One work which shows influences of Rubens’s pictorial style is The Finding of Moses (fig. 33). The female figures in this work show similarities with the female figures in Antiochus and Stratonice. The application of skin tones shows how de Vos used the lighter yellow and pink tones to point out the elegant and delightful appearance of these women. The hair of centered lady in red is painted with very light yet quick brushstrokes to imitate the curly and delicate appearance of the hair.
Fig. 33. Cornelis de Vos, The Finding of Moses
In addition, the clothing is painted very beautifully and in a much more manneristic style than the clothing in the present composition. The clothing in The Finding of Moses portrays a very silky and smooth appearance and actually differs from Rubens’s style. The only similarity is that de Vos used a light source, which reflects off of the garment, as can be seen in Stratonice’s dress. The effective execution of fabrics and local colors can be seen in the present composition and can also be seen in the paintings by de Vos.
This particular work of de Vos, even though said to be painted in the 1630s, shows a close relationship in composition and motif, but the painting style is much more manneristic. Since de Vos’s studio and Rubens’s studio collaborated it is very likely that he might have had a hand in the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice, but it remains difficult to prove.
Pieter Soutman (1593/1601-1657)
According to the biography of Philip Rubens, Pieter Soutman was active in Rubens’s studio and can be compared to the activities of Anthony van Dyck.
60Soutman came to Antwerp to work for Rubens due to the studio’s highly-regarded reputation. He created preliminary sketches for graphic work after Rubens’s paintings, as well as, etchings for himself after Rubens’s paintings. Very little is known about Soutman as a painter, besides that he possibly had a hand in hunting scenes in Rubens’s works from around 1620.
61His work Four Evangelists is presumed to date from his time with Rubens because the composition and figures correspond to that of Rubens’s manner (fig. 34).
62Although the faces in the composition differ majorly to those in Rubens’s works, the brushstrokes show a close similarity, especially in the clothing. The use of lighter paint layers on top of darker ones is well- known to Rubens and can be seen in the painting of the Four Evangelists. The swooping manner and the use of grays and blacks to define shadows and folds in the clothing appears to be directly copied from Rubens.
Fig. 34 Pieter Soutman, Four Evangelists
60 Reiffenberg, Baron de, ed. “Vita Petri Pauli Rubenii (1676),” in Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, X (1837), p. 11.
61 Balis, Arnout. Rubens Hunting Scenes, p. 40.
62 Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: A Review of the Evidence in The Age of Rubens, p. 164.
The overall quality of the painting is not very high, which can be due to old age and bad preservation. The painting shows thinning of color pigments and paint abrasion. Thus, it is difficult to discuss the quality of the original composition.
Just as the aforementioned artists, Soutman can be as much of a candidate as the others to have worked on Antiochus and Stratonice since he was a student within Rubens’s workshop during the years in which the composition portrays the painting style of Rubens’s later career.
Abraham van Diepenbeeck (1596-1675)
Abraham van Diepenbeeck was registered as a glass painter in the Guild of St. Luke, where he mostly designed and painted glass windows for the churches and monasteries in Antwerp. The drawn and painted preparatory studies for his glass windows, which have survived, show the stylistic influence of Rubens’s “more dynamic designs” from 1620 and onwards.
63It is known that van Diepenbeeck worked as a draftsman for Rubens during the later 1620s. He drew designs for prints under Rubens’s orders as well as preparatory drawings for the master’s ideas, such as for a print representing Neptune and Minerva.
In addition, it can be presumed that around 1632 Rubens asked van Diepenbeeck to create drawings after famous mannerist paintings of Primaticcio and Niccolo dell’Abbate in Paris and Fontainebleau.
64The number of paintings that are known by van Diepenbeeck stem from his later period starting from around 1650. It seems probable that he was involved in some of Rubens’s paintings, such as Saint Cecilia (fig. 35), which had been attributed to Rubens for a long time, but has recently been related to van Diepenbeeck. Thus, the question remains as to what other paintings did van Diepenbeeck paint in Rubens’s studio? Could he have had a hand in the composition of Antiochus and Stratonice?
63 Ibid.
64 Wood, J. Padre Resta’s Flemish Drawings. Van Diepenbeeck, Van Thulden, Rubens, and the School of Fountainebleu, pp. 3-53.
Fig. 35. Abraham van Diepenbeeck, Saint Cecilia
According to Vlieghe, the facial expression of the Saint Cecilia correspond with the physiognomy of some of Rubens’s figures painted in the twenties.
65This facial expression is also noticeable in Antiochus and Stratonice where Antiochus is looking with a somewhat hopeful look at Stratonice just like the saint is looking into the sky.
Besides the facial expression, the painting style of the drapery in the background is closely related to the brushwork of Rubens, as can be seen in the red drapery behind Antiochus and Stratonice in the present composition. Since a color photograph of the painting was impossible to find, it is difficult to discuss the application of paint layers and the use of color.
Willem Panneels (1590/1610-1634)
Willem Panneels was presumably in contact with Rubens, which can be traced to a statement by Rubens from 1 June 1630 where he comments on Panneels having been a good caretaker of his house and atelier from 1628 to 1630 while Rubens was abroad on a diplomatic
65 Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: A Review of the Evidence in The Age of Rubens, p. 165.
mission.
66A large number of drawings from that two-year period can be attributed to Panneels that copy paintings, oil sketches, and drawings by Rubens. Furthermore, he created etchings after Rubens’s compositions, which he even captions with a phrase stating that they have been made after Peter Paul Rubens. The “heroic-looking” figures have Rubensian origins with a slight difference in anatomy where the figures appear more “inflated and slack.”
67Unfortunately, after 1632 there is no further information about Panneel’s whereabouts and life.
