St. Jerome with an Angel
Artist/Maker
DatesMade: Made 1618 - 1621
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 167 x 154 cm h x w x d: Ram 218 x 192 x 13 cm
Inventory numberNM 404
AcqusitionTransferred 1865 Kongl. Museum
Other titlesTitle (sv): Den helige Hieronymus med en ängel Title (en): St. Jerome with an Angel Previous: St Jerome
DescriptionCatalogue raisonné: Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 65: Technical notes: The painting’s original support consists of two pieces of medium-weight, plain weave (tabby), single-threaded fabric (est. linen), with a weave count of 15–16 vertical threads and 14–15 horizontal threads per cm, sewn with a horizontal seam c. 52 cm from the bottom edge. The original tacking edges of the fabric have been cropped, with the fabric attached to a non-original stretcher at the tacking edges of the lining fabric. Cusping patterns on all four sides indicate that the painting’s present dimensions correspond to its original size: the height corresponds almost exactly with that of the first version of the composition now in Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen), but the Stockholm canvas is wider.1 The original fabric support was prepared with a single, moderately thick, semi-translucent cream ground layer, largely chalk (calcium carbonate), but containing also a little wood charcoal, red and brown ochre and lead white, probably bound in a drying oil.2 This single-layered ground does not substantially conceal the underlying texture of the fabric support. The ground appears slightly greyish-beige to the naked eye due to the concentration of charcoal black and it remains visible in many places through the overlying layers of paint, playing a unifying role in the overall colour design: it can just be seen through thin wash-like paint in St. Jerome’s legs and the angel’s right leg and between the brushwork of the impasto touches of St. Jerome’s face, right arm and hand and the lion’s head. Close examination of the painting’s surface and an infrared reflectogram mosaic revealed that an underpainted sketch in a dark translucent paint was used to mark out the central forms. This can be seen particularly in the outline of the saint’s shoulders and arms; it is also visible to the naked eye as dark lines in a fluid, reddish-brown paint at the junction of passages of paint along the saint’s shoulders, where they do not quite meet and outlines are reinforced. The sketch was mostly brushed in without alterations, but in a few places multiple contour lines can be seen, for example along the saint’s lower right arm. The materials of the underpainted sketch were not analysed. In addition, there may have been some initial underdrawing of the figures in black chalk, possible traces of which were detected by infrared reflectography in the saint’s hair and beard. Although in general composition and in the details of the figures, the painting adheres very closely to the Rotterdam version, no sign of mechanical transfer could be detected. As seen when the two paintings are superimposed in a digital montage, the placement of the principal figures in relation to one another differs slightly: the wider space between the two figures in the Stockholm picture, at the level of the heads and shoulders, was filled in with some added foliage. The method of painting is straightforward and direct, the painting being executed alla prima, swiftly and with a sureness of touch. Areas fully worked up in pastose paint, such as St. Jerome’s torso, the face and upper body of the angel, the white scroll and the books, alternate throughout the picture with very thinly painted, semi-transparent areas, such as St. Jerome’s legs or the angel’s lower body and right leg. A composite X-ray photograph shows the constructive brushwork in paint containing large amounts of lead white for the flesh tones of the saint’s torso and of the angel’s face and upper body, the saint’s white scroll and the underlayers and highlights of his red cloak. By contrast with the Rotterdam version, which displayed some major pentimenti in the initial shape of the angel’s wing and drapery and in St. Jerome’s cloak that initially fell further over his legs, the infrared image and the X-ray photograph of the Stockholm painting show only the most minor changes of design as the painting proceeded. Such pentimenti as can be detected are confined to slight contour adjustments of the St. Jerome’s shoulders and arms and in the precise positioning of his outstretched left arm. Here the multiple painted contour lines along the lower left arm, visible also in the Rotterdam version, suggest some difficulty with its foreshortening and the transition to the hand. The only significant change in design between the two versions can be seen in the landscape background of the Stockholm picture, where a proportionately larger tree to the saint’s right was later painted out. The range of materials employed is not large and is quite standard for the 17th century, and the technique and layer structure are comparable to the Rotterdam picture. 