The narrow and pruned lips can also be seen on the female attendee in the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice (fig. 18). The straight and pointy nose is recognizable in both Stratonice and the other female figure, as well as, the fuller face with curly hair. The large eyes and the swooping eyebrows can only be seen on the female attendee due to the frontal view the spectator receives when looking at the composition. Stratonice is seated showing her profile and thus, her eyes and lips cannot be fully recognized to decisively determine whether her facial features fully resemble those of Helene Fourment (fig. 19).
! !
Fig. 18. Female Attendee of Antiochus and Stratonice Fig. 19. Stratonice of Antiochus and Stratonice
In addition, the male figure stroking his beard on the left side of the painting appears to be directly borrowed from Rubens’s Pythagoras Advocating Vegetarianism circa 1618-1630 (fig.
20). The brown hair and beard, as well as, the left hand stroking the beard while the rest of the body is covered in a tunic is a match to the left male figure in Antiochus and Stratonice (fig. 21).
The elderly men, especially the physician also share similarities with the old men in other paintings by Rubens.
Fig. 20. Peter Paul Rubens, Pythagoras Advocating Fig. 21. Elderly Men of Antiochus and Stratonice Vegetarianism
In the painting of Cimon and Pero, for example, the head of Cimon is very closely related to that of the physician in Antiochus and Stratonice (fig. 22). This is due to Rubens having painted many studies of heads, especially of old men. The tronies, the head of Cimon, and the head of the physician all share similar characteristics. Each man has long grey and white hair that is curly and frizzy with some hair loss at the top of the head. The men all have a long grey and white beards, as well. Additionally, the profile of Cimon and the physician are identical in that both have larger ears, bushy eyebrows, and a curved nose. The stern look in the physician’s face can also be compared to the serious facial expressions in Rubens’s other head studies.
Fig. 22. Physician of Antiochus and Stratonice
In addition to the use of similar figures and heads in Antiochus and Stratonice and other works by Rubens painted with oil on canvas, the painting style is also closely related to that of Rubens and his studio. It is important to note that working in oils on prepared linen became a more popular practice in the Low Countries during the seventeenth century.
25Prior to linen, the use of oak panel as a medium for paintings was the main source in the Low Countries because it the wood “withstood the ravages of time better and had a smooth surface that suited delicate brushwork.”
26Canvas, on the other hand, had much more of a coarse texture, which added to a blurred look and a blotchy application of the paint. Italian masters, such as Tintoretto and Titian, preferred this medium because it was more suitable for the warm and humid climate in Italy.
However, this is not the reason why Rubens changed his choice medium from panel to canvas.
The transition from wood to linen was made because canvas was much more practical to transport.
27Since Rubens’s clients were spread all across Europe and his paintings needed to be shipped to the patrons and collectors, it became easier and more cost-efficient to paint on linens rather than wood. Rubens preferred linens with a twill weave for very large compositions giving the painting an atmospheric quality.
28Different linen sizes were also mentioned in inventories as
‘double canvas,’ ‘half canvas’ and ‘quarter canvas.’ Rubens often made use of several linens that were sewn together to achieve the exact size he desired for his paintings.
One physician, Théodore Turquet de Mayerne, living in the 17th century explains how such a canvas was prepared during Rubens’ time. He wrote that the linen first had to be removed of any knots or irregularities before it could be smoothed with pumice stone.
29The canvas was then laid on a piece of marble or “porphyry” and covered with glue. The glue consisted of used gloves or old parchment. The pores of the linen that remained open were filled individually by
25
Hout, Nico van. Rubens Unveiled: Notes on the Master’s Painting Technique, p. 46.
26
Id., p. 38.
27
Id., p. 46.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
hand. The canvas had to be stretched on to a frame, which was not done by the artist but by a
‘canvas primer.’ Once the canvas was stretched onto the frame it was coated with a ground layer of ochre-brown, or reddish brown oil paint.
