The Collaboration Between Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel ...

The Collaboration Between Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder 1
christine van mulders
The corpus of paintings made by Peter Paul Rubens in collaboration
with Jan Brueghel the Elder comprises some thirty
works. Among them we fi nd wreaths or garlands of fl owers
around religious images, interiors with allegories, and landscapes
with historical scenes. The period in which their collaboration
took place runs from 1598-1600, the probable date
of their fi rst joint effort, until 1625, the year of Brueghel’s
death. 2
The study of the creative process in works made by Rubens
and Jan Brueghel the Elder together can be situated within
the broader context of collaborative ties between independent
artists in general. Investigation into the genesis of the
conceptual framework underlying their combined efforts
can be articulated around institutional mechanisms like
the organization of the painters’ guilds, on the one hand,
and cultural or socio-economic mechanisms on the other.
In addition, there are also a number of specifi c biographical
facts concerning both artists that initiated and stimulated
their decision to work together.
The earliest forms of collaboration between independent
painters, though hardly numerous, turn up in the fi rst quarter
of the 16th century, when they arose as a result of specialization
in painting and the development of various genres. 3
Joachim Patinier, a skillful landscape painter, regularly relied
on specialized fi gure painters like his good friend Quinten
Metsijs. 4 Around the middle of the 16th century, the growing
number of genres – from traditional northern forms, such
as narrative devotional scenes, landscape, moralizing scenes
from daily life, market and kitchen scenes, still lifes and portraits,
to Italianate forms featuring religious, mythological
and allegorical subjects – provided a stimulus to even greater
specialization. These, in turn, favored the rise of production
units consisting of independent artists acting in tandem.
Among the new artist duos we fi nd Cornelis van Dalem-Gillis
Mostaert, Jacob Grimmer-Gillis Mostaert, Hans Vredeman
de Vries-Gillis Mostaert, Jacob Grimmer-Marten van Cleve
and Cornelis Molenaer-Marten van Cleve. 5 The practice of
collaborative production units also survived the iconoclasm
of 1566-1585. Gillis van Coninxloo collaborated with Karel
van Mander and Gillis Mostaert; Joos de Momper ii with
Frans Francken ii, Sebastiaen Vrancx, Hendrick van Balen
and Jan Brueghel i and ii. 6 Other duos included Denijs van
Alsloot-Hendrick de Clerck, Abel Grimmer-Hendrick van
Balen and David Vinckboons-Hendrick de Clerck. 7
During the fi rst half of the 17th century, when Antwerp’s
recovery was underway and the city continued to be a promising
center for commissions from the Church, court, nobility
and affl uent middle class, and had the added advantage of an
extensive international art market, the phenomenon of collaboration
was even more widespread. Production units that
had grown up around fi gures like Jan Brueghel the Elder and
Rubens undoubtedly played a role in this process. Like their
16th century counterparts, they were stimulated by specialization,
which was at its peak in the 17th century. Brueghel
participated in collaborative projects throughout his career.
The earliest works that he produced in tandem with other artists
date from between 1589 and 1596, during his stay in Italy,
where he worked for distinguished patrons like Cardinal
Federico Borromeo. 8 While abroad, he painted works with
artists like Hans Rottenhammer and Jacob de Backer. 9 Even
after his return to Antwerp, he continued to make paintings
with Rottenhammer. 10 It was probably shortly after his return
from Italy that Brueghel came into contact with Hendrick
van Balen, with whom he became close friends and with
whom he frequently collaborated. From the beginning of the
17th century onward, Van Balen had specialized in painting
107

108
1
the female nude, unlike Brueghel who concentrated on land-
scapes and still lifes. In numerous allegorical scenes depicting
the fi ve senses, the elements and the seasons, Van Balen
provided Brueghel’s landscapes with fi gures. 11 Many of these
paintings were made on commission for Borromeo. 12 Tobias
Verhaecht, Hendrick van Steenwijck, Sebastiaen Vrancx and
Hendrick de Clerck also collaborated with Brueghel before
Rubens returned from Italy, and continued to do so afterward.
13 Over the years, new collaborators joined their ranks.
Brueghel also worked with Joos de Momper ii, Frans Francken
ii, Peter van Avont, Jan Wildens and Frans Snyders. 14 Rubens
would continue to work with Brueghel throughout his career,
but he also collaborated with other artists, the most important
being Jan Brueghel the Younger, Paul Bril, Frans Snyders,
Paul de Vos and Jan Wildens.
All of this suggests that the institutional context of the painters’
guild did not stand in the way of independent collaboration.
The labor regulations of the Guild of St. Luke did not
fig. 1: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i (attributed), Battle of the Amazons,
Potsdam, Stiftung Preussische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg, Schloss Sanssouci, Bildergalerie
contain any specifi c provisions concerning these temporary
production units. This is rather unusual, given that the
trend toward specialization and collaboration grew over the
course of the 17th century into a characteristic mode of artistic
activity. In fact, the strict guild system seems to have created
an atmosphere of collegiality. This feeling of solidarity
was in some cases given extra intensity by the long tradition
of intermarriage between artists’ families – the Brueghel,
De Jode, Kessel and Teniers families are good examples. 15
The guild’s implicit recognition of independent collaboration
is evident, among other things, from the large number
of deans who regularly participated in this sort of activity.
Another sign of appreciation was the city of Antwerp’s gift
of two panels depicting the Allegory of Sight and Smell and the
Allegory of Touch, Hearing and Taste to Archdukes Albert and
Isabella during their visit in 1618 – according to contemporary
sources, these paintings were the result of collaboration
between twelve of the most important artists of the day