3 The pronounced craquelure running through the signature on a page of one of the books at the lower right indicates that the inscription is quite old, but it cannot now be determined whether or not this is contemporary with the execution of the painting. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1926, 1968, 1977 and 2008/2009. Provenance: Johann Karl Hedlinger, Stockholm, until c. 1746/1747; Adolf Fredrik 1771, no. 141 (as Van Dyck); purchased 1771 from his father’s estate by Gustav III 1792, no. 45 (as Van Dyck); KM 1795, no. 53; KM 1816, no. 698. Exhibited: Stockholm 1945, no. 83; Stockholm 1977/1978, no. 73; Ottawa 1980, no. 75.; Stockholm/St. Petersburg 1998/99, no. 421.; Rotterdam 2009; Stockholm 2010, no. 24. Bibliography: Von Breda 1791/1792; De Boisgelin de Kerdu and de Fortia de Piles 1796; NM Cat. 1867, p. 28; Sander I, pp. 127, 134; II, p. 105; Guiffrey 1882, p. 251 no. 195D; Göthe 1887, p. 77; Von Bode 1889, p. 40; Göthe 1893, pp. 94–95; Bode 1906, p. 262; Schaeffer 1909 (K.d.K.), pp. 29, 496.; Göthe 1910, pp. 107–108; Glück 1925–1926, p. 263; Drost 1926, p. 58; Rosenbaum 1928, p. 47; Granberg 1929–1931, II, p. 171; III, pp. 12–13, 169–170; Glück 1931, pp. 57, 525; Glück 1933, p. 286; Van Puyvelde 1941, pp. 182, 185, pl. IIA; Strömbom 1949, p. 88 no. 28; Nordenfalk 1952, pp. 122, 138; NM Cat. 1958, p. 67; Puyvelde 1959, p. 58; Larsen 1988, I, p. 145, fig. 57; II, p. 97 no. 224; Stewart 1981, p. 123 (as a copy after Anthony Van Dyck); NM Cat. 1990, p. 124.; De Poorter in Rotterdam 1990, pp. 45–47 under no. 6; Barnes in Washington 1990/91, p. 82 under no. 2; Bjurström 1992, p. 55; Brown in Antwerp/London 1999, p. 98 under no. 4; Barnes et al. 2003, no. I.34; Lammertse et al. 2009 (as workshop of Anthony van Dyck). The figure of St. Jerome (c. 340–420), one of the Four Fathers of the Latin Church, sits facing the viewer beneath a leafy tree as dawn breaks on the horizon. The elderly saint is shown bare-chested, the pale skin of his body contrasting with his weather-beaten ruddy face and hands, his legs crossed at the ankles. The voluminous red cloak slung around his waist – explained by the commonly held belief that the saint had been a cardinal in Rome – falls in heavy folds from his lap. According to a well-established tradition, St. Jerome is depicted as a hermit in the wilderness, alluding to the two years he spent in penitence and prayer in the desert of Syria, a luscious green landscape being an acceptable substitute for an arid wasteland in the pictorial convention of the times. On the right sleeps his faithful lion, according to popular legend ever grateful to the saint for extracting a thorn from its paw. A pile of books and papers on the left refers to St. Jerome’s scholarly activities as translator of the Bible into Latin. Disengaged from the world, the saint bends over a scroll that lies unfurled across his lap, seemingly unaware of the presence of the youthful angel who appears, as if in a vision, holding out a quill pen, a symbol of Divine inspiration, while gently resting a hand on the old man’s shoulder. The angel meets the viewer’s gaze with unusual directness, as if urging us to bear witness to the scholarly act that is about to take place. The present theme is a recurrent one in Anthony van Dyck’s early oeuvre: the young artist painted at least four versions of “St. Jerome”, including three quite different known full-length interpretations now in Vienna (Collections of the Prince of Liechtenstein),4 Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans van Beuningen),5 and Dresden (Staatliche Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister).6 Most authors have speculated that, because of some major pentimenti – notably in the shape of the angel’s right wing and drapery and in the folds of the saint’s cloak that initially fell further over his legs – and the, partially, very free execution in a broad and sketchy manner with open brushwork and eye-catching white highlights, the St. Jerome with an Angel in Rotterdam (Fig. 4) was probably the first version (principael) of this composition.7 The Stockholm painting, said to be more carefully finished, has generally been considered an autograph replica.8 Although it was quite typical for Van Dyck to paint more than one version of his early compositions with religious or mythological themes, the near identity of the Rotterdam and Stockholm pictures is