This ochre-brown ground, or priming layer, can be seen in many of Rubens’s compositions, as well as, in the composition of Antiochus and Stratonice. When looking closely at Antiochus and Stratonice, one can see the ochre-brown tone around the head of the man stroking his beard, in the hair of the old man next to him and shining through their flesh tones, as well as, slightly on the edge of Stratonice’s hair, and along the edge of Antiochus’s pillow.
Rubens’s use of ochre-brown as a priming layer was influenced by his time in Italy.
Van Hout argues that Rubens almost always applied a second layer of oil paint on top of the first one, which consisted of lead white, carbon black and earth pigments.
30It shared a cool grey tone and was applied with fan-shaped movements that are often visible through X- radiographs, or even with the naked eye. It is difficult to say whether it was applied in the present composition. It is possible that this cool grey tone is visible in the space between the physician and the female attendee, where a third female figure used to be. These grey tones are visible in the center of the composition, but could also be due to the abrasion of paint layers.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, designs were scaled up with the help of a squared grid. The scale from the modello carried the same amount of squares as the canvas or panel, which was applied with chalk. Rubens was familiar with this method, which can be seen on the modello of his works of Baptism of Christ (fig. 23).
Fig. 23. Peter Paul Rubens, Baptism of Chris
30
Hout, Nicholas van. Meaning and Development of the Ground Layer in Seventeenth Century Painting, pp.
199-225.
In addition, he mentions in a letter from April 23, 1624, that his drawing could easily be reduced by means of a grid.
31There is no visual proof of any such grid being used in Antiochus and Stratonice, which is not surprising since there does not seem to be an existing preparatory sketch for this painting either. The outlines of composition taken from a preliminary sketch were usually copied by Rubens, or one of his assistants, to use as a model for the larger composition.
Different areas of the composition were then outlined with brown or red paint, where the grounding layer was used as the mid-tone acting as a guiding point throughout the painting process. The process of applying the priming layer and the outline of the composition was also known as ‘dead coloring.’ According to van Hout, Anthony van Dyck, who was one of Rubens’s most famous students, stated the following in his notes for a proposed publication:
An artist “must temper his colors properly to the needs of the subject in order to give the design a cadaverous color, once it is dry enough.
Provided that this color most closely matches the color which he thinks will be the principal one dictated by the nature of the work that has been begun, always coating the nude figures with a nude color, the clothed ones on the other hand with a darker color, yet without desiring any further perfection in this rough work than that that color is seen there to some extent, since it must be lighter in some places and darker in others, as the master sees most fit for attaining his end and executing the entire work.”
32Rubens added shape to his compositions during the dead-coloring process by filling in areas around the outlines and the spaces between the figures with a darker color.
33This darker color was usually used around heads, hands, legs, and often between figures. It is difficult to see these darker-colored outlines with the naked eye because Rubens covered them with the topmost paint layers. Without infrared photography it is not possible to say if the present composition in fact uses these darker filled-in zones.
31
Magurn, Ruth Saunders. The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, p. 97.
32
Hout, Nico van. Rubens Unveiled: Notes on the Master’s Painting Technique, p. 62-63.
33
Id., p. 65.
The area around the left hand of Antiochus shows missing paint, though it is unclear whether this is due to the loss of paint pigments, or whether this is in fact from a previous outline along the hand. Around the heads of the three men, darker and lighter zones are visible, implying the possibility that such an outline exists. It is also possible, however, that the ground layer has become visible over time.
Rubens’s extraordinary way of painting the human form and flesh tones was one of the special talents he was known for during his lifetime. Roger de Piles noted in his Dissertation Sur Les Ouvrages Des Plus Fameux Peintres in 1681 that Rubens liked to let the priming layer, also known as imprimatura, shine through the flesh tones of his figures.