under Brueghel’s direction. 16 In addition, the Antwerp rheto-
ricians’ chamber, the Violieren, had their blazon painted in
1618 by a group of four artists: Frans Francken ii, Hendrick
van Balen, Sebastiaen Vrancx and Jan Brueghel i.
This cultural and socio-economic context was also related to
the way in which paintings acquired value in 17th-century
Antwerp. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between
different levels of collaboration, which were also characteristic
of the artist’s social status. Honig describes the process
in terms of low- and high-level collaboration; Van der Stighelen
discusses collaborative circuits. 17
In low-level collaboration, ‘second rate’ painters operated
from purely opportunistic considerations. Collaboration was
a necessity, given the one-sided craftsmanship that specialization
brought with it. Moreover, a considerable amount of
work could be produced in a short time. Authorship was of
little importance, and the dealer – who was often both gobetween
and initial patron – usually withheld this information
from potential buyers. In this type of collaboration, the
dealer acted more as an organizer or supplier.
2
fig. 2: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i, Banquet of Achelous, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Collaboration between masters of standing like Rubens and
Brueghel belonged to the high-level category. Of course, the
determining factor in the rising value and growing success
of paintings like these was their exceptionally high quality.
Even though Brueghel and Rubens were clearly excellent all
round painters, they were nevertheless aware of their best
qualities. Brueghel’s delicate, almost miniaturistic painting
technique showed to best advantage in still-life and landscape
paintings, while Rubens’ ingenious hand was able to
animate the human fi gure with rapid yet perfectly controlled
style. By making cabinet paintings together, they were
able to combine their strengths.
The value and success of these works were largely owing to
the high socio-cultural status of the cooperating artists. The
increasing interest of 17th-century viewers in a painting’s
authorship and the new role and social status of the connoisseur
that went with it popularized the act of looking and
the attempt to distinguish between different hands in collaborative
paintings. In contrast to earlier connoisseurs who
adhered tot the Renaissance idea that authorship resided in
109

110
the mind of a single artist as something separate from the
endless variants that could be produced by the atelier, the
new connoisseur judged an authorship that was plural in its
mode of expression. The possession of such paintings was
reserved for the socially privileged. In addition to the canon
of important painters, there also arose a canon of collaborative
teams: the most highly sought-after included Brueghel-
Rubens, Brueghel-De Momper and Brueghel-Van Balen.
Because the demand for paintings by these prominent teams
could not always be satisfi ed, and because works of this type
were too expensive for the majority of collectors, copying
was rampant. Few of the fi rst-rate artists complained. On
the contrary, many even participated in the process with the
help of their own ateliers. Hence, in addition to the principal
or original painting, there were also replicas by the artist’s
own hand, variants, and frank copies.
The only painting that can be attributed to Brueghel and
Rubens from the period between 1598 and 1600 – the respective
dates at which Rubens became an independent master
in the Guild of St. Luke and departed for Italy – is the Battle of
the Amazons (Potsdam-Sanssouci; fi g. 1). 18 The Potsdam painting
is not only the fi rst result of their partnership, it is also
a testament to Rubens’ willingness to collaborate in general
and one of his earliest known works. 19 The painting is
probably the same one mentioned in the 1682 estate inventory
of Diego Duarte ii. 20 Gaspar Duarte i, Diego’s father,
may have purchased the panel directly from Rubens. The
1642 inventory of Herman Neyts mentions a ‘piece painted
by Octavi and Breugel, started by Rubens … showing mount
Parnassus,’ suggesting that the pair may also have worked
as a trio with Otto van Veen. 21 The fact that Rubens already
collaborated with Brueghel after leaving his master’s studio
not only says a great deal about the young painter’s high level
of artistic achievement, but also indicates the prevailing
familiarity with the concept of collaboration in general. This
type of collaboration was probably initiated by the painters
involved, and the prestigious products that resulted were
either retained for their own collections or recommended to
the most important collectors of the moment, like the abovementioned
Gaspar Duarte i and Herman Neyts.
The most important period in the collaboration between
Rubens and Brueghel extends from 1609 to 1621. It seemed
almost obvious that their teamwork would resume after
Rubens’ return from Italy, even though Brueghel’s collaboration
with other artists – notably Hendrick van Balen – was
highly active at the time, and Rubens had begun to associate
with other painters as well, including Paul Bril and Frans
Snyders. When chance brought them together again at the
court of the archdukes, the ideal circumstances gave extra
impetus to their collaboration. Archdukes Albert and Isabella
were highly active patrons: Brueghel worked for them from
1606 onward, 22 and Rubens entered their service as a court
painter in 1609. 23
Only a few commissions from Albert and Isabella have been
documented. The earliest of these is the Banquet of Achelous
(New York; fi g. 2) of ca. 1614-1615. 24 The painting – or at least a
version of it – is depicted in the Allegory of Painting (Anet) by
an anonymous Flemish master. 25 The castle of Mariemont in
the background suggests that the collection might have been
intended to represent that of the archdukes. In the Banquet of
Achelous, Rubens laid out the composition and painted the fi gures;
Brueghel then worked out the landscape and additional
decor. The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (The Hague;
fi g. 3), 26 which may have been part of the collection of Johann
de Bye in Leiden (1666), probably also dates to around 1614-
1615. 27 This time Brueghel was responsible for the composition,
which can be seen as the culmination of his progress
in depicting the Garden of Eden. 28 After Brueghel had executed
the landscape and animals, Rubens painted the fi gures
of Adam and Eve. During the same period, they also painted a
Mars and Venus. 29 As in the case of the Garden of Eden mentioned
above, Brueghel was probably responsible for this composition
as well. A Pan and Syrinx (Kassel; fi g. 4), 30 in which Rubens
painted the composition and fi gures fi rst and Brueghel subsequently
fi lled in the landscape, can also be associated with the
group of works dating to the mid 1610s.
Around 1615-1617, Rubens and Brueghel painted several
Madonnas in fl ower garlands. Brueghel painted the garlands,
while Rubens fi lled in the medallions. A very early version can
be seen in the Allegory of Sight (Madrid; see p. 16, fi g. 2) of 1617, 31
where it may be represented as part of the archducal collection.
Shortly thereafter, at Brueghel’s initiative, they produced
a smaller version for Cardinal Federico Borromeo (Paris;
fi g. 5). 32 The Madonna in a Flower Garland with Angels (Munich;
see cat. 53, fi g. 1) likewise dates from the same period. 33 This
time the initiative came from Rubens, who probably made the
painting for George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. The fact
that Rubens was responsible for the composition is expressed
in various ways. In contrast to the Louvre Madonna, in which
Rubens’ portion of the painting is bounded by a pre-determined
oval fi eld, the scene depicted in the medallion here penetrates
the surrounding fl ower garland, which is further enlivened
by playful angels. In addition, Rubens changed the composition
in the course of the creative process, before the stage