highly unusual, the only significant difference being one of quality. Recent technical examination has confirmed that the painting in Stockholm is, indeed, a replica of very high quality of the artist’s Rotterdam picture and that it was in all likelihood produced with a greater degree of workshop participation than previously suspected.9 The composition was slightly expanded on the left, showing more of the lion and the cliff with ferns. The differences between the two works are otherwise minor and include variations in the drapery folds of the saint’s red cloak, in the still life of books and papers and in the background landscape. Van Dyck’s characteristic early manner is expressed also in the Stockholm replica in a rather free and bold technique, but now in a more toned down version, with less variety of brushwork and smoother transitions between light and shadow, perhaps done at the request of a client. As in the Rotterdam picture, some areas are so thinly and rapidly executed that the canvas is barely covered, while others exhibit a forceful impasto (see Technical Notes). The Rotterdam picture was purchased around 1640 by King Philip IV of Spain from the estate of its first owner, Peter Paul Rubens10, while the earliest provenance of the Stockholm replica remains unknown. A reduced-size copy was formerly in Paris (Coll. Rudolphe Kann)11 and two full-size copies of a variant (?) without the angel are known, in Oldenburg (Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte) 12 and formerly at Potsdam (destroyed in World War II).13 Van Dyck’s various depictions of “St. Jerome” are all among his large group of early history paintings, produced during his first period of activity at Antwerp and variously dated between c. 1615 and 1616 and his departure for Italy in October 1621. During this “first Antwerp period” the young artist experimented with different styles and, consequently, his early oeuvre lacks stylistic uniformity and does not show a clear pattern of development. Between 1617 and 1620 Van Dyck is known to have collaborated with Rubens on a series of monumental commissions, while also running his own Antwerp studio.14While his oeuvre shows him quite capable of closely imitating Rubens’ smooth, “classical” idiom and meticulous craftsmanship of the 1610s, in his own production the ambitious young painter was clearly at pains to make his work look drastically different and, thus, to devise a personal style for himself: his brushwork was freer, more nervous and expressive. The raw painterly power of some of the artist’s early history paintings, seen in its vintage form in the Rotterdam St. Jerome, apparently had no precedent in large-scale painting at Antwerp and was presumably inspired, as was the palette of bright primary colours, by Venetian paintings studied in Rubens’ and other Antwerp art collections.15 Subsequent full-size works by the artist that display the same approach are preparatory in nature. None of the artist’s early history paintings are dated, so that any sequence or more precise dating proposed for the different versions of “St. Jerome” must remain purely hypothetical. A dat- ing of the Rotterdam and Stockholm pictures between c. 1618, the year he was enrolled as a free master in the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke, and his departure for Italy three years later, seems the most convincing.16 The St. Jerome with an Angel has rightly been said to demonstrate the virtuosity with which the young artist assimilated the artistic models he so admired – Rubens and the Italians – in works of genuine individuality. The composition shows him intimately acquainted with and indebted to specific works from Rubens’ studio and, at the same time – in the spirit of aemulatio – to be aggressively seeking his own path in competition with and reaction against those works. While it has been suggested that the young artist’s fascination with the subject of “St. Jerome” may have been connected with his desire to emulate the older master, himself a confirmed Stoic,17 a local market clearly existed for such images of penitential saints in Counter-Reformation Antwerp.18 In his depictions of the saint Van Dyck generally adhered to the tradition of showing him as a hermit in the wilderness, but the Vienna, Rotterdam and Stockholm pictures also show him as translator of the Bible, an enterprise he undertook only later in life. The saint’s intellectual endeavour is underscored by the books and folios, the long scroll he holds and, especially, by the angel who hands him a quill pen – a unique addition to the saint’s iconography – whereby the artist was able to evoke the idea of Divine inspiration by analogy with the way the angel guided the Evangelist Matthew when