34He became especially accustomed to this painting style after visiting Italy in 1614, where he copied the transparent and smooth style of the Italian masters. Using transparent pink tones on grey ground tones Rubens was able to achieve a cool grey flesh tint. This can be seen in many of his works, for example in The Death of Adonis circa 1614 (fig. 24).
Fig. 24. Peter Paul Rubens, The Death of Adonis
The flesh tones of the figures in the composition, especially that of Venus and Adonis, show this phenomenon. The cool grey flesh tint is visible throughout the bodies of Venus and Adonis giving the figures its lively effect. For example, the eye socket of Venus, as well as, her back and arms show the grey substitute shining through and points out how transparent the flesh
34
Hout, Nico van. Reconsidering Rubens’s Flesh Colour, p. 15.
tones really are. Paint sample analysis of Rubens has revealed that he usually used a combination of “lead white, vermilion, and earth pigment (such as ochre) and a little charcoal black (which has a blue sheen) or a blue pigment.”
35Rubens sometimes only used one layer of paint for the flesh tones, but often needed five layers to get the effect he desired.
First, the nude figures were covered with a green-grey flesh color for shadowing. He then used a thick, opaque paint in warmer color tones for the lighter parts and pink tones for highlights. Transparent brown and/or red tones were used for the deep shadows or to define muscles and skin folds. The painting of Antiochus and Stratonice shows similarities in the use of colors for the flesh tones of its figures. The skin of Stratonice shows grayish green undertones with lighter layers on top. It appears that each layer becomes lighter as the artist was painting the figure. In this case, he even used white- and yellow tones to really highlight shapes and lines.
The skin tones of Antiochus especially exemplify this use of dark undercoloring, with brown tones defining the deepest shadows and hues of pink and yellow highlighting muscles and creases.
It was not a secret that Rubens liked to make alterations to his paintings throughout the painting process. Even though he usually had preliminary drawings or oil sketches, he often made changes with the help of his assistants when painting a work on a larger scale. The adjustments, also known as pentimento, are visible in many of his works where one can see that Rubens corrected himself or sought alternative solutions.
36In Madonna Adored by Saints radical changes were made to the composition, which can be seen with the help of his oil sketches located now in Berlin and Frankfurt (fig. 25). The final work shows that Rubens decided to follow the Berlin oil sketch, but without the arched top, which is visible through the paint layers of the altarpiece at the top left and right edges (fig. 26).
In addition, he made changes to the red drapery above the Virgin’s throne, winding it behind the pillar instead of fully wrapping it around, and to the crook of St. Augustine’s crosier, turning it to the right rather than to the left as can be seen in the Frankfurt sketch (fig. 27).
35
Hout, Nico van. Rubens Unveiled: Notes on the Master’s Painting Technique, p. 72-73.
36
Id., p. 74-75.
Fig. 25. Peter Paul Rubens, Madonna Adored by Saints
!
Fig. 26. Peter Paul Rubens, Madonna Adored Fig. 27. Peter Paul Rubens, Madonna Adored by Saints by Saints !
Changes were also made to the composition of Antiochus and Stratonice. The first alteration that can be detected with the naked eye is the ear on the physician. When looking closely one can see that the ear was moved from a previous position (fig. 28). Whether the
physician was facing a different direction or his head was placed at a different angle is unclear and would have to be answered through X-radiography or infrared photography. What is clear though is that the artist decided to change the position of the ear. The rest of the head does not show any signs of alterations, but as previously mentioned can only be declared with certainty after technological testing. What is more questionable is the fact that the ear was not overpainted or erased but left there, thus the physician has two ears overlapping with each other. This arises a question of whether Rubens would have allowed this “sloppy” touch-up in a finished work (probably not), which points out that the work was either done by an assistant or pupil or not touched by his hand at all.