The work of St. Sebastian, which has been attributed to Panneel, shows this phenomenon with the figure of the saint being painted in a very manneristic manner yet the clothing is painted with much rougher brushstrokes (fig. 36). The defined muscles of St. Sebastian are painted with blue and green tones underneath the pink, yellow and brown skin tones to achieve a dramatic look. The clothing of each figure shows close similarity to the draperies and clothing in Rubens’s works.
Fig. 36. Willem Panneels, St. Sebastian
66 Génard, Pierre. Petrus-Paulus Rubens en Willem Panneels, pp. 220-223.
67 Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: A Review of the Evidence in The Age of Rubens, p. 165.
Although this work by Panneels is closer to Rubens’s earlier painting style from 1612-1620, one can still see how Panneels must have adapted his manner from the latter. The light and dark tones that are smoothly painted on top of each other can also been seen in Antiochus and Stratonice. Even though the painting does not appear in the best condition, similarities and differences can still be detected and the conclusion can be made that there is a possibility that Panneels had a hand in this work just like the other apprentices in Rubens’s studio. !
Theodoor van Thulden (1606-1669)
Theodoor van Thulden became a master in 1626 in Antwerp where his earliest recorded work stems from 1630. In 1635, Rubens recruited him to work on the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi. He also had a hand in the paintings for the Torre de la Parada.
68There are no recorded documents about the contact between Rubens’s studio and van Thulden, but the political and allegorical motifs van Thulden used in his compositions suggest differently. He also used the fleshy figures and physiognomy, a characteristic of Rubens.
69Van Thulden is possibly one of the more likely artists to have been connected to Antiochus and Stratonice. Not only is this suggested by the closely related painting manner to Rubens, but there is also a work known with the subject of Antiochus and Stratonice by van Thulden (fig. 37). This painting was falsely associated with the sketch by Sir Joshua Reynolds, which was thought to be the painting that Reynolds saw during his travels to Antwerp in 1781 (see Chapter VI). However, this composition differs greatly from the sketch because the composition is much more spread out giving the viewer a wide-angle view of the activities within the painting.
68 Id., p. 166.
69 Ibid.
Fig. 37. Theodoor van Thulden, Antiochus and Stratonice
Van Thulden chose to place Stratonice on the left of the bed instead of seating her to the right, as can been seen in the painting discussed. Eristratus stands to the right of the composition and Seleucus, the king, is seated in the foreground to the left facing Antiochus. Additional figures populate the composition whereas the composition of discussion shows a close-up view with only six characters.
The painting style is very similar to that of the present composition and thus the question arises whether van Thulden could have possibly created a different composition with the same subject. The face and skin of van Thulden’s Stratonice is executed with the same bright and pale skin tones as Stratonice’s skin in the present painting. Her hair is blond and her dress is beautifully executed and decorated with jewels just as in the other painting. The physician is also holding the arm of Antiochus to feel his pulse and his clothing and appearance is very closely related to that of the physician in the other work.
The one major difference between van Thulden’s work and the work of discussion is that the king is present in van Thulden’s composition. In addition, the painting appears much smoother in painting style and much higher in quality overall. The question remains whether van Thulden could have painted two different works with the same subject or whether he copied the work from Rubens’s studio adding more characters and his own authentic twist.
Jan Boeckhorst (1604-1668)
Jan Boeckhorst’s activities within Rubens’s studio can be traced to reports made by Cornelis de Bie and Philip Rubens.
70The inventory of Rubens in 1640 shows that Boeckhorst completed paintings that had been left unfinished, which indicates that he must have been close to Rubens.
One of these paintings executed by him is David, which shows David playing the harp (fig. 38). When looking closely at this painting close similarities to Rubens’s painting style can be detected. The rough brushstrokes in the clothing and the hair of David can be compared to that of Eristratus, the physician, in Antiochus and Stratonice. The clothing of David appears to have been painted with quick and edgy brushstrokes to achieve the voluminous effect as can also be seen in the mantle of Eristratus. Lighter hues of yellow have been placed lightly on top of the darker ochre and brown tones to add edges and creases. The fur collar, although thinly applied, has also been painted very quickly and roughly just as can be seen in the fury parts of Eristratus’s mantle. The hair of David is painted much smoother than the hair of Eristratus and can be closer related to Antiochus’s hair with a soft and swooping manner.
Fig. 38. Jan Boeckhorst, David
70 Ibid.
In addition, the jewels around David have been painted just as delicately as the jewels in Stratonice where pinpoints of lighter pigments are applied on top of the jewels to give it a grandiose appearance. The background of Boeckhorst’s work also shows that changes had been made because a structure-like background is noticeable below the dark overpainted background.
It appears as if Rubens retouched some of Boeckhorst’s works as is stated with a painting in an Antwerp collection in 1655.
71This fact points out that Rubens was retouching and/or preparing the works of his assistants and apprentices and thus it is possible that Rubens did the same on Antiochus and Stratonice.
The close relationship in painting style with the figure of David and Erasistratus opens up the possibility that Boeckhorst was one of the more likely candidates to have had a hand in the painting of discussion.
Erasmus Quellinus II (1607-1678)
Erasmus Quellinus II’s activities within the studio of Rubens is well documented due to his working drawings for prints made after Rubens’s designs. He participated in the creation of the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi as well as the Torre de la Parada. Rubens gave Quellinus a lot of freedom when it came to the instructions of works he was asked to do.
72Rooses suggests that the “top-rated assistant” had to be Quellinus because the artist was asked to complete unfinished works by Rubens after the latter’s death for the Spanish King Philip IV.