writing the first Gospel.19 While the iconography conflating St. Jerome’s roles of scholar and penitent had a long tradition in Italian as well as in Northern art,20 the immediate inspiration for some of Van Dyck’s imagery may have come from Rubens’ St. Jerome in His Study of c. 1609/1610 in Potsdam (Sanssouci, Bildergalerie).21 Rubens depicted the Church Father, nude to the waist and seated at his desk musing over some theological problem, sur- rounded by books and papers, the scene being enlivened by two angels, often regarded as the source for Van Dyck’s angel. As noted by most writers there is, however, little resemblance between Rubens’ extroverted, heroically muscular saint and playful angels and the younger artist’s introspective, emaciated hermit scholar and serious cherub holding his quill in readiness. Van Dyck chose not only a radically different technique, but also a very different physical type for his saint. His St. Jerome, thus, represents a complete rejection of the Rubensian ideal in favour of a closely observed naturalism, paying scrupulous attention to the details of skin, hair and posture that convey the saint’s advanced age and physical condition. The emaciated but still muscular saint has been related to Titian’s St. Jerome from S. Maria Nuova, Venice, which the artist probably knew through Rubens’ drawn copy.22 Van Dyck’s frequent use of “coarse” physical types, depicted with unflinching realism, for his early history paintings have also been linked to the work of Caravaggio and his followers, whose preferred models were common labourers.23The same bearded old man as in the Rotterdam and Stockholm pictures, with a coarse, weather-beaten face and broad nose, appears to have been the model for the artist’s early oil head studies painted from life in Paris (Musée du Louvre)24 and Antwerp (Rockoxhuis).25 Despite its appearance of having been painted from life, however, the torso of the elderly saint with its hunched shoulders and desiccated skin may actually recall a (lost) drawing by Rubens after the famous antique sculpture known as the Borghese Fisherman (St. Petersburg, The Hermitage). 26 Further, Healy proposed a rather convincing analogy for the saint’s pose in Rubens’ series of drawings of c. 1601 in Paris (Musée du Louvre) after Michelangelo’s Prophets on the Sistine Ceiling.27 The saint’s gnarled feet, crossed at the ankles, closely resemble those of Isaiah in Rubens’ drawn copy, a connection that would have been even more apparent before Van Dyck painted out the saint’s red robe in the original Rotterdam picture in order to expose his lower legs. The lion at the saint’s feet, finally, is a variant of the animal in Rubens’ painting of St. Jerome of c. 1612/1616 in Dresden (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister), perhaps modelled after one of the master’s many drawn studies of lions.28 Van Dyck’s working procedure for his large multi-figure history paintings was frequently to evolve the composition in series of pen and wash drawings, in which he tried out ideas, rejecting some, developing and refining others. And even after all this intensive preparation, he would often substantially rework his compositions on the canvas. No preparatory drawing specifically related to the St. Jerome with an Angel is known to survive. For a relatively simple composition such as this the artist apparently sought the best solution while painting, as evidenced by the numerous pentimenti of the first Rotterdam version. CF 1 Oil on canvas, 168.3 x 134.7 cm, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, on permanent loan from the Willem van der Vorm Foundation, inv. no. VdV 22; see Cat. Rotterdam 1990, pp. 45–47 no. 6 (N. de Poorter); Barnes et al. 2003, pp. 48–49 no. I.33, illus.; and, most recently, Lammertse et al. 2009, with the literature cited there. 2 For more detailed information about the results of the recent technical examination of the two versions of the painting in Stockholm and Rotterdam jointly undertaken in 2009 by the NM and the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, see Lammertse et al. 2009. 3 See all technical details in Lammertse et al. 2009, pp. 20–32, 47–53. 4 Oil on canvas, 159 x 132 cm, Vienna, Collections of the Prince of Liechtenstein, inv. no. 56; see Cat. Liechtenstein 1980, pp. 157–156 no. 61, pl. 61 (Baumstark); and Barnes et al. 2003, pp. 47–48 no. I.32, illus., with the earlier literature cited there. 5 See under n. 1 above. 6 Oil on canvas, 195 x 215.5 cm, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. 1024; see Barnes et al. 2003, pp. 50–51 no. I.35, illus., with the earlier literature cited there. 