Fig. 28. Detail of Ear of Antiochus and Stratonice
The second alteration that was done to this work can be seen in the center of the composition where there had previously been a third female figure. The third female figure is visible through the naked eye, who once stood next to the female attendee behind the physician (fig. 29). This figure is facing Antiochus and has been overpainted with the extension of the column. Whether the figure was fully covered with paint pigments, which have deteriorated over time, or whether it was purposely left due to lack of care or precision is unclear. The fact that changes were made to the composition does point out though that the work was created with the
input of multiple artists or that an assistant painted the work and Rubens made the changes to the painting to give the composition better proportions.
Fig. 29. Deleted female figure of Antiochus and Stratonice
In addition, Rubens made and kept several paintings for himself, as well as keeping some in the studio as shop remainders. He was very fond of retouching earlier works to match his evolving artistic manner. According to van Hout, the “‘slapdash’ handling of paint was more characteristic to the last decade of his career.”
37This phenomenon can also be seen in the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice where paint has been ‘slapped’ on to the canvas to achieve a rough and almost impressionistic look. It is especially noticeable in the clothing of the figures.
For example, in the dress of Stratonice lighter colors have been ‘slapped’ on top of the darker pigments to give the clothing volume and texture.
One can see that the artist used his brush with quick brushstrokes in a ‘slapping’ manner rather than using it with fluidity and smoothness. The fur on the physician’s mantle is also a very good example of this ‘slapping’ manner to achieve the furry look. Light colors have been quickly dabbed on top of the darker tones. Thus, the ‘slapdash’ handling of paint apparent in the painting
37
Id., p. 77.
of Antiochus and Stratonice even further supports the idea that it was created in the studio of Rubens.
Painters during the late sixteenth century started painting in a manner also known as
“sprezzatura,” where the paint brush was handled effortless and the paint was applied more freely.
38Changes were made to the canvas during the execution of the painting and smaller changes were even visible from a distance adding an illusion of space from the distance.
39Karel van Mander even stated in Grondt der Edel vry Schilderconst of 1604 that early Netherlandish painters did not “burden the panels as much as today, now that one can almost blindly touch and feel the work from every side, because in our time the paint is so uneven and rough that one could almost think of a relief carved in stone.”
40Corrections in paintings were recognized as part of the creative process and confirmed the artists’s “powers of creation.” Van Hout suggests that corrections also authenticated a work having been painted by the artist himself and not by an assistant.
41This argument can be debated because an alteration within a work does not necessarily prove the authenticity since especially assistants can make mistakes and changes if the master himself does not agree with the completed work. Rubens applied this innovation on his own works by shaping forms with the use of color and highlights. One great example is his use of highlights in the hair and skin tones of his figures.
When looking at the Adoration of the Magi the eyebrows and hair of the king are created with just a few loose brushstrokes (fig. 30). From a close-up view it appears quite abstract and traditionalists might find this manner too ‘sloppy,’ but when viewing the painting from a distance the entire facial structure and expression comes together. Rubens was known to have had a quite rapid working speed, most likely also due to the high amount of commissions that were asked of him. Analysis of his paint surfaces reveal that he had an “energetic tempo” and when looking with the naked eye one can see that he liked to paint in a much rougher painting style in the later
38
Id., p. 82.
39
Id., p. 83.
40
Mander, Karel van. ed. Hessel Miedema (english translation). Grondt der Edel vry Schilderconst, fol. 48r, line 20.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mand001schi01_01/mand001schi01_01.pdf
41
Hout, Nico van. Rubens Unveiled: Notes on the Master’s Painting Technique, p. 83.
years of his career. This painting style can also be seen in the Antiochus and Stratonice where the hair, the clothing, the skin tones and the drapery are all painted in a very impressionistic manner.
Fig. 30. Peter Paul Rubens, Adoration of the Magi
The individual strokes fall into place when looking at the painting from a distance. Most evidently are Rubens’s oil sketches where his quick and rushed manner becomes very apparent, which seem to have been transferred to many of his large paintings. Thinning his oil paint with turpentine gave Rubens the ability to shape his forms with “transparent strokes.”