3
4
fig. 3: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Garden of Eden with the Fall of Adam and Eve, The Hague, Mauritshuis
fig. 4: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i, Pan and Syrinx, Kassel, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister
111

112
5 6
at which Brueghel worked out the garland. 34 Rubens’ contri-
bution is moreover highly original on account of his choice
of fi gures: Isabella Brant and his son Jan II served as models
for the Virgin and Child. Finally, the painting is distinctive
on account of its unusually large dimensions. Sometime
around 1619, at Rubens’ initiative, the two produced a work
conceived in a similar fashion – garland and medallion – but
with a profane theme, Nature Adorned by the Graces in a Garland
of Fruit, Vegetables and Flowers (Glasgow; cat. 24). 35 Rubens sold
this work to the Duke of Buckingham, sometime around
1625-1627. Here, too, the central scene spreads beyond the
bounds of an oval scratched in beforehand, and even beyond
the fl ower garland, which almost seems to participate in the
scene depicted in the medallion. The evolution from fl oral
wreath to U-shaped garland continued, ultimately ending in
the type of closed, U-shaped garland found in the Madonna
in a Fruit and Flower Garland now in Madrid (fi g. 6). 36 Brueghel
and Rubens painted this work at the former’s initiative for
Cardinal Federico Borromeo shortly before 1621. Brueghel
executed the still-life elements in this work in an exceptionally
broad manner.
Sometime around 1616-1617, the duo were commissioned by
the archdukes to paint their individual portraits (Madrid;
fi g. 7). 37 Brueghel’s backgrounds depict the ducal castle
at Tervuren (Portrait of Albert) and their country estate at
Mariemont (Portrait of Isabella). As Vlieghe has suggested, the
portraits were carried out with the help of Rubens’ studio. 38
A high point in the collaboration between Rubens and
Brueghel is undoubtedly the fi ve-part allegorical series depicting
the Five Senses of 1617-1618 (Madrid). 39 In this cycle,
which is both artistically and iconographically exceptional,
the fi ve senses are depicted in various courtly contexts. The
series comes across as a conscious articulation of the archdukes’
feeling for art and collecting and the representative
role of pomp and circumstance. Brueghel’s extraordinarily
encyclopedic, detailed depiction of interiors, populated
with fi gures by Rubens, are almost overwhelming. The archdukes
gave these paintings to Wolfgang Wilhelm von Pfalz-
Neuburg, their most important ally within the Catholic alliance.
The earlier series depicting the Senses mentioned above,
painted by some twelve painters under Brueghel’s direction
in 1618 and given to the archdukes by the city of Antwerp,
fig. 5: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Madonna in a Flower Garland, Paris, Musée du Louvre
fig. 6: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Madonna in a Fruit and Flower Garland, Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado

7
should also be mentioned here. The two original works
were lost in the fi re at the Coudenberg Palace in 1731, but are
known to us through replicas (Madrid). 40 By stimulating the
production of prestigious works like these, patronage played
an important role in the later popularization of independent
collaboration between artists. Popes, papal nuncios, princes,
dukes, diplomats and nobles were eager to fulfi ll the role of
Maecenas.
In the period that follows, 1621-1625, documented commissions
for Rubens and Brueghel are similarly scarce. Nevertheless,
it is clear that their regular clientele expanded during
these years to encompass a broader public. This expan-
sion was the result of Rubens’ increasing number of international
contacts, the product of his more frequent diplomatic
missions after the death of Archduke Albert. Broadly conceived
landscapes by Brueghel with mythological or religious
histories provided by Rubens form the majority. A number of
scenes depicting the goddess Diana also date to these years,
and includes Diana Departing for the Hunt (Paris; fi g. 9), 41
Sleeping Nymph Spied on by Satyrs (Paris and Munich), 42 a
Diana Returning from the Hunt (Munich) 43 and Diana’s Repose 44 .
Among the religious scenes, we fi nd a Vision of St. Hubert (formerly
Berlin), 45 a Noli me tangere46 and a Road to Emmaus, 47
among others.
fig. 7: peter paul rubens (and studio) and jan brueghel i, Portrait of Archduke Albert with the Castle of Tervuren, Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado
113

114
8
1 This topic forms the subject of my doctoral thesis, now in preparation:
Een analyse van het creative proces in het oeuvre van Peter Paul Rubens in
samenwerking met Jan Brueghel i en Jan Brueghel ii.
2 Teamwork between Rubens and Jan Brueghel ii began around 1624, the year
in which the younger Brueghel returned from Italy and took over his father’s
workshop, and continued until 1644, the year of Rubens’ death.
3 Faggin 1968; Van de Velde 1975 [1] .
4 The Temptation of St. Anthony (Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1615)
by Patenier and Metsijs.
5 Landscape with a Castle and an Inn (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum,
inv. 5652) by Grimmer and Mostaert; The Good Samaritan (Berlin, Staatliche
Museen, inv. 706) by Molenaer and Van Cleve.
6 Landscape with the Judgment of Midas (Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen,
inv. 857) by Van Coninxloo and Van Mander; Minerva Visiting the Muses
(Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 957) by De Momper,
Van Balen and Brueghel.
7 Wooded Landscape with Cephalos and Procris (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches
Museum, inv. 1077) by Van Alsloot and De Clerck; Antwerp with the Scheldt and
the Holy Trinity (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 817)
by Grimmer and Van Balen.
8 On the relationship between Brueghel and Borromeo, see Crivelli 1868;
Bedoni 1983; Jones 1993.
9 Circe and Odysseus (Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario) by Brueghel
and Rottenhammer; Landscape with Diana and Actaeon (Stockholm,
Nationalmuseum, inv. NM 367) by Brueghel and De Backer.
10 Angelic Choir (Milan, Ambrosiana, inv. 70), painted for Borromeo.
11 Allegory of the Four Elements (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 815).
12 Allegory of the Elements (Milan, Ambrosiana, inv. 74, 6-16), together with
Hendrick van Balen.
13 Tower of Babel (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 947)
by Brueghel and Verhaecht; Interior of Antwerp Cathedral (Budapest,
Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. 579) by Brueghel and Van Steenwijck; Attack in
the Woods (Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, inv. 622) by Brueghel
and Vrancx; Diana and Actaeon (Prague, Národní Gallery, inv. do-4130)
by Brueghel and De Clerck.
14 Hilly Landscape with Travelers (Vaduz, Collections of the Princes of Liechtenstein,
inv. G748) by Brueghel and De Momper; ‘Konstkabinet’ with Archdukes Albert
and Isabella (Baltimore, The Walters Art Gallery, inv. 31.2010) by Brueghel and
Francken; Garland of Fruit with Holy Family (Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 149)
by Brueghel and Van Avont.
15 For a genealogical table of the Brueghel dynasty, see Ertz 1979, p. 13.
16 The document reads, and that is actually remarkable: tweelff diversche van de
principaelste meesters deser stadt or ‘twelve of the most important masters of
this city’; see De Maeyer 1955, p. 342, doc. 139.
17 Honig 1995; Honig 1998; Van der Stighelen 1990 [2] .
18 Bildergalerie, inv. 10021; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 1.
19 Held 1983; Held 1987 [1] .
20 Dogaer 1971.
21 Denucé 1932, p. 100, under no. 362: stuck van Octavi ende Breugel ende van Rubens
eerst geschilderd ... wesende den berch Parnassus.
22 His appointment as court painter is not documented by any source, but
Brueghel’s letters testify to his activity there; Crivelli 1868, p. 272. In 1609-1610,
Brueghel stayed there several months for a commission of eleven works;
De Maeyer 1955, p. 147.
23 De Maeyer 1945-1948; Vlieghe 1992; Brown 1998.
24 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 45.141; Ertz 1979, no. 335; Liedtke 1984, i,
p. 194-198; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 3.
25 Château Anet, collection of C. de Yturbe.
26 Mauritshuis, inv. 253; Ertz 1979, no. 308; Van Mulders 2004 [2] ; cat. exh.
Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 4.
27 Houbraken 1718-1721, i, p. 87.
28 On the evolution within Brueghel’s depictions of the Garden of Eden,
see Van Mulders 2004 [2] .
29 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 2000.PB.68; Van Mulders 2005; cat. exh.
Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 2.
30 Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. GK 1229; Van Mulders 2004 [1] , p. 73-77;
cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 5.
31 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1394; see note 39.
32 Musée du Louvre, inv. 1764; Ertz 1979, no. 325.
33 Alte Pinakothek, inv. 331; Ertz 1979, no. 326; Burmester/Raffelt/Renger/
Robinson/Wagini 1996, p. 92-95.
34 Poll/Frommel/Renger/Schmidt 1993; Renger 1994.
35 Art Gallery, inv. 609; X 1961, i, p. 117-120; Ertz 1979, no. 349.
36 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1418; Ertz 1979, no. 368; Díaz Padrón/Padrón
Mérida 1995, i, no. 1418, p. 290-291; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007,
no. 12.
37 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1683-1684; Ertz 1979, no. 309-310; Díaz Padrón/
Padrón Mérida 1995, ii, no. 1683-1684, p. 1076-1083; cat. exh. Los Angeles/
Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 9.
38 Vlieghe, crlb 1987, xix/2, p. 43.
39 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1394-1398; it is not excluded that Frans Snyders
collaborated on Taste; Ertz 1979, no. 327-331; Díaz Padrón/Padrón Mérida 1995, i,
no. 1394-1398, p. 265-287; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 8.
40 Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1403-1404; Ertz 1979, no. 332-333; Díaz Padrón/
Padrón Mérida 1995, i, no. 1403-1404, p. 236-245.
41 Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature, inv. 68-3-1; Ertz 1979, no. 354; cat. exh.
Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 10.
42 Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature, inv. 68-3-2; with the possible assistance of
Frans Snyders; Ertz 1979, no. 355; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007,
no. 11, and Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. 344/3884; with the
assistance of Frans Snyders; Ertz 1979, no. 358.
43 Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. 842; with the assistance
of Frans Snyders; Ertz 1979, no. 356.
44 The original version is known through a replica which was probably made by
the studio of Rubens and Jan Brueghel II and is now in Munich, Bayerische
Staatsgemäldesammlungen, inv. 346/3885.
45 Kaiser-Wilhelm-Museum, inv. 765 (destroyed by fi re in 1945); Ertz 1979, no.
365. Known through a variant by Rubens (and studio) and Jan Brueghel i now
in Madrid, Prado, inv. 1411; Ertz 1979, no. 366; Díaz Padrón/Padrón Mérida 1995,
i, no. 1411, p. 288-289; cat. exh. Los Angeles/Den Haag 2006-2007, no. 7.
46 Known through a replica by a follower or the studio of Rubens and Jan Brueghel
II in Bremen, Kunsthalle, inv. 736-57/3; Ertz 1984, no. 155.
47 Known through a replica by a follower or a studio of Rubens in St. Petersburg,
Hermitage, inv. 525.
fig. 8: jan brueghel i and peter paul rubens, Diana’s Departure for the Hunt, Paris, Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature

Oil on panel, 106.7 ◊ 72.4 cm
Glasgow, City Council, inv. 609
prov. : George Villiers, 1st Duke
of Buckingham, 1625-1627; George
Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham;
York House, 1635; Paris, Rondo;
J. Thornhill, 19 May 1716; Thornhill
sale, London, 25 February 1734,
no. 99; M. Edwards sale, London, 29
May 1746, no. 140; G. Braamcamp sale,
Amsterdam, 31 July 1771, no. 194;
L. Dundas sale, London, 31 May 1794,
no. 36; 2nd Count of Ashburnham,
ca. 1804; Ashburnham sale, London,
Christie’s, 20 July 1850, no. 62; Samuel
Woodburn sale, London, Christie’s,
16 May 1852, no. 192; J. Graham-
Gilbert; bequest of Mrs. J. Graham-
Gilbert, 1877.
exh. : London 1912, no. 14; London
1938, no. 65; London 1953-1954, no. 194;
Brugge 1956, no. 64.
bibl. : Walpole 1758, no. 11; Rooses
1886-1892, iv, no. 821; Oldenbourg 1921,
p. 61; Evers 1943, p. 237, 243-244;
cat. exh. Rotterdam 1953-1954, sub nos.
4, 17; cat. exh. Antwerpen 1956 [2] ,
sub no. 60; Held 1959, i, sub no. 75;
Bille 1961, ii, p. 47, 47a, no. 194 (with
prov.); x 1961, i, p. 117-120 (with bibl.);
Hairs 1965, p. 73, 301, 359, note 180;
Ertz 1979, no. 349; Freedberg 1981,
p. 132; Robels 1989, p. 356, sub no. 262;
McGrath 2006.
24
Nature Adorned by the Graces in a Garland of Fruit, Vegetables and Flowers
Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) and Jan Brueghel i (1568–1625)
cat. 24
115

