Amor Triumphant Amidst Emblems of Art, Science and War – Amor Triumphans
Artist/Maker
DatesMade: Made 1645 - 1650
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 169 x 242 cm h x w x d: Ram 191 x 263 x 10 cm
Inventory numberNM 410
AcqusitionTransferred 1865 Kongl. Museum
Other titlesTitle (sv): Amor triumferande bland symboler för konst, vetenskap och krig - Amor Triumphans Title (en): Amor Triumphant Amidst Emblems of Art, Science and War – Amor Triumphans Previous: Triumphant Cupid among Emblems of Art and War Previous: Amor triumferande bland konstens och krigets emblem
DescriptionDescription: The subject is an allegory of triumphant Love. Art, music, science and martial glory are transient and worthless compared to heavenly Love, or Virtue, that conquers all. Willeboirts Bosschaert was responsible for the general composition and the figure of Amor, while another painter, probably Paul de Vos, has painted the armour, musical instruments and other symbols of temporal glory and knowledge. Catalogue raisonné: Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 27: Technical notes: The painting’s original support consists of two pieces of fine, densely woven, plain weave, single-threaded fabric, respectively c. 121.6/124.0 cm (left) and 119.1/121.0 cm (right) wide, sewn together with a vertical seam near centre. Both pieces of fabric have identical weave structures, with a weave count per cm of 18 horizontal threads and 17 vertical threads. The original support has been glue-lined on a fabric support, the original tacking edges cropped on all sides and the painting attached to a non-original stretcher at the tacking edges of the lining fabric. The texture of the fabric support has become apparent in the painting as a result of the lining process. Broad cusping is present on all sides, indicating that the painting has retained its original dimensions. The support has suffered damage in the form of a small L-shaped tear at the upper left (between Amor’s right wing and the red drapery across his right arm). The support was prepared with a thin, smooth, pale greyish beige ground layer, originally intended to hide the canvas texture. Infrared reflectography detected a dark underdrawing in a dry medium, probably black chalk, partially visible as fine, controlled, contour lines in some of the musical instruments, for example, the cello and in the arrow held by Amor. Paint was applied in opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Differences observed in the handling of paint between the figure of Amor and the still life objects would seem to lend support to Heinrich’s attribution of the painting to two different hands (Heinrich 2003) This is also borne out by the numerous pentimenti at the painting stage, visible to the naked eye or revealed by infrared reflectography, indicating that substantial adjustments were made to the initial composition of the still life in order to accommodate the figure of Amor, added after its completion: the armour on the right leg and the lance (under Amor’s left thigh) as well as the sword (under his right thigh) were fully rendered in paint, in slightly different shapes and positions from those of the final painting, before the figure of Amor and his red drapery were painted. The sword and lance were initially painted more diagonally: the armoured left leg viewed more frontally, like the right leg-piece. Amor’s left hand was painted over the cuirass, his right foot over the edge of the palette, while his left foot hugs the contour of the already executed right leg-piece. Amor’s wings, followed by the arrow in his right hand, were added after the figure and drapery had been executed. The giant broken sculpture and columns in the background were added after the still life objects had been painted. The blue sky was filled in last. The plants in the right foreground were added after the scientific instruments had been painted. The painting is in excellent condition. A thick, heavily discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Abrasion is moderate overall. Retouching covers abrasion and slight repaired losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges, mainly concentrated to the left edge. A small repaired L-shaped tear in the fabric support at the upper left (see above) has been retouched. Scattered retouches cover slight abrasion and small, flaked losses, visible in ultraviolet fluorescence, in the figure of Amor, the cuirasses, the still life objects and the broken sculpture and columns at the upper right. Areas of localized craquelure occur in the more thickly painted flesh tones of Amor, in highlighted areas of the plain, polished cuirasses at the lower centre and in the sculpture at the upper right. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1935, 1972 and 1994. Exhibited: Stockholm 1977, no. 83; (as Jan van den Hoecke); Stockholm 1978 (travelling exhibition), no. 4; Stockholm, 1995, no. 249; Stockholm, 2000 (without cat.); Stockholm 2010, no. 46. Bibliography: Von Breda 1791, p. 170 (as Anthony van Dyck); Sander I, 1972, p. 83, no. 99; Guiffrey 1882, p. 255, no. 294; Göthe 1883, p. 28; Göthe 1887, p. 78; Göthe 1893, p. 96 (as manner of Anthony van Dyck); Göthe 1910, pp. 10–11; Granberg 1930, p. 167 (as attributed to Anthony van Dyck); NM Cat.1958, p. 93, (as attributed to J. van den Hoecke and Paul de Vos); De Mirimonde 1967, p. 324; Filipzak 1969–1972, pp. 204–205; Díaz Pádron 1972, p. 97; Pigler 1974, p. 20; Hairs 1977, p. 243; Cavalli-Björkman 1979, p. 66; Holgén 1987; NM Cat. 1990, p. 42; Sidén 2001, pp. 152–154; Heinrich 2003, pp. 61, 70–72, 158, 162, 178–180, no. A22. The painting depicts an allegory of the triumph of Amor, a popular motif during the Baroque period, which originates from a quotation from Vergil: “Omnia vincit Amor” or “Love conquers all” (Bucolica, Ecl. 10, 69). Artists have been inspired to render this theme in many different ways. Here the figure of Amor is composed of symbols from human culture such as music, art, science and warfare. The god of love is depicted as fair, pale and golden-haired youth. His attributes are his bow, arrows and quiver. The other objects in the picture can be classified as three groups: 1 Weapons = armour, a lance, a sword, a pair of cuirasses and a shield: 2 Artistic utensils and musical instruments = a palette with seven brushes, a graphic print, a shawm, a descant cornet, a slide trombone, a lute and a cello: 3 Scientific objects = two books, a globe, two marine astrolabes, a compass and an instrument for measuring angles and heights. A laurel wreath also belongs to this group. The weapons symbolize warfare and the musical instruments earthly love. The broken strings on the lute and its damaged condition represent the transitory nature of earthly love. Books usually symbolize the impermanence of knowledge. The graphic print and the palette indicate an artistic profession, but seeing that the print depicts the Flood these objects could also be seen as vanitas symbols as death always ensues, in spite of knowledge and earthly joys. The scientific objects represent the power of man over nature. The laurel wreath is one of the attributes of a victor. In the background can be seen on the right a stone wall, timber beams, a broken column and a fallen torso that depicts a bearded man. Göthe (1893) saw the sculpture as a representation of Hercules. His attributes – the head of a lion and his club – are missing, however. The broken column is rather one of the attributes of Samson. The background scene could therefore depict the moment when Samson destroyed the pillars in the Temple of the Philistines and died with his captors in its ruins. Henrich views the statue as a Hercules figure and suggests that here two opposing principles are invoked – the power of love over human beings in the form of the figure of Amor and Virtue embodied in the fallen Hercules. This would in its turn serve as a warning to the viewer not to depart from the path of virtue. This painting has been attributed over the years to several artists: by Von Breda in 1791 to Van Dyck with the still life by Peeter Boel, in the Nationalmuseum Catalogue in 1958 to J. van den Hoecke and the still life the work of Paul de Vos. In the 1960s attribution of the work to Antoine Sallaerts was discussed.1 De Mirimonde (1967) ascribes both the work in th Nationalmuseum and in Madrid to J. van den Hoecke. He bases his arguments on an engraving by H. Winstanley: “The Allegory of Love” after Van Hoecke. Not until the 1970s was the painting attributed to Willeboirts Bosschaert (Díaz Pádron, Hairs, Cavalli- Björkman). An Amor Triumphant with the same kind of objects as in the Nationalmuseum’s painting can be seen in Vienna, where it has been attributed to Van den Hoecke and Paul de Vos. Here the figure of Amor is a chubby child.2 There is an Amor Triumphant attributed to Willeboirts in the Museo Lazaro Galdiano in Madrid that is more reminiscent of this one, even though the figure of Amor more resembles Van Dyck’s style .3 The posture of the youth with his flowing locks can in both cases be compared to Rubens’ Ganymedes, which in their turn can be traced back to classical prototypes.4 It would therefore appear that a large number of artists from the same circle may have attempted this motif, which is considered to have originated in a painting by Van Dyck that has since disappeared.5 Where the Nationalmuseum’s version of Amor triumphans is concerned, the attribution to Willeboirts Bosschaert is convincing. This is made clear by Díaz Pádron’s article comparing several of the artist’s studies of heads. The physiognomy of the god of love, with his melancholy and somewhat saccharine features, appears to be typical of Willeboirts, as is the long flowing hair. Heinrich lists a replica of approximately the same size which he also considers to be by the artist’s own hand in collaboration with Paul de Vos.6 He dates the Stockholm picture to 1645–1650. Similarly there seems to be no reason to doubt the collaboration of Paul de Vos in the still life in the foreground. Collaboration between artists on the same painting was a common phenomenon in the circle around Rubens in Antwerp. In the case of the National museum’s painting, this assumption is supported by the technical analysis, which clearly reveals the work of another hand in the details of the still life (see technical notes above). GCB 1 See the letter from Comte Philippe d’Arschot in Nationalmuseum curatorial files. 