42In addition, he rendered bright light reflections with a buttery and thick paste of paint, as can be seen in the eyes of the figures to give an appearance of light reflecting off of the eyes. Rubens painted with firm brushstrokes in different directions bringing out the texture of the paint and using the raised edges of the strokes.
He also used the technique of “feathering,” which is the process of placing the pink flesh and yellow tones next to each other and blending them into each other with a fan-shaped badger brush when the paint was already a bit dryer.
43This phenomenon created fine grooves in the wet paint and flattened the impasto of the highlights. Feathering can be seen especially in the figure
42
Id., p. 90.
43
Id., p. 96.
of Antiochus where the flesh tones have been blended with the highlights to give the limbs its natural look.
Lastly, in 17th-century Netherlandish paintings incisions were often made with the butt end of the paintbrush bringing the light color of the ground into the painting’s surface. This was often used for textile patterns of clothing or hatchings. Rubens used this technique rarely, but it can be seen in his work of the Prodigal Son where he used the butt end of his brush to add details to the wicker basket in the hayloft. This technique cannot be seen by naked eye on the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice and thus would probably have to be established with closer examination.
Conclusion
Thus, the present composition, when looking at it with the naked eye, does show the aforementioned painting techniques and uses of materials special to Rubens. Not only do the rough brushstrokes correspond with his later painting manner, but also the depiction of characters, as well as, how the paint was applied. After close examination of Rubens’ painting technique, one could conclude that this painting had to be executed within the circle of Rubens, or by an artist taught by Rubens. This work not only resembles the painting style of Rubens’s later career but also shows similarities in the figures used, their features and accents, and the treatment of color pigments.
However, a definitive decision as to the artist of this work can only be made with technical and chemical research, such as infrared photography and X-radiography. Since the painting does not show the high quality known of Rubens’s works, the question remains whether someone close to him could have painted this work or possibly completed it. If it was not painted by the master himself who could have painted this work? Who could have been good enough to work on this beautiful painting, yet not as skilled as Rubens to have left the aforementioned irregularities?
Chapter V: Rubens’s Studio Practice
Since the present composition reflects on the painting style of Rubens, but shows differences and a lower quality overall, it is unclear whether this was really painted by Rubens.
Thus, it is important to explore the studio practice of Rubens and analyze who was working in the studio along his side. This research could reveal whether Rubens gave this particular work to an assistant to paint or whether it was painted by Rubens in collaboration with a fellow artist or student.
After returning to Antwerp from his travels to Italy in 1608, Rubens established a large and successful studio in his hometown. He received commissions from all over Europe and needed many assistants and associates working in his studio with him. Since Rubens was a court artist for Infanta Isabella, he was exempted from having to register his assistants in the Guild of St. Luke.
44His studio expanded rapidly, which led to a very competitive race between young, aspiring artists who were interested in working in his workshop. Due to the high number of applications Rubens had to refuse over one hundred applicants at one point. Young men even worked with other masters for several years awaiting a vacancy in his studio, as seen in a letter Rubens wrote to Jacob de Bie on 11 May, 1611, declining a student, which de Bie recommended, due to the high quantity of applicants.
45Rubens works were in such high demand he even had to refuse commissions. He told one of his more prominent clients, Sir Dudley Carleton, in a letter from April 28, 1618, that he was not able to accept any commissions for a longer time because he was “so burdened with commissions, both public and private.”
46To accommodate such important clients such as Sir Dudley Carleton, Rubens’s goal was to sell paintings that he already partially or completely finished. In his negotiations he lists a number of paintings that could fit Sir Dudley Carleton’s desires in exchange for Antique sculptures that Carleton possessed.
44
Auwera, Joost vander. Rubens: A Genius at Work, p. 32.
45
Magurn, Ruth. The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, p. 55.
46
Id., p. 60.