116
A luxurious garland of fruit, vegetables, fl owers and animals is draped around the princi-
pal scene by fi ve satyrs and a black man. In the center, a female term with multiple breasts
is being veiled by three women. This is probably a personifi cation of Nature with the Three
Graces. 1 The copious garland symbolizes the fertility of Nature.
Nature Adorned is a collaborative painting by Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder.
The fi gures are by Rubens; the fl ora and fauna are the work of Brueghel. The painting was cre-
ated sometime around 1619.
In the parts of the painting executed by Rubens, we recognize a number of familiar fi gures
and heads. The heads of the black men repeat Rubens’ Four Studies of a Moor’s Head in Brussels
(cat. 52) and the Adoration of the Magi in Mechelen (Church of St. John). The fi gure of Silenus is
also found in Rubens’ Bacchanal in Vienna (Akademie der Bildenden Künste) and Silenus and
Bacchantes in Genoa (Palazzo Durazzo). For this fi gure, Rubens probably took inspiration from
an antique head of Silenus or Socrates. The satyr on whose back one of the Graces is standing
is based on a fi gure in the cartoon for the Battle of Cascina by Michelangelo. Similarly, the
angels, Graces, nymphs and satyrs are also based on Rubensian models.
The shape of Brueghel’s garland is typical for a particular phase in the evolution of his circular
wreaths, such as in the Paris Madonna in a Flower Garland (Louvre), into U-shaped garlands
like the one seen here, and fi nally into closed U-shaped garlands like the Madrid Madonna in a
Garland (Prado). The versions of Ceres in a Garland in Antwerp and The Hague (in a private collection
and the Mauritshuis, respectively) and the Holy Family in a Garland in Richmond (The
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) by Brueghel and Hendrick van Balen feature garlands which
are nearly identical to the one shown here. The hypothetical dating of the Glasgow painting is
partly dependent on its relationship to these paintings, all of which date to ca. 1618.
Nature Adorned was probably created on Rubens’ initiative, and was for several years part of
his collection before coming into the possession of Georges Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.
Rubens’ innovative concept for the relationship between the medallion and the garland supports
this hypothesis. The central scene by Rubens extends beyond the garland, which almost
seems to take an active part in the scene. This construction contrasts with that used in the
Paris Madonna in a Flower Garland (Louvre). In this work, initiated by Brueghel shortly after
1617-1618 and painted in collaboration with Rubens for Cardinal Federico Borromeo, the part
executed by Rubens is carefully separated from the decorative garland by an oval scratched
into the surface beforehand. In Nature Adorned by the Three Graces, Rubens fi rst laid out the
overall lines of the composition. He delineated the zone of the central scene with a similar
oval and applied dead-coloring to both fi gures and garland. Brueghel then executed the garland,
leaving the fi gures in reserve. Finally, Rubens painted his portion in detail. The fi nal
retouching of the garland over the fi gures ensures that the different areas executed by both
artists merge to form a consistent whole.
cvm
1 The central fi gure has also been interpreted as Diana of Ephesus or as Ceres, Cybele, and other related goddesses of the earth. In
the 16th century, however, fi gures with multiple breasts were used almost exclusively as symbols of Nature. See Ripa 1603, p. 348.

Oil on panel, 66.5 ◊ 48 cm
Brussels, rmfab, inv. 2850
prov. : Knyff, 1809; J. Douglas sale,
Liverpool 26-27 September 1840;
Paris, L. Gauchez; acquired in 1882.
exh. : Worcester/Philadelphia 1939,
no. 120.
bibl. : Lagye 1882; x 1882;
Fierens-Gevaert/Laes 1927, no. 390;
Fierens/Janson 1959, no. 390;
Eemans 1964, p. 91; no. 314 ;
Pauwels 1984, p. 247; Jaffé 1989,
no. 668.
25 The Madonna with the Periwinkle
Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) (and assistant?) and Jan Brueghel i (1568–1625) (and assistant)
cat. 25
117

118
In the foreground of a wooded landscape with a rosebush in the left-hand corner sits the Virgin
with the infant Jesus. In his left hand, Jesus holds a periwinkle, a reference to Mary’s virginity.
For a long time, these fl owers were erroneously identifi ed as forget-me-nots; hence, in earlier
art-historical literature the painting is known as the ‘Madonna with the Forget-me-Nots’.
The fi gures are by Peter Paul Rubens, perhaps with the assistance of his studio. The relatively
abraded and reworked condition of the painting makes it diffi cult to endorse Rubens’ sole
participation. The painting was recently subjected to thorough restoration, after which various
fl esh tones typical for Rubens reappeared from beneath the old, darkened layer of varnish
and later retouching. In particular, those found on the torso of the infant Christ, his face and
that of the Virgin are splendid examples. The swift brushstrokes with which the transparent
paint layers have been applied in succession and the pastose, Rubensian wet-in-wet highlights
are characteristic in this respect. The highlights are particularly striking on the edges of the
white cloth. The Madonna with the Periwinkle features a Virgin and Child identical to those
found in Rubens’ Holy Family in London (Hampstead, Kenwood House; 1620-1624). 1 The infant
Jesus moreover shows similarities to his counterpart in the Madonna with a Missal in Berlin
(Gemäldegalerie; 1623–1624) by Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder. 2 Hence, the Madonna with
the Periwinkle may date to the same period.
The landscape and rosebush should probably be attributed to Jan Brueghel the Elder with the
help of a studio assistant. In the past, these areas of the painting were attributed to his son,
Jan Brueghel the Younger. 3 But the typical Brueghel style and technique have also come more
into their own since the restoration mentioned above. The best fl owers, insects and birds are
probably the work of Jan the Elder. The typical and extremely fi ne miniaturistic style marked
by superimposed, opaque layers of paint is characteristic in this respect. The weaker areas,
such as the foliage of the trees, are probably by the hand of an assistant – possibly Jan the
Younger. Comparable rosebushes by Jan Brueghel the Elder featuring nearly identical fl owers
can be found in the Portrait of Archduke Albert in Madrid (Prado; 1616-1617), the Allegory of Smell
(Prado; 1617–1618), the Three Graces in Vienna (Akademie der bildenden Künste; 1620-1622) and
the above-mentioned Madonna with a Missal in Berlin. 4
It was no doubt Rubens who initiated the production of this largely fi gurative painting. He
painted the fi gures directly on the imprimatura without fi rst applying a layer of dead-color. He
then gave the painting to Brueghel, who provided it with a background. As usual, Brueghel
applied a preparatory paint layer as an undertone for the foliage, leaving the pale roses in reserve.
Infrared photography reveals that this underpainting overlaps the contours of the fi gures.
cvm
1 On loan from a private collection; Jaffé 1989, no. 667.
2 Ertz 1984, no. 315; Jaffé 1989, no. 770.
3 Ertz 1984, no. 314; Jaffé 1989, no. 668.
4 Ertz 1979, no. 309; Jaffé 1989, no. 328. Ertz 1979, no. 331; Jaffé 1989, no. 467. Ertz 1984, no. 316; Jaffé 1989, no. 663.