73Before Quellinus became a master, he cooperated in the execution of Rubens’s works, such as Achilles and Chiron from the Achilles series (fig. 39).
74
71 Ibid.
72 Id., p. 167.
73 Rooses, Max and Ruelens, Charles. Correspondance de Rubens et Documents Epistolaires concernant sa Vie et ses Oeuvres Publies, pp. 304-305.
74 Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: A Review of the Evidence in The Age of Rubens, p. 167.
Fig. 39. Erasmus Quellinus II, Achilles and Chiron
The head of Achilles is much more classicistic with soft brushstrokes, which is closer to Quellinus’s painting style. However, the clothing of Achilles is painted with light and dark hues of red on top of a bright red to show the texture and volume of the clothing. This is closely related to the drapery in Antiochus and Stratonice. The hair of Achilles is painted in a swooping manner and the volume of the hair is achieved by using lighter pigments on top of darker ones, which can be seen in the hair of Antiochus. The face of Chiron on the other hand is executed very similarly to the faces of the elderly men in Antiochus and Stratonice. The hair is painted with quick brushstrokes and in a dabbing manner to achieve a curly and frizzy hair texture. Grey colors are layered on top of black colors and white colors are then again layered on top of the gray colors.
The skin tones of Chiron also show a close resemblance to Rubens’s manner because yellow, white, and pink tones are layered on top of brown and ochre tones to define the muscles and wrinkles in the skin. In addition, the light reflects off of the skin and immediately catches the viewer’s eye to point out the importance of the character, which is also noticeable in the figure of Antiochus. The facial expression of Achilles can be closely related to the facial expression of Antiochus as a surprising look is noticeable on both figures.
Thus, a relationship between the two artists and their painting style in figures is closely related and therefore the possibility of Quellinus’s contribution to Antiochus and Stratonice is not out of the questions.
Jan van den Hoecke (1611-1651)
Jan van den Hoecke, whose name is displayed on the frame of the present composition, also reveals a similar painting style to that of Rubens. The records of the Guild of St. Luke do not reveal where he received his training nor about when he became a master.
75It can be assumed that he was an apprentice in Rubens’s studio since Philip Rubens mentions him in his biography as one of the assistants of Rubens. A number of oil sketches have been attributed to him, which can help reconstruct his possible activities.
Triumph of David is one of these works that portray the later painting style of Rubens from the 1630s (fig. 40). The female figures can be closely related to the female figures in Antiochus and Stratonice. Not only do the faces of the female figures match that of Stratonice in the present composition, but the brushstrokes of the hair of David also match the hair of Antiochus with its softer and swooping manner. Additionally, the texture of the clothing of the female figures can be closely related to the texture of Stratonice’s dress. The dress of the female figure in the center of Triumph of David shares the same use of color where purple and yellow are applied simultaneously to achieve a flowing and silky texture.
75 Id., p. 168.
Fig. 40. Jan van den Hoecke, Triumph of David
The skin tones of the figures also share similarities with Antiochus and Stratonice because the lighter yellow and white tones are vibrant on top of darker tones. Lastly, what is interesting to note is that David’s skin tone is a different and darker shade than that of the female figure, which can also be seen in Antiochus and Stratonice where Stratonice’s skin tone is much lighter in color than Antiochus’s skin color. Even though this is an oil sketch close similarities are noticeable.
Thus, Rubens’s oeuvre appears to have been an important example for van den Hoecke to use in his compositions.
76Unfortunately, there are no records of van den Hoecke ever painting a work with the subject of Antiochus and Stratonice, but the possibility of him being part of this work cannot be ruled out due to the close resemblance in painting style.
Conclusion
In conclusion, even though the aforementioned artists were recorded to have worked with and for Rubens in his studio, it is difficult to say whether they had a hand in the composition of Antiochus and Stratonice. The painting style within this composition is very similar to that of some of these artists, but since there is no definite proof it is difficult to make such a decision.
The painters, who have been discussed in detail and whose works have been compared to
76 Ibid.
Rubens’s painting manner and Antiochus and Stratonice, all show characteristics in some way or another that could indicate their contribution to this work. Since Rubens had so many additional assistants and students that remain unknown, the circle is opened up even more, which makes it even more difficult to say who might have created or contributed to the painting.
Even more importantly Rubens could have painted this work by himself. The work is very well executed and possibly too good to have been painted by an assistant. But on the other hand he could have started the painting and allowed a student to finish it or the other way around where an assistant could have started the work and Rubens added last touches.
What is interesting to note is that the changes made within the composition, such as the re-positioning of the physician’s ear and the removal of the third female figure, point out a possibility of a studio practice or collaboration between artists.
The main question that remains though is if Rubens did not paint this work and gave it to one of his students or assistant, why did he do so and what was his motif for this specific topic?
Was he too busy to complete this work on his own due to the high number of commissioned paintings he was working on? Was it a work he wanted a student to practice with? Or was it a painting that was dear to him and he wanted to keep for himself, as he did with so many paintings?
Unfortunately, a more definitive conclusion can only be made through further research and technical and chemical testing, thus this question remains unanswered.
Chapter VI: Provenance of the Painting
There are no existing records that Peter Paul Rubens ever painted a work with the subject of Antiochus and Stratonice. The knowledge about the provenance dates back to the 18th century.
This painting was first documented in the collection of a “Mr. Dasch.” Sir Joshua Reynolds, when visiting the Netherlands and Belgium in 1781, viewed the painting in the collection of Mr. Dasch and states that the subject was of Seleucus and Stratonice, a story of “the languishing air of the son, who is lying on a bed.” He called this a “Rubens” noting that it was
“eminently beautiful” and well composed.
77Reynolds wrote a note and drew a sketch of the composition, which resembles this painting (fig. 41 and 42).