The following list shows that Rubens did not paint all of his paintings alone but did have help from the assistants that were fortunate enough to receive an apprenticeship in his studio:
“List of the pictures which are in my house:
500 florins A Prometheus bound on Mount Caucasus, with an eagle 9 x 8 ft.
which pecks his liver. Original, by my hand, and the eagle done by Snyders.
600 fl. Daniel among many lions, taken from life. Original, entirely 8 x 12 ft.
by my hand.
600 fl. Leopards, taken from life, with Satyrs and Nymphs. Original, 9 x 11 ft.
by my hand, except a most beautiful landscape, done by the hand of a master skillful in that department.
500 fl. A Leda, with the swan and a cupid. Original, by my hand. 7 x 10 ft.
500 fl. Crucifixion, life-sized, considered perhaps the best thing 12 x 6 ft.
I have ever done.
1200 fl. A Last Judgment, begun by one of my pupils, after one which 13 x 9 ft.
I did in a much larger size for the Most Serene Prince of Neuburg, who paid me 3500 florins cash for it; but this one, not being finished, would be entirely retouched by my own hand, and by this means would pass as original.
500 fl. St. Peter taking from the fish the coin to pay the tribute, with other 7 x 8 ft.
fishermen around; taken from life. Original, by my hand.
600 fl. A hunt of men on horseback and lions, begun by one of my pupils, 8 x 11 ft.
after one that I made for His Most Serene Highness of Bavaria, but all retouched by my hand.
50 fl. The Twelve Apostles, with a Christ, done by my pupils, from 4 x 3 ft.
each originals by my own hand, which Duke of Lerma has; these need to be retouched by my own hand throughout.
600 fl. A picture of an Achilles clothes as a woman, done by the best of 9 x 10 ft.
my pupils, and the whole retouched by my hand; a most delightful picture, and full of many very beautiful young girls.
300 fl. A St. Sebastian, nude, by my hand. 7 x 4 ft.
300 fl. A Susanna, done by one of my pupils, but the whole retouched 7 x 5 ft.
by my hand.”
4747
Id., pp. 60-61.
In addition, Rubens often retouched his paintings at the place of its destination, as he states in a letter to Monsieur Valavez on January 10, 1625.
48The way Rubens carried his studio was quite different to most seventeenth-century workshops. His methods were taken from a “twofold tradition stemming from the Italian Renaissance of a separation between invention and execution” where a staff of “well-trained, permanent assistants made varying contributions to the completion of his paintings” under his careful supervision.
49One account does tell us about some of Ruben’s students’ identities in a short biography, written by Philip Rubens. He wrote this in 1676 for Roger de Piles and explicitly mentioned six of Rubens’s students.
In the beginning of Rubens’s career his painting style showed the influence of the Italian masters portraying a more classicizing plasticity in the painted figures. Since the painting of Antiochus and Stratonice resembles Rubens’s later painting style rather than his classicist style from the period 1612-1620, some of the artists mentioned by Vlieghe do not appear as possible candidates in this work.
50For example, Deodato del Monte (1582-1644), Arnout Vinckenborch (c. 1590-1620), Artus de Bruyn (?-1632) and Gaspar de Crayer (1584-1669) are unlikely to have been involved in the execution of the present composition because what is known of their connection to Rubens dates to the earlier years in the studio, in addition to their classicist painting style and also based on their documented activities within Rubens’s studio.
In addition, even though Jan Cossiers (1600-1671) assisted Rubens in the designs of the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi, the Torre de la Parada, and painted a large number of genre paintings, which were filled with “fleshy figures” and a “free technique” closely related to Rubens’s painting manner from the 1630s, the paintings attributed to him do not show any similarities with the execution of Antiochus and Stratonice.
5148
Id., p. 101.
49
Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: A Review of the Evidence in The Age of Rubens, p. 159.
50
Id., p. 160.
51
Id., p. 166.
Justus van Egmont (1602-1674) is another artist mentioned in Philip Rubens’s biography.
Before van Egmont worked with Rubens, he was already quite experienced in the art of painting and appears to have cooperated with van Dyck in his early years before leaving for Italy in 1618.