cat. 26
26 Still Life with a Flower Wreath, Jewelry and a Tazza
Jan Brueghel i (1568–1625)
Oil on panel, 47.5 ◊ 52.5 cm
Signature and date, lower left, brveghel fecit 16(18)
Brussels, rmfab, inv. 5013
prov. : Versailles, private collection; Berlin, C. Benedict; Brussels, A. de Heuvel; acquired in 1934.
exh. : Worcester/Philadelphia 1939, no. 16; Gent 1960, no. 28; Brussels 1965, no. 24;
Münster/BadenBaden 1979-1980; Essen/Wien/Antwerpen 1997-1998, no. 82.
bibl. : Greindl 1956, p. 127, 153; Fierens 1957, p. 26; Wilenski 1960, i, p. 514; Winner 1961, p. 237; Eemans 1964,
p. 66; Hairs 1965, p. 41, 69, 364; Winkelmann-Rhein 1968, p. 42, 85; Mitchell 1973, p. 69 et sq.; Baumgart 1978,
p. 32, 148; Ertz 1979, no. 337; Pauwels 1984, p. 40-41; Bussers 2001, p. 100.
119

120
A wreath of spring and summer fl owers has been placed diagonally over a tazza, or shallow
drinking cup. On the table nearby is a jewelry box containing a gold ring, coins, pearl necklace
and two bracelets. Next to it lie three rings and a pendant. The gold hairpin with a pearl
to the left of the tazza is typical of those found in the Netherlands in the fi rst half of the 17th
century. The presence of the hairpin and the pearl necklace, symbols of marital fi delity, suggest
that the panel may be interpreted as an allegory of marriage. 1
It was only in 1606 that Jan Brueghel the Elder began to paint fl ower pieces in quantity – works
that ensured him a great deal of fame both during his lifetime and afterward. 2 That year,
Brueghel formed close ties with the court in Brussels. Archduke Albert gave the painter the
chance to study and paint curiosa which included rare fl owers, animals and precious objects.
Brueghel’s extremely delicate, almost miniaturistic painting technique shows to extraordinary
advantage in still life painting.
The fl ower still lifes of Jan Brueghel the Elder can be divided into three types: fl owers in a
vase, dish or basket; wreaths and garlands around a central fi gurative scene; and still lifes
with or without an assortment of fl owers and other elements. 3 The Brussels still life illustrates
the latter category. The tazza and wreath of fl owers are typical motifs for the artist.
The jewelry and gold coins are also accessories in his Allegories of the Senses in Madrid (Prado;
1616-1617); the jewelry box, however, is new. In this work, Brueghel attempts to use a diagonal
composition – also one of the primary features of his landscapes – in a still-life painting. The
artifi cial arrangement of the wreath corresponds to the diagonal positioning of the objects
on the table. Here the artist has used a compositional scheme based on an equilateral triangle,
which is formed by the diagonals of the knife and the upper-left edge of the jewelry box,
which intersect at the vertical center of the composition. The triangle creates the effect of
depth and lends coherence to the jewelry box and other elements.
cvm
1 Bussers 2001, p. 100.
2 From correspondence with Cardinal Borromeo, it appears that the Vase of Flowers (Milan, Ambrosiana),
commissioned by the cardinal himself, was the fi rst fl oral still life Brueghel ever made.
3 Ertz in cat. exh. Essen/Wien/Antwerpen 1997-1998, p. 256-259.