7 Only Larsen regarded the Stockholm picture (“c.1616/17”) as the first version of this composition and the Rotterdam picture as a “somewhat more mature replica” (c. 1617); see Larsen 1988, I, p. 145, II, p. 97 nos. 224, 225. 8 Only Stewart firmly rejected the Stockholm painting as an autograph work by Van Dyck and considered it a later copy, see his review of the 1980 Ottawa exhibition in The Burlington Magazine 123 (1981), p. 123. 9 See n. 2 above. 10 Rubens had in his possession two additional pictures of “St. Jerome” by his young assistant. See Cat. Rotterdam 1990, p. 45 under no. 6; and Lammertse et al. 2009, pp. 11–12, and n. 4. 11 Oil on canvas, 31 x 24.5 cm, formerly Paris, Coll. R. Kann; for which see the Catalogue of the Rudolphe Kann Collection, Paris 1907, I, no. 2; and Schaeffer 1909 (K.d.K.), repr. p. 30. 12 Oil on canvas, 192 x 121 cm, Oldenburg, Landesmuseum; see Cat. Oldenburg 1966, p. 75, illus. 13 Formerly Potsdam, Bildergalerie Sanssouci, inv. no. I.7538 (destroyed in World War II); see Cat. Potsdam-Sanssouci 1930, no. 38, illus. 14 On Van Dyck’s first Antwerp studio see Roland 1984; Van der Stighelen 1994, pp. 22–30; idem in Antwerp/London 1999, 39–40, 42; and, most recently, Lammertse et al. 2009. 15 On Van Dyck’s art collection, formed in the late 1620s–1630s, which included several works attributed to Titian, see Wood 1990. Cf. also the artist’s observations about the painting technique of Titian and other Italian artists in the manuscript commonplace-book of Thomas Marshall, for which see Vey 1960 and in his ’Italian sketchbook’ (London, B. M., fol. 120r). On Rubens’ art collection see Müller 1989 and Antwerp 2004; on 17th-century Antwerp art collections in general, see Speth-Holterhoff 1957. 16 Barnes et al. 2003, p. 16. 17 St. Jerome was a continuous presence in Rubens’ work, making his final appearance in the late altarpiece the artist designated for own his tomb in St. Jacob’s Church, but the saint no longer formed part of Van Dyck’s repertoire after his departure for Italy. See Healy in Antwerp 2004, p. 167 (under no. 29). 18 See Barnes et al. 2003, p. 51 (under no. I.35). 19 Cf., for example, Johannes Wierix, St. Matthew, engr., for which see Hollstein 1949-, vol. 63, pp. 211–212 no. 1107, illus. Caravaggio’s lost St. Matthew and the Angel, formerly in Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, has been suggested as a possible source of inspiration for Van Dyck’s imagery, see Healy in Antwerp 2004, p. 168 (under no.29). 20 As seen, for example, in an engraving of 1573 by Flemish printmaker Cornelis Cort after the Italian artist Girolamo Muziano, Cornelis Cort after Girolamo Muziano, St. Jerome Translating the Bible in the Wilderness, engr., 1573, see The New Hollstein, II, pp. 164–165 no. 121; and Lammertse et al. 2009, p. 14, fig. 6. 21 For Rubens’ Potsdam St. Jerome in His Study, see Vlieghe 1973, II, pp. 97–99 no. 121, fig. 65. 22 See McNairn in Ottawa 1980, p. 160, and fig. 16 (under no. 74). For Rubens’ ricordo, see further Vlieghe 1973, II, p. 100 (under no. 121). 23 See, for example, Barnes in Washington 1990/1991, p. 23 (under no. 2). 24 Oil on paper (mounted on wood panel), 60.5 x 45.5 cm, the head on a separate piece of paper measuring 40.5 x 27.5 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. MI 916, see Barnes et al. 2003, no. I.93, illus. X. The same elderly male model recurs in a number of the artist’s early history paintings, such as the St. Sebastian in Paris (Musée du Louvre) and the Jupiter and Callisto in Ghent (Musée des Beaux-Arts), but also in works by Jacob Jordaens. 25 Oil on paper (mounted on canvas), 40.5 x 53.5 cm, Antwerp, Rockoxhuis (KBC Bank N.V.), inv. no. 77.111, see Barnes et al. 2003, no. I.92, illus. 26 See Sutton in Boston 1993, p. 330 (under no. 38). For Rubens’ lost drawing of the so-called Borghese Fisherman (frontal view) in St. Petersburg, The Hermitage, see Van der Meulen 1994, pp. 36–37 nos. 8–9, figs. 22–23. 27 The putto looking over the prophet’s right shoulder in Rubens’ drawing, though only lightly indicated, might have provided the inspiration for Van Dyck’s angel. A similar configuration is found in Rubens’ Joel, where the prophet ignores the angel’s presence to concentrate on reading the scroll he has unfurled, a motif that may have inspired Van Dyck to his unusual image of St. Jerome about to write on a similar scroll. Healy suggested that Rubens may himself have recalled the crossed legs and left arm of the Sistine Erythrean Sibyl when painting his Potsdam St. Jerome, and the source for the saint’s pensive pose may have been his drawing after the prophet Jeremiah. See Healy in Antwerp 2004, p. 168 (under no. 29), figs. 29c-d. 28 See Lammertse et al. 2009, p. 19, fig. 15.[End]
Exhibited
Motif categoryReligion/Mythology
Collection
TechniquePainting
Object category
Keyword