Becoming a master in 1628, van Egmont moved to Paris and resided there until 1649. The portraits he created during this period are not closely related to Rubens’s painting style, but specific works from the later years in the Netherlands do resemble Rubens’s “formal language from the twenties.”
52The designs were meant for a series of tapestries and showed closer relations to the baroque style of the later 17th century. Since van Egmont does not appear to have been active in Rubens’s studio after the 1620s, it is very unlikely that he contributed to the execution of Antiochus and Stratonice.
However, five of the six artists mentioned in the biography by Philip Rubens in 1676 as students who worked with or under Rubens in his workshop, appear to be possible candidates.
These artists include Pieter Soutman, Erasmus Quellinus, Jan Boeckhorst, Jan van den Hoecke, and Anthony van Dyck.
53In addition to the aforementioned artists, other artists such as Jacob Jordaens, Cornelis de Vos, Abraham van Diepenbeeck, Willem Panneels, and Theodoor van Thulden, also show a close relationship to Rubens’s studio in his later career, which will be analyzed with the help of their own authentic works and compared to the composition of Antiochus and Stratonice.
Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678)
One of the most famous painters who was active in Rubens’s studio, was Jacob Jordaens.
Jordaens was not an assistant or student, but already well established when he cooperated with Rubens. Rubens contracted Jordaens to work on the Pompa Introitus in 1635 and the Torre de la Parada of 1636-1638. It is also known that Jordaens completed some of Rubens’s unfinished
52
Id., p. 165.
53
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.
paintings after he died.
54The early works by Jordaens show that he must have been active in Rubens’s studio in the early years of his career.
The most prominent example, which shows that Jordaens was intrigued by Rubens’s painting style and did in fact work after him, is Flight of Lot and His Daughters (fig. 31). Not only is the composition identical to the original work by Rubens, but the painting style is also very close in brushwork. When looking at the figure of Lot, one can see how well the face, hair and clothing was executed. The hair is painted with fine and quick brushstrokes to achieve a wavy look using lighter shades of white and gray on top of darker gray and black pigments. Red and pink tones are layered on top of white and yellow tones to accentuate details, such as wrinkles, rosy cheeks, and facial definitions. Gray pigments are used on the skin tones to point out shadows and other definitions of the face. The same detail can be seen in the elderly men in Antiochus and Stratonice where gray tones are used within the skin tones to define the facial structures.
Fig. 31. Jacob Jordaens, Flight of Lot and His Daughters
In addition, the clothing of not only Lot, but also the other characters within the composition show a close relationship to the Rubensian manner. The clothing is executed with
54
Martin, J. R, “Rubens’s Last Mythological Paintings for Philip IV,” in Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedinis,
XIV (1976-78), pp. 113-118.
quick brushstrokes of white pigments on top of the colored clothing giving it its volume and texture. This is exactly how the clothing is painted in the present composition of Antiochus and Stratonice.
The faces of the female figures show a close resemblance to many of the female heads in Rubens’s paintings, as well as, to Stratonice and the female attendee. The facial details, such as the straight long nose, the swooping eyebrows, the narrow plump lips, and the short, pointy chin are all characteristics seen in Rubensian paintings and in Antiochus and Stratonice. Although Jordaens work is painted a bit smoother in brushstrokes, it shows many similarities to the painting of discussion. Thus, since Jordaens was very active in the studio of Rubens it cannot be ruled out that he contributed to this work.
Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641)
Anthony van Dyck was another famous artist active in Rubens’s studio. The relationship between Rubens and van Dyck was very prominent and known, as can be read in some of Rubens’s letters. In one of the letters to Sir Dudley Carleton in 1618, Rubens calls van Dyck “il meglior mio discepolo.”
55Rubens made good use of van Dyck’s talent, which can be seen in the commissions he received. In 1620, van Dyck was entrusted with the now-lost ceiling paintings for the former Jesuit church in Antwerp.