Fig. 41. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Sketch from Reynolds‘ Journal Fig. 42. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Note from Reynolds‘ Journal
When looking at the sketch one can see three figures to the left of the frame and three figures to the right of the composition. On the left side two figures are visible facing the figures on the right, while one figure is facing the viewer as can be seen by the crossed lines Reynolds drew on the head to point out the frontal view. One of the figures on the left is pushed into the foreground as the other two figures appear to be standing behind him. The figure closest to the viewer appears to have his arm stretched out towards one of the figures to the right. The figure
77 Mount, Henry, ed. Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Journey to Flanders and Holland, p. 79.
on the left, whose arm appears to be touching the arm of the other figure to the left, seems to be laying down but facing to the side, which is also indicated by the crossed lines drawn on the face.
To the left of the laying figure is an additional figure where only the upper part of the body can be seen and who appears to be facing slightly to the side where the laying figure is. In addition, a seated figure can be seen to the right of the laying figure, who appears to be leaning on one arm and facing away from the viewer. A few written words can be seen on the sketch, which are difficult to identify. Though through the addition of scribbled lines throughout the composition it becomes apparent that those parts must be filled with clothing or other details.
In comparison to the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice, many close similarities can be detected. The painting also shows three figures to the left and three figures to the right (fig. 43).
Just as it is drawn in the sketch, the figure to the left in the foreground, who is Erasistratus, has his arms extended touching the hand of Antiochus to feel his pulse. Two of the elderly men are facing Antiochus while one is facing the viewer. The center figure to the right is laying down as it is portrayed in the sketch and one figure is on each side of him, presumably Stratonice and the female attendee. Stratonice is seated in the painting, leaning on her arm as the other arm rests on her lap, which can also be seen in the sketch because the figure to the right in the foreground is placed at a lower height appearing to be seated. The female attendee, who is fluffing Antiochus’s pillow, can only be seen quarter-length from the chest upwards. The scribbled lines in the sketch indicating that the canvas is painted on those spots can also be seen in the painting in that the curtain hangs behind the figures on the right as well as the blanket on top of Antiochus and the clothing of the figures.
Fig. 43. Peter Paul Rubens (?), Antiochus and Stratonice
Since the painting that Reynolds saw and called a “Rubens” had never been seen again after that point, art historians and art specialists did not follow Reynolds’s interpretation and believed that Reynolds’s sketch referred to the painting by Theodoor van Thulden (fig. 44). This painting also depicts the story of Antiochus and Stratonice and is very similar in composition, thus being a reasonable candidate to match the sketch. Van Thulden’s painting gives the viewer a wide-angle view and incorporates more figures and objects within the space. The King is seated to the left with two male figures standing behind him watching the physician, who is feeling Antiochus’s pulse. Antiochus is placed in the center lying in bed as Stratonice is standing to the left and the physician to the right of the bed. Two additional figures are placed to the right of the bed behind the physician and three female figures, possibly Stratonice’s attendees, are placed to the left of the bed behind Stratonice. The bed of Antiochus is fully visible, as well as, a table to the right of him with different objects placed on top. The seat of the King, Seleucus, is also visible within this composition and the viewer gets a sense of depth as the columns in the background, creating a hallway, guide the viewer’s eye further away.
Fig. 44. Theodoor van Thulden, Antiochus and Stratonice
The sketch does not depict the large amount of details that are shown in the composition of van Thulden. Even though the placement of figures is similar to the painting of discussion, the sketch would show more figures within the composition if it was in fact related to van Thulden’s work.
The “Rubens” composition of Antiochus and Stratonice shares a much closer resemblance to the sketch than van Thulden’s painting. Thus, it becomes clear that the sketch in fact does represent the newly found painting and not the painting by Theodoor van Thulden, which means that Reynolds must have seen the present composition in the collection of Mr.
Dasch in 1781.
It is known that Reynolds was knowledgeable about art himself. He was the first president of the Royal Academy in London and had studied Rubens and his oeuvre, as can be seen in The Literary Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, where Reynolds discusses in detail the character of Rubens and what figure he played during his lifetime. Reynolds states that “the elevated situation on which Rubens stands in the esteem of the world is alone sufficient reason for some examination of his pretensions.”
78In addition, Reynolds said that he had seen Rubens’s “greatest compositions,” which raised his “estimation of [Rubens’s] genius.”
79Reynolds also wrote in his book, Discourses on Art, about the theories of art and what it takes to be a great artist in both theory and practice. In
78 Reynolds, Joshua Sir. The Literary Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, pp. 228-229.
79 Id., p. 230.
this he shows that he was not only confronted with masters, such as Rubens, but also with literary works from the Antique.
80This shows that the judgment of Reynolds, calling the painting he saw in 1781 a “Rubens” can be taken seriously since he had knowledge about art theory and practice, in particular about the painting technique and quality of authentic works by Rubens.
However, even the most educated connoisseurs can make mistakes. Thus, this raises the question whether Reynolds truly saw a work by Rubens or made a mistake attributing this work to him since it shows such a close resemblance to the painting manner of the master. What can almost be concluded with certainty is that the sketch Reynolds drew of the painting he saw in the collection of Mr. Dasch in 1781 depicts the newly found painting of Antiochus and Stratonice.
What remains unanswered is whether this work was actually painted by Rubens or just painted within his studio since it shares similarities with both the latter’s studio practice and painting technique. Was Reynolds told by Mr. Dasch that this painting was executed by Rubens or did he decide on the artist himself after viewing the work? This question remains open for further research. What can be said is that Reynolds was knowledgeable about Rubens and his oeuvre and certainly had the ability to make the distinction between an authentic Rubens and one not completed by Rubens. However, as previously mentioned, any connoisseur or expert can make a mistake and misread details.
