertility, shown here with a cornucopia and a white rabbit, a very fertile animal. There is a second and equivalent version of this composition in the Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart (no. 2223). I have been able to attribute that work to the painter Artus Wolffort on stylistic grounds (see in this respect: Hans Vlieghe, ‘Zwischen Van Veen und Rubens: Artus Wolffort, ein vergessener Antwerpener Maler’, Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch. Westdeutsches Jahrbuch for Kunstgeschichte, XXXIX, 1977, pp. 109, 111). In both versions the rendering of the figures is strikingly similar to that in other paintings by the same master, some of them also signed or monogrammed.

The most striking features of Wolffort’s personal style are: a distinct illusionism in the rendering of hair, beard and facial details; a certain stiffness in the rendering of gestures and garment folds; local colouring. Wolffort was a painter who had been in close contact with the workshops of both, Otto van Veen and Rubens. He has assisted the latter in the execution of the many public decorations that had to be erected in Antwerp, on occasion of the ceremonial State Entry of Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand as the new Spanish governor of the Southern Netherlands. The strongly plastic quality of

the monumental allegorical figures betrays a certain affinity with similar compositions from c. 1620 or somewhat earlier by Rubens and his somewhat elder contemporary Abraham Janssen(s). Also the here discussed work by Wolffort should, in my opinion, is dated around the same period. But Wolffort here also shows a clear connection with the classicism of Otto van Veen.

— Text by Hans Vlieghe, 3 December 2018

34 35

attributed to Michiel Van Mierevelt

Delft 1567 – 1641 Delft Portrait of a husband and wife

H|w 93 x 71,5 cm work Oil on panel Dated 1624 - 1626 Aetatis 27 (the male portrait)

On the back a 17th century written texte is found - De Luffel ?

50 51

attributed to Adriaen Jansz Kraen

Haarlem 1619 – 1679 Haarlem A still-life of a silver cup, strawberries in a wan-li bowl, a loaf bread, raisons and three roomers on a table ledge decorated with a red table cloth

H|w 61 x 84 cm work Oil on panel

We want to thank Dr. Fred Meijer who identified this painting as being original by Adriaen Jansz Kraen on the basis of first-hand inspection

attributed to Roelof Koets

Haarlem 1592/93 – 1655 Haarlem Still life with a peeled lemon, a pewter to the left, a roomer, a bread, a crab, a wine glass and a columbine cup on a table with a white wrinkled table cloth

work Oil on panel Attributed to Roelof Koets by Dr. Fred Meijer (2018)

H|w 70,5 x 93 cm

The still lifes of Pieter Claesz. and Willem Claesz. Heda attracted a large following, particularly in their home town, Haarlem. Among their followers there was Adriaen Kraen, who was registered as a pupil of the history painter Jacob de Wet I in 1638 and who became a master in the Haarlem painters’ guild in 1642. From that same year stems his only known dated still life, an upright composition with a cup screw, somewhat reminiscent of Heda’s work, but of a fully mature and individual quality. It would seem that many of the signatures on his paintings were erased in the past in order to pass

them off under better known names. The present still life, among the works of the followers of Heda and Claesz., seems to fit best in Kraen’s oeuvre. Several features show a strong similarity: the sharp highlights and reflections in the glasses, the rendering of the bread roll, the round, marble-like grapes, and the prominent porcelain dish of strawberries all seem to connect it to Kraen’s work. The palette of this still life is somewhat cooler than his usually is, however, and the shapes of the objects are les sturdy, and the overall handling is smoother, which calls for some reservation in the attribution.

This still life is strongly reminiscent of the work of Pieter Claesz. from around 1650, but the execution is not entirely up to his standard. The handling of the white cloth, however, and that of the nuts and the crab come quite close. A very similar small silvergilt-cup appears in a still life attributed to Claesz. and Roelof Koets (as such in M. Brunner-Bulst, Pieter Claesz. […], 2004, cat. no. 201, dated to 1652/53). It may well be, however, that that painting is by Koets alone. Roelof Koets is something of a cameleon in his work. In the second half of the 1620s, he painted several compositions in the manner of the Haarlem nestor of still-life painting, Floris van Dijck (1574/75-1651). Subsequently, he specialized in painting fruit, mainly grapes and vine, and apples, in a soft, almost transparent manner, which subject he also contributed to still lifes by

Pieter Claesz. From c. 1640 on, he also painted still lifes that mimicked the style, handling, and compositions of Pieter Claesz. A signed example in which he combined his characteristic fruit with a Claesz.-type still life is in the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, and another example, with a crab and a lemon very similar to those in the present painting, was with Lawrence Steigrad in New York in 2006. An interesting feature in this still life is the lemon, which appears to have been peeled left-handed. Almost all lemons in Pieter Claesz.’s still lifes have been peeled in that way, which suggests that the artist was probably left-handed. In other still lifes by Koets, lemons are usually peeled right-handed, but in this still life and in the signed example in Memphis they are not, which shows his dependence on Claesz’s model.

56 57