Oil on panel, 46.7 ◊ 66.4 cm
Brussels, rmfab, inv. 7693
prov. : (?) Jean-Baptiste Anthoine; 1
bequest of Mrs. F. Peltzer-de Mot;
acquired in 1958.
bibl. : Pauwels 1984, p. 40; Ertz 1984,
p. 80, no. 169.
27 Penitent Magdalene
Jan Brueghel ii (1601-1678) and Hendrick van Balen i (?) (1575–1632)
cat. 27
The landscape and still life in the foreground can be attributed to Jan Brueghel the Younger. Like
his father, Jan Brueghel the Elder, Jan the Younger became a miniaturistic still-life painter as well
as a many-sided landscape painter. In this he was inspired by his father’s compositions, which he
produced in great numbers as studio replicas and variants. Jan the Younger built up the composition
of the Penitent Magdalene using components of various landscape types developed by his father. In
the foreground, a grotto landscape familiar from works like the Banquet of the Gods by Jan the Elder
and Hendrick van Balen or Rubens predominates. The left background is taken up by a panoramic
view into the distance with various planes of depth typical of the mountain landscapes of Jan the
Elder. The composition also shows similarities to the panorama found in the Mountain Landscape
with St. Anthony in Milan (Ambrosiana), also by Jan the Elder. The still life with vegetables in front of
the kneeling Magdalene is related to that found in the many representations of Noli me tangere by Jan
Brueghel the Elder and Van Balen or Rubens.
The fi gure of Mary Magdalene may have been painted by Hendrick van Balen. When Jan the Younger
took over his father’s workshop after his return from Italy, he also inherited the elder Brueghel’s collaborative
working relationship with other painters. Rubens and Van Balen were the most important
partners for painting the human fi gure. 2 The attribution to Van Balen still requires further investigation.
Moreover, it is not excluded that Jan the Younger painted the fi gure of Mary Magdalene
himself. The Penitent Magdalene was probably created shortly after 1625, when Jan the Younger took
over his father’s workshop.
cvm
1 In the inventory of the collection of J.-B. Anthoine, we fi nd Een pinneltien Magdalena van van Balen ende lantschap van fl uwelen
Breugel f. 50, or ‘A small panel Magdalene by van Balen and landscape by velvet Breugel f. 50’; Denucé 1932, ii, p. 354; this may
be the same work now in Brussels.
2 Jan Brueghel i probably already worked with his son before the latter left for Italy in the spring of 1622; hence, Jan ii had
probably already had contact with Hendrick van Balen.
121

122
cat. 28

cat. 29
123

124
28 Nymphs with a Cornucopia
Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) (and assistant) and Frans Snyders (1579–1657)
Oil on canvas, 223 ◊ 162 cm
Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. 1664
prov. : Madrid, Philip iv, Alcázar, 1636, 1686, 1700.
exh. : Madrid 1977-1978, no. 114.
bibl. : Rooses 1886-1892, iii, no. 651; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 126; Díaz Padrón 1975, i, p. 321-322; Hairs 1977, p. 15; Held 1980,
i, p. 344; Volk 1980 [2] , p. 176, 180; Orso 1986, p. 57, 71, 87, 102, 104, 191, 193; Robels 1989, p. 374-375; Jaffé 1989, no. 441;
Díaz Padrón/Padrón Mérida 1995, ii, p. 1094.
29 Nymphs with a Cornucopia
Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640)
Oil on panel, 30.9 ◊ 24.4 cm
London, Dulwich College Picture Gallery, inv. DPG 43
prov. : P.J. Snyers sale, Antwerp, 23 May 1758; Noël Joseph Desenfans, 6 July 1804, no. 123; N.J. Desenfans, 1804-1807;
Sir Francis Bourgeois, London, 1807-1811; bequest of Mrs. Desenfans; acquired in 1811.
exh. : London 1947, no. 44; Rotterdam 1953-1954, no. 70; London 1977, no. 185; Greenwich/Berkeley/Cincinnati 2004-2005, no. 23.
bibl. : Rooses 1886-1892, iii, no. 651; Oldenbourg 1921, p. 459; Cook 1926, no. 43; Grossmann 1948, p. 53-54; Held 1980, i,
no. 255; Jaffé 1989, no. 440.
Three female fi gures support a lavishly fi lled cornucopia on which a parrot has landed. In the foreground
is a fruit basket, fruit and an ape. The two fi gures on the left depict naiads, who transform the horn torn
from Achelous – who had been turned into a bull by Hercules – into a cornucopia (Ovid, Metamorphoses). 1
The fi gure on the right, the only one wearing clothing, may represent Ceres.
Nymphs with a Cornucopia (cat. 28) was made by Rubens in collaboration with Frans Snyders. The fi gures
are by Rubens, possibly with the assistance of the studio. The still-life elements and animals are attributed
to Snyders. After Rubens returned from Italy in 1609, Snyders was one of the fi rst painters with
whom he worked. Their collaboration continued until Rubens’ death in 1640. The painting shown here
has been variously dated to 1611-1613, 1615-1617 and 1625-1628. 2
In Rubens’ preparatory oil sketch (cat. 29), which is somewhat different, the naiads are still in the process
of fi lling the cornucopia. The fi gure on the left arranges fruit and fl owers; the one in the middle
reaches for a basket of fl owers and fruit on the ground. The nymph on the left is based on an antique
statue of a naiad riding a seahorse in Florence (Uffi zi) 3 . The summary execution of the areas containing
animals and still-life elements in the sketch suggests that not only their execution but also their invention
was left to Snyders. A preparatory drawing for the parrot sitting on the cornucopia attributed to
Snyders is preserved in Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen). 4
Rubens probably painted the fi gures in the fi rst phase of execution and then gave the work to Snyders so
that he could fi ll in the animals and still-life elements. A certain absence of painstaking detail and gloss
in the depiction of the materials – both typical of Snyders – suggests that the painting had to be fi nished
quickly.
cvm
1 Ovid, Metamorphoses, ix, 80-88.
2 Respectively, Hairs 1977, p. 15; Jaffé 1989, p. 231; Held 1980, p. 345.
3 In the Renaissance, the statue was interpreted as Virgil’s naiad Cymothoë (Aeneas, i, 144); Held 1980, i, p. 344.
4 Inv. AZ 133.