Reynolds also mentioned in his journal additional works in the collection of Mr. Dasch.
As Reynolds describes, the following paintings were in Mr. Dasch’s collection in 1781: “a woman with a black veil, and a gentleman, by Rubens; both fine portraits, especially the woman.
Two Rembrandts, but not in his best style. Opposite to the Rubens, [was] a Jupiter and Antiope, by Vandyck, (his first manner) in perfect preservation.”
81All of the aforementioned paintings, besides the painting of Jupiter and Antiope by Anthony van Dyck, were too vaguely described to research further. Perhaps if finding out where the painting by van Dyck had been previously or thereafter it could give us a hint on where the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice might have been before and after the 18th century.
Unfortunately, the following information did not help in finding out any more about the
80 Reynolds, Joshua Sir. Discourses on Art, pp. 23, 66.
81 Mount, Henry, ed. Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Journey to Flanders and Holland, p. 80.
provenance on the newly found painting. Anthony van Dyck painted two almost identical versions with the subject of Jupiter and Antiope, where one is now in the Wallraf-Richartz- Museum in Cologne and the other in the Museum voor Schone Kunsten Gent in Ghent.
According to the RKD, the version in Ghent had been acquired by the art dealer Colnaghi in 1900.
82The version in Cologne on the other hand had been recorded in the private collection of Peter Paul Rubens in 1640, was acquired by the Earl of Coventry in 1900 and bought by the art dealer Heinemann in 1928 in Munich.
83Since it is unclear where the version in Ghent was located prior to 1900 and the version in Cologne was between 1640 and 1900, it is difficult to say which version was in the collection of Mr. Dasch. This, in turn, stops the lead to any connection the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice could have had to the painting of Jupiter and Antiope in relationship to a previous location. Thus, the provided information does not give us any more knowledge about the location of the present composition.
Even though in the printed version of A Journey to Flanders and Holland it states “at Mr.
Dasch’s,” the original hand-written note appears to have the letter ‘e’ behind the name Dasch, which turns into Dasche (fig. 45). After further research, the name D’assche appeared, which was a well-known Belgian noble family name. It is very likely that Reynolds misspelled the name and thus ‘Dasch’ is actually meant to be spelled ‘D’assche.’ The title of the journal entry says
“the cabinet of M. Dasch,” thus it was interesting to see if there were any members of the D’assche family who had a first name with the initial ‘M.’
82 RKD, Institute for Art History. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar
%5D%5B%5D=Dyck%2C+Anthony+van&query=jupiter+and+antiope&start=0
83 RKD, Institute for Art History. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar
%5D%5B%5D=Dyck%2C+Anthony+van&query=jupiter+and+antiope&start=1
Fig. 45. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Note from Reynolds’ Journal
The living family member of D’assche during the time of Reynolds’s travels could have been Maximilien Louis van der Noot de Schoonhoven D’assche. Maximilien D’assche was born 29 May, 1764, making him 17 years old at the time of Reynolds’s visit.
84His great-grandfather was Jean de Cottereau-Wideux, Marquis D’assche, Baron van Jau from whom the name stems.
85Even though records show that the D’assche family originates from Brussels, it is known that the daughter of Jean de Cottereau-Wideux, Marquis D’assche, Catherine Louise de Cottereau, who was the grandmother of Maximilien Louis van der Noot de Schoonhoven D’assche, was born in Antwerp.
86Since there are no existing records of Maximilien D’assche living in Antwerp and since he was only 17 years old at the time, it is unclear whether he was the “Mr. Dasch” whom Reynolds visited. Thus, one might have to assume that the initial ‘M’ stands for ‘Marquis’ rather than ‘Maximilien,’ of which we know that the D’assche’s carried this noble title. It is very likely that Reynolds visited in fact the private collection of one of the D’assche family members. The Felix Archief, which is the public records archive in Antwerp, was not able to produce any useful information because every record dated before 1800 had to be searched through a known
84 Geneanet. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. http://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=en&p=maximilien&n=van+der+noot+d +assche
85 Geneanet. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. http://gw.geneanet.org/nobily?lang=fr&pz=elisabeth+therese+marie +helene&nz=de+belgique&ocz=0&p=jean&n=de+cottereau
86 Geneanet. Web. 30 Mar. 2016. http://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=en&p=catherine+louise&n=de+cottereau
birthdate and birth place, which is unknown to us. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the collection of Mr. Dasch was related to the Belgian noble family tree of D’assche, but it could very much be the case due to the aforementioned relations and similarities.
According to the current owner of the painting, the painting has been in his family collection for a long time. Due to confidentiality agreements it is not possible to reveal the current owner’s identity nor question him for further information on the provenance. It can be assured though that the current owner is not related to the D’assche family. Even though it was possible to establish a connection between the painting, Reynolds’s sketch, and Mr. Dasch, it remains unclear who the painting was really with and where it remained after the 18th century. It is very likely that the painting got lost or stored somewhere during the war and other historical events.
Conclusion
As previously mentioned, Reynolds was very knowledgeable about art and art theory. He was well read about the Antique and artists from all over Europe. Since he himself was an artist and teacher, having studied the oeuvre of Rubens closely, his opinion and remarks on the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice can be taken seriously. However, since the “Rubens”
painting he viewed in 1781 was never seen again, his high esteem was questioned by art historians when they related his sketch to Theodoor van Thulden’s painting.
The painting Reynolds viewed can be with certainty related to the newly found painting and since it shows the painting style and motifs from Rubens’s studio practice, he was not mistaken that this painting is of Rubensian decent. Whether the present composition was in fact painted by Rubens himself or by a student or assistant within his studio remains unanswered.