56In addition, the inventory of Rubens from 1640 shows that van Dyck executed a significant number of the many studies of heads kept in the studio, which were pre-studies for larger compositions.
57The influence of Rubens is very noticeable in van Dyck’s early works, such as the painting of St. Jerome depicting a variant of Rubens’s composition (fig. 32). Even though he copied the classicized style of Rubens, he began developing his own personal painting style early on, which was more expressive and focused on pushing the figures into the foreground. This painting shows this expressive style, especially in the figure of St. Jerome.
55
Magurn, Ruth. The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, p. 61.
56
Martin, John R. The Ceiling Paintings for the Jesuit Church in Antwerp, p. 39-40.
57
Vlieghe, Hans. Rubens’s Atelier and History Painting in Flanders: A Review of the Evidence in The Age of
Rubens, p. 162
Fig. 32. Anthony van Dyck, St. Jerome
The skin of St. Jerome is painted smoothly, yet defined with many quick brushstrokes to show the texture of the muscles and veins. The use of skin tones is very similar to that of Rubens’s color use, which shows that van Dyck used darker pink and flesh tones and worked with lighter tones of white and yellow to highlight the different parts of the body. In addition, he used grey tones to define shadows and creases for the muscles, veins, and skin folds on the chest and stomach.
St. Jerome’s head also shows close resemblance to the heads Rubens used to portray elderly men. His hair is painted with black, grey, and white paint in a quick manner to achieve the curly effect. The face also appears to have been painted with quick brushstrokes, but is much darker in skin tone than the body. In this case, it seems that van Dyck used darker tones of pink and brown on top of lighter yellow and white tones to define the facial structures and wrinkles.
It is interesting to note that the drapery on top of St. Jerome’s lap is painted very smoothly, appearing much more classicistic in style. Darker red tones and grey tones were applied on top of the lighter tones to show the folds and texture of the cloth, similarly to the way Rubens painted his draperies. The quality of the drapery in Antiochus and Stratonice appears much lower in quality than the one on St. Jerome’s lap. In comparison to Antiochus and
Stratonice, the body of St. Jerome is painted much more expressively than the body of Antiochus. The colors of the skin tones are much more vibrant and pushed into the foreground.
In addition, the face of St. Jerome, even though similar to that of the elderly men in Antiochus and Stratonice, also portrays much rougher brushstrokes whereas the hair is painted with finer and smoother brushstrokes rather than applied in a dabbing manner as can be seen on the physician. It is difficult to say whether Anthony van Dyck had a hand in the present composition, but after analyzing the painting of St. Jerome it can be very likely due to the close resemblance in paint application. The development of van Dyck’s own painting style being more expressive also adds to the possibility that he took part in this work.
Cornelis de Vos (1584-1651)
Vlieghe also mentions Cornelis de Vos in his chapter about Rubens’s Atelier. Since it appears that there are only two known paintings that reveal an intimate relationship between de Vos and Rubens, it is very difficult to say whether de Vos participated in the present composition.
The two paintings are the Nativity and the Presentation in the Temple, which were meant for the Cycle of the Rosary. De Vos was interested in the different “compositional schemes and motifs”
that were apparent in the works by Rubens.
58In addition, the workshops of de Vos and Rubens became close in the late 1630s, especially when de Vos assisted in the execution of the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi and the Torre de la Parada. Rubens also requested for de Vos to paint two copies after the latter’s work, which were part of the large collection sold by Rubens to the Duke of Buckingham. According to Vlieghe, since the 1620s the landscape backgrounds and still-life details in de Vos’s paintings were executed by his relatives, Frans Snyders, Jan Wildens, and Paulus de Vos, who were also doing the same work for Rubens.
59Thus, it is assumed that there was a close relationship between Rubens and de Vos, especially because de Vos followed Rubens so closely in motifs and compositions.
58
Id., p. 162-163.
59