Chapter VII: Technical Research to Be Expected
Since the research discussed in the recent chapters does not provide certainty that the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice was painted by Peter Paul Rubens or within his studio, further technical research should be done. The painting was most recently located at Christie’s in London where it was expected to be sold on July 7, 2016, as the “Studio of Peter Paul Rubens.”
Christie’s in London had completed infrared photography, but stated that nothing special or out of the ordinary was detected to attribute it to Rubens in full or trace it to his studio. The Old Master Paintings Department in London was unable to provide further information on their technical examination, and mostly relied on my research for their upcoming sale. The Rubenianum did not show much interest in the painting either. An underdrawing was visible and in combination with my current research it confirms that the painting had been painted during the time period of Rubens.
The canvas of Antiochus and Stratonice is difficult to read. What is visible with the naked eye is that the canvas appears to have been relined on the reverse, which can be identified through its tough texture. The tissue also appears quite rough on the reverse of the canvas. This makes the study of the canvas support quite inaccessible. Further research can be done concerning the canvas support, which includes for one the investigation of threat density to determine a rough date to rule out any later imitations. Secondly, the question arises whether there are any signs of cusping or scalloping? What is noticeable on the front of the canvas is that on the top and right edges of the canvas either the canvas is visible or the canvas has been cut later on. Could the layer on the top edge be tape?
X-radiographs can be used to answer multiple questions. For one it can show us traces of cusping. If no primary cusping is visible on one or more sides, chances are that the canvas has been cut by later hands. This poses the question whether the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice does in fact show original cusping. It would be interesting to see whether an X-radiograph would give us any such information for this particular painting. In addition, since it is known that Rubens often had multiple pieces of cloth sewn together, it would be interesting to see if this is
the case with this painting. If it shows pieces of cloth sewn together does this mean it stems from Rubens’s studio?
The canvas does not appear to be on its original stretcher. On the reverse tape is visible that is attached to the stretcher. Since tape is a material from the modern world, it is very possible that is was attached on top of the edges of the canvas for support and most likely in recent years.
Since the painting does not appear to be on its original stretcher, the question arises if a radiograph would give us further information on this and tell us whether the painting had been in fact cut or whether there was damage of the edges of the canvas. If it was attached to a new stretcher, then new cusping would possibly be visible too.
In addition, the preparation of the canvas can also be seen through X-radiography.
Rubens’s ground layers were usually of brown and ochre-brown with a layer of grey on top.
Knowing about Rubens’s use of priming layers possible testing of color pigments could be done on the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice to find out whether there is any relationship between the use of colors within Rubens’s studio and this painting. Even the chemical testing of colors under a microscope could tell us more about the paint layers. Do the paint layers of this work share any similarities with the pigments used in authentic Rubensian works? If there was any relationship it would be possible to make a definite decision on whether this work was painted within the studio of Rubens.
As mentioned above, Christie’s in London stated that an underdrawing was detected but it did not show anything out of the ordinary to make a conclusion on this work being by Rubens.
The underdrawing does not reveal itself through the paint layers, but through infrared photography it was possible to see this phenomenon. It would be interesting to see what this underdrawing revealed. Are any changes within the composition visible? Does the underdrawing reveal the third female figure that has been erased by the overlaying paint pigments? If the ear of Erasistratus was changed later could it be possible that the head of the physician was at a different position as well? Such photography could also reveal possible characteristics to Rubens since he liked to prepare his canvases a certain way. Would it be possible to detect a signature?
Thus, infrared photography could be very helpful in determining whether this work was by Rubens.
On the reverse of the canvas a small patch of cloth is visible that is covering a possible hole or damage. This is not visible on the front of the canvas and thus it can be assumed that the damage might have occurred later and only on the relined canvas cloth. Since the painting was taken to London quickly, it was not possible to look at the canvas with a UV light. It is very likely that restorations had been done, even though the painting appears to be in quite original condition. As previously mentioned what can be seen with the naked eye are minor changes, such as the ear of the physician and the removal of the third female figure. Since the painting style on this work is quite rough and the quality of the painting is not as high as known, authentic works by Rubens, restorations cannot be detected with the naked eye. Thus, it would be interesting to see through radiography whether many changes have been done to the painting in later years.
The painting technique can also be a deciding factor on determining whether this work was painted by Rubens himself. Knowing that Rubens liked to use many paint layers to paint his works and use swooping brushstrokes to achieve a certain look in his compositions, radiography would be helpful to determine how this particular painting of Antiochus and Stratonice was approached. How was this work primed? Was a gray layer used on top of an earthy tone for the ground layer? Can multiple layers be seen on the figures and were the flesh tones applied by using lighter yellow and pink tones on top of brown and ochre tones to achieve the vibrant skin tones so characteristic to Rubens? How was the brush used on this painting? Was it painted with big swooping strokes? These questions can be answered through infrared photography and by viewing the layers of paint under a microscope.
Conclusion
Even though all this testing is very time consuming and takes a lot of effort, it would be worth finding out further information about this work. It could be possible to determine whether this work was by Rubens or painted within his studio. Thus, if experts and art historians specialized in Rubens would dedicate some time into this painting, there could be a chance that more will be learned about this work and this could possibly be a new find within the oeuvre if Rubens. Since the research of this thesis was conducted with the naked eye, with limited time,
and without any access to technical tools, much more could be determined about this work. This painting definitely deserves more attention and it is almost certain that technical testing in the future will reveal a lot more than has been seen and said about this work to date. After further research it would be interesting to see whether Rubens painted this work himself, and if he did not, why he would have given this particular work to an assistant or student to work on.
Conclusion
The newly found painting of Antiochus and Stratonice appears to be in fact the work Sir Joshua Reynolds viewed in 1781 during his travels to Antwerp and which he said to be painted by Peter Paul Rubens himself. This work closely resembles the painting style of Rubens and his studio practice. The detailed examination of the present composition shows that it shares many similarities with authentic Rubensian paintings, such as the resemblance of figures, the use of pigments, especially the skin tones on his figures, and the brushwork of his later career.
From my personal research on this beautifully executed painting, I believe it was influenced by Rubens’s teachings and was most likely painted by an artist within his studio. The question still remains whether this work was in fact produced by Rubens himself, completely painted by an assistant or student, or executed by Rubens with the help of a collaborator. Further technical and chemical research, such as X-radiography, Infrared reflectography, stereoscopic microscopy, and IR spectroscopy, is necessary to be able to make a clearer and precise decision to whom this work may be attributed. Since Rubens had so many assistants and students within his studio it will be very difficult to make a definite decision on which artist from the Antwerp school had a hand in the creation of this painting. The most well-known assistants and collaborators who were discussed in this thesis are all possible candidates. Each of them show influences of Rubens stylistic manner, especially from his later career. Unfortunately, it is not enough information to make a definite decision within this short-term research.
Overall, the quality of the painting appears to be lower than what one might be used to when seeing an authentic Rubensian work. This does not mean that works by Rubens all share the same quality. It does points out though that the chance that Rubens added the finishing touch to this work is low because it seems very unlikely that he would have left the painting this unfinished if it was meant to be sold as one of his own authentic works. The visible alterations of the second ear on the physician and the removal of the third female figure are both indications for the work not being finished by him. The question does remain whether this work was painted within his studio and if so why this particular subject was given to one of his assistants. Was the painting meant to remain in his studio as a practice work and or was it meant to be sold as a work
officially by one os his students? Or was this painting one of the unfinished works that remained in his studio, which a student took upon himself to complete?
The painting of Antiochus and Stratonice could definitely benefit from further research in the future because many questions remain unanswered. It is beautifully executed and of a very interesting subject from the Antique of which many artists and scholars have confronted themselves with. Due to the lack of time available for this research and the lack of availability to materials no clear decision can be made on the attribution of this work. Nevertheless, it is quite fascinating that a work, such as this one, which appears to have been viewed by Sir Joshua Reynolds in Antwerp in 1781, has surfaced after hundreds of years. It also reassures the fact that paintings by Rubens and artists from his time are still reappearing and surfacing, especially paintings that were not heard of before. It shows that there are still open ends and possibilities for research within the oeuvre of Rubens but also for additional minor artists who were never heard of or ever received much attention.
Bibliography
Auwera, Joost vander. Rubens: Een Genie aan het Werk, Brussels: Lannoo, 2008.
Balis, Arnout. Landscapes and Hunting Scenes, in Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1986.
Balis, Arnout and Leysen, Thomas. Foreword in Pietro Paulo Rubens: Completing The Corpus Rubenianum, Brussels: King Baudouin Foundation, 2009.
Büttner, Nils and Heinen Ulrich. Peter Paul Rubens: Barocke Leidenschaften, Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2004.
D’ Hulst, R.-A. Jordaens Drawings. Brussels: Arcade, 1974, vol. II, pp. 389-390, fig. 332.
Génard, P. “Petrus-Paulus Rubens en Willem Panneels,” in Rubens-Bulletjn 1 (1882), pp.
220-223.
Glück, Gustav. Rubens, van Dyck und ihr Kreis. Wien: Anton Schroll & Co., 1933, pp. 275-287, pp. 255-267, pp. 303-307, pp. 120-138.
Held, Julius S. The Oil Sketches of Peter Paul Rubens: A Critical Catalogue, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1980.
Hout, Nicholas van. Rubens Unveiled: Notes on the Master’s Painting Technique, Antwerp:
Ludion, 2012.
Hout, Nicholas van. “Meaning and Development of the Ground Layer in Seventeenth Century Painting,” in E. Hermens, A. Ouwerkerk and N. Costaras (eds.), Looking Through Paintings. The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, Leids
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11 (1998), pp. 199-225.
Hout, Nicholas van. “Reconsidering Rubens’s Flesh Colour” in Boletin del Prado 37 (2001), pp.
8-20.
Kuntze, F. “Die Geschichte von dem kranken Königssohne” in Die Grenzboten: Zeitschrift für Politik, Literatur un Kunst (1841-1922), Vol. 48. Berlin: Dt. Verlag, 1889, pp. 214-224.
Liedtke, Walter. Rubens, His Patrons, and Style in Rembrandt, Rubens, and the Art of their Time:
Recent Perspectives. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, vol. XI, 2002, pp.
123-132.
Magurn, Ruth Saunders. The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1991.
Mander, Karel van. Grondt der Edel vry Schilderconst, , fol. 48r, line 20.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mand001schi01_01/mand001schi01_01.pdf
Martin, J. R, “Rubens’s Last Mythological Paintings for Philip IV,” in Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedinis 24 (1976-78), pp. 113-118.
Martin, John R. The Ceiling Paintings for the Jesuit Church in Antwerp in Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard. London and New York: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1968.
Maximus, Valerius. Facta et dicta memoribilia, Book V, p. 528-531.
http://latin.packhum.org/loc/1038/1/66#66
McGrath, Elizabeth. Rubens: Subjects from History, Vol. I +II in Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Arnout Balis ed., London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1997.
Mount, Henry, ed. Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Journey to Flanders and Holland, Cambridge:
University Press, 1996.
Nakamura, Toshiharu. Rubens and his Workshop: The Flight of Lot and his Family from Sodom, Tokyo: The National Museum of Western Art, 1994.
Neumeister, Mirjam. Rubens und seine gemalten Kopien - eine Einführung in die Ausstellung in Rubens im Wettstreit mit Alten Meistern. München: Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen and Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2009, pp. 11-28.
Nicholas, Penny (ed.). Reynolds. London: Royal Academy of Arts and Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986, pp. 319-320, no. 148.
Reiffenberg, Baron de, ed. “Vita Petri Pauli Rubenii (1676),” in Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles 10 (1837), pp. 1-14.
https://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/img/?PID=GDZPPN002528738&physid=phys479#navi Reynolds, Joshua Sir. The Literary Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds. London: Royal Academy, 1819.
Reynolds, Joshua Sir. Sir Joshua Reynolds’s Discourses on Art, ed. Edward Gilpin. Chicago: A.
C. McClurg, 1891.
Rooses, Max and Ruelens, Charles. Correspondance de Rubens et Documents Epistolaires concernant sa Vie et ses Oeuvres Publies (1887-1909), Vol. 6. Antwerp: 1909.
Rooses, Max. L’Oeuvre de P. P. Rubens. Rue Gramaye, 1890, vol. IV, p. 15.
Roy, Alain (ed.). Theodoor van Thulden. Een Zuidnederlandse barokschilder / un peintre baroque du cercle de Rubens. exh. cat. ’s-Hertogenbosch (Noordbrabants Museum) and Strasbourg (Musées de la Ville de Strasbourg): 1991-1992, pp. 155-156, no.16.
Smith, John. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish, and French Painters. London: Smith and Son, 1829-42, II, p. 255, no. 864.
Stechow, Wolfgang. “The Love of Antiochus with Faire Stratonica” in Art in The Art Bulletin.
College Art Association: Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec., 1945), pp. 221-237.
Stechow, Wolfgang. Addenda to “The Love of Antiochus with Faire Stratonica” in Bulletin du museé national de Varsovie. Vol. V, 1, 1964, pp. 1-12.
Vlieghe, Hans. Ruben’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: a Review of the Evidence in
“The Age of Rubens”, Peter C. Sutton, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1993.
Wood, J. Padre Resta’s Flemish Drawings. Van Diepenbeeck, Van Thulden, Rubens, and the School of Fountainebleu, in Master Drawings 18 (1990), pp. 3-53.
For more information regarding the provenance refer to:
Geneanet. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
http://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=en&p=maximilien&n=van+der+noot +d+asscheGeneanet. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
http://gw.geneanet.org/nobily?lang=fr&pz=elisabeth+therese+marie +helene&nz=de+belgique&ocz=0&p=jean&n=de+cottereauGeneanet. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
http://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=en&p=catherine+louise&n=de +cottereauRKD, Institute for Art History. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D%5B%5D=Dyck%2C+Anthony+van&query=jupiter+and+antiope&start=0
RKD, Institute for Art History. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D%5B%5D=Dyck%2C+Anthony+van&query=jupiter+and+antiope&start=1
Index of Paintings
1. The Death of Adonis, Peter Paul Rubens
2. Antiochus and Stratonice, Studio of Peter Paul Rubens (?) 3. Detail of Antiochus and Stratonice
4. Reverse of Antiochus and Stratonice
5. Physician and Deleted female figure of Antiochus and Stratonice 6. Composition of Antiochus and Stratonice
7. Stratonice, Andrea Celesti 8. Stratonice, Sebastiano Ricci
9. Stratonice, Circle of Rembrandt van Rijn 10. Stratonice, Gerard de Lairesse
11. Stratonice, Gerard de Lairesse
12. Antiochus and Stratonice, Theodoor van Thulden 13. Cimon and Pero, Peter Paul Rubens, 1630-1640
14. Rubens with Helene Fourment and their son Peter Paul, Peter Paul Rubens, 1639 15. The Fur, Peter Paul Rubens, 1638
16. The Judgment of Paris, Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1636 17. The Judgment of Paris, Peter Paul Rubens, 1639 18. Female Attendee of Antiochus and Stratonice 19. Stratonice of Antiochus and Stratonice
20. Pythagoras Advocating Vegetarianism, Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1618-1630 21. Elderly Men of Antiochus and Stratonice
22. Physician of Antiochus and Stratonice 23. Baptism of Christ, Peter Paul Rubens
24. The Death of Adonis, Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1614 25. Madonna Adored by Saints, Peter Paul Rubens 26. Madonna Adored by Saints, Peter Paul Rubens 27. Madonna Adored by Saints, Peter Paul Rubens 28. Detail of Ear of Antiochus and Stratonice
29. Deleted female figure of Antiochus and Stratonice 30. Adoration of the Magi, Peter Paul Rubens
31. Flight of Lot and His Daughters, Jacob Jordaens 32. St. Jerome, Anthony van Dyck
33. The Finding of Moses, Cornelis de Vos 34. Four Evangelists, Pieter Soutman 35. Saint Cecilia, Abraham van Diepebeeck 36. St. Sebastian, Willem Panneels
37. Antiochus and Stratonice, Theodoor van Thulden 38. David, Jan Boeckhorst
39. Achilles and Chiron, Erasmus Quellinus II 40. Triumph of David, Jan van den Hoecke
41. Sketch from Reynolds’ Journal, Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1781 42. Note from Reynolds’ Journal, Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1781 43. Antiochus and Stratonice, Peter Paul Rubens (?)
44. Antiochus and Stratonice, Theodoor van Thulden
45. Note from Reynolds’ Journal, Sir Joshua Reynolds, 1781