2 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. 3 Allegoria del Amor con emblemas de guerra y arte, oil on canvas, 153 x 203 cm, no. 173, Madrid. Museo Lázaro Galdiano. See Heinrich 2003, no. A62, fig. 95. 4 Ganymede, 1611–1612. Sammlung Fürst Karl zu Schwarzenberg, Vienna. 5 The composition has been considered to echo two lost paintings by Anthony van Dyck, known to us through a drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and an engraving by H. Winstanley. See Heinrich 2003, p. 71. 6 Oil on canvas, 174 x 245 cm, sold in London, Sotheby’s, 13 December 1978, lot 263. See Heinrich 2003, p. 180, no. 22Ka, fig. 34. In the seventeenth century there was a palpable desire to master and explain one’s surroundings. Reality was to be conquered, measured, calculated, and understood. But the understanding of the world, and humankind’s place in it, also brought with it a deep crisis when the religious worldview was shaken by new theories. In this painting the god of love is seated among scientific instruments, artistic attributes, and symbols of war. The image can be interpreted to mean that love conquers all.Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 27: Technical notes: The painting’s original support consists of two pieces of fine, densely woven, plain weave, single-threaded fabric, respectively c. 121.6/124.0 cm (left) and 119.1/121.0 cm (right) wide, sewn together with a vertical seam near centre. Both pieces of fabric have identical weave structures, with a weave count per cm of 18 horizontal threads and 17 vertical threads. The original support has been glue-lined on a fabric support, the original tacking edges cropped on all sides and the painting attached to a non-original stretcher at the tacking edges of the lining fabric. The texture of the fabric support has become apparent in the painting as a result of the lining process. Broad cusping is present on all sides, indicating that the painting has retained its original dimensions. The support has suffered damage in the form of a small L-shaped tear at the upper left (between Amor’s right wing and the red drapery across his right arm). The support was prepared with a thin, smooth, pale greyish beige ground layer, originally intended to hide the canvas texture. Infrared reflectography detected a dark underdrawing in a dry medium, probably black chalk, partially visible as fine, controlled, contour lines in some of the musical instruments, for example, the cello and in the arrow held by Amor. Paint was applied in opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Differences observed in the handling of paint between the figure of Amor and the still life objects would seem to lend support to Heinrich’s attribution of the painting to two different hands (Heinrich 2003) This is also borne out by the numerous pentimenti at the painting stage, visible to the naked eye or revealed by infrared reflectography, indicating that substantial adjustments were made to the initial composition of the still life in order to accommodate the figure of Amor, added after its completion: the armour on the right leg and the lance (under Amor’s left thigh) as well as the sword (under his right thigh) were fully rendered in paint, in slightly different shapes and positions from those of the final painting, before the figure of Amor and his red drapery were painted. The sword and lance were initially painted more diagonally: the armoured left leg viewed more frontally, like the right leg-piece. Amor’s left hand was painted over the cuirass, his right foot over the edge of the palette, while his left foot hugs the contour of the already executed right leg-piece. Amor’s wings, followed by the arrow in his right hand, were added after the figure and drapery had been executed. The giant broken sculpture and columns in the background were added after the still life objects had been painted. The blue sky was filled in last. The plants in the right foreground were added after the scientific instruments had been painted. The painting is in excellent condition. A thick, heavily discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Abrasion is moderate overall. Retouching covers abrasion and slight repaired losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges, mainly concentrated to the left edge. A small repaired L-shaped tear in the fabric support at the upper left (see above) has been retouched. Scattered retouches cover slight abrasion and small, flaked losses, visible in ultraviolet fluorescence, in the figure of Amor, the cuirasses, the still life objects and the broken sculpture and columns at the upper right. Areas of localized craquelure occur in the more thickly painted flesh tones of Amor, in highlighted areas of the plain, polished cuirasses at the lower centre and in the sculpture at the upper right. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1935, 1972 and 1994. Exhibited: Stockholm 1977, no. 83; (as Jan van den Hoecke); Stockholm 1978 (travelling exhibition), no. 4; Stockholm, 1995, no. 249; Stockholm, 2000 (without cat.); Stockholm 2010, no. 46. Bibliography: Von Breda 1791, p. 170 (as Anthony van Dyck); Sander I, 1972, p. 83, no. 99; Guiffrey 1882, p. 255, no. 294; Göthe 1883, p. 28; Göthe 1887, p. 78; Göthe 1893, p. 96 (as manner of Anthony van Dyck); Göthe 1910, pp. 10–11; Granberg 1930, p. 167 (as attributed to Anthony van Dyck); NM Cat.1958, p. 93, (as attributed to J. van den Hoecke and Paul de Vos); De Mirimonde 1967, p. 324; Filipzak 1969–1972, pp. 204–205; Díaz Pádron 1972, p. 97; Pigler 1974, p. 20; Hairs 1977, p. 243; Cavalli-Björkman 1979, p. 66; Holgén 1987; NM Cat. 1990, p. 42; Sidén 2001, pp. 152–154; Heinrich 2003, pp. 61, 70–72, 158, 162, 178–180, no. A22. The painting depicts an allegory of the triumph of Amor, a popular motif during the Baroque period, which originates from a quotation from Vergil: “Omnia vincit Amor” or “Love conquers all” (Bucolica, Ecl. 10, 69). Artists have been inspired to render this theme in many different ways. Here the figure of Amor is composed of symbols from human culture such as music, art, science and warfare. The god of love is depicted as fair, pale and golden-haired youth. His attributes are his bow, arrows and quiver. The other objects in the picture can be classified as three groups: 1 Weapons = armour, a lance, a sword, a pair of cuirasses and a shield: 2 Artistic utensils and musical instruments = a palette with seven brushes, a graphic print, a shawm, a descant cornet, a slide trombone, a lute and a cello: 3 Scientific objects = two books, a globe, two marine astrolabes, a compass and an instrument for measuring angles and heights. A laurel wreath also belongs to this group. The weapons symbolize warfare and the musical instruments earthly love. The broken strings on the lute and its damaged condition represent the transitory nature of earthly love. Books usually symbolize the impermanence of knowledge. The graphic print and the palette indicate an artistic profession, but seeing that the print depicts the Flood these objects could also be seen as vanitas symbols as death always ensues, in spite of knowledge and earthly joys. The scientific objects represent the power of man over nature. The laurel wreath is one of the attributes of a victor. In the background can be seen on the right a stone wall, timber beams, a broken column and a fallen torso that depicts a bearded man. Göthe (1893) saw the sculpture as a representation of Hercules. His attributes – the head of a lion and his club – are missing, however. The broken column is rather one of the attributes of Samson. The background scene could therefore depict the moment when Samson destroyed the pillars in the Temple of the Philistines and died with his captors in its ruins. Henrich views the statue as a Hercules figure and suggests that here two opposing principles are invoked – the power of love over human beings in the form of the figure of Amor and Virtue embodied in the fallen Hercules. This would in its turn serve as a warning to the viewer not to depart from the path of virtue. This painting has been attributed over the years to several artists: by Von Breda in 1791 to Van Dyck with the still life by Peeter Boel, in the Nationalmuseum Catalogue in 1958 to J. van den Hoecke and the still life the work of Paul de Vos. In the 1960s attribution of the work to Antoine Sallaerts was discussed.1 De Mirimonde (1967) ascribes both the work in th Nationalmuseum and in Madrid to J. van den Hoecke. He bases his arguments on an engraving by H. Winstanley: “The Allegory of Love” after Van Hoecke. Not until the 1970s was the painting attributed to Willeboirts Bosschaert (Díaz Pádron, Hairs, Cavalli- Björkman). An Amor Triumphant with the same kind of objects as in the Nationalmuseum’s painting can be seen in Vienna, where it has been attributed to Van den Hoecke and Paul de Vos. Here the figure of Amor is a chubby child.2 There is an Amor Triumphant attributed to Willeboirts in the Museo Lazaro Galdiano in Madrid that is more reminiscent of this one, even though the figure of Amor more resembles Van Dyck’s style .3 The posture of the youth with his flowing locks can in both cases be compared to Rubens’ Ganymedes, which in their turn can be traced back to classical prototypes.4 It would therefore appear that a large number of artists from the same circle may have attempted this motif, which is considered to have originated in a painting by Van Dyck that has since disappeared.5 Where the Nationalmuseum’s version of Amor triumphans is concerned, the attribution to Willeboirts Bosschaert is convincing. This is made clear by Díaz Pádron’s article comparing several of the artist’s studies of heads. The physiognomy of the god of love, with his melancholy and somewhat saccharine features, appears to be typical of Willeboirts, as is the long flowing hair. Heinrich lists a replica of approximately the same size which he also considers to be by the artist’s own hand in collaboration with Paul de Vos.6 He dates the Stockholm picture to 1645–1650. Similarly there seems to be no reason to doubt the collaboration of Paul de Vos in the still life in the foreground. Collaboration between artists on the same painting was a common phenomenon in the circle around Rubens in Antwerp. In the case of the National museum’s painting, this assumption is supported by the technical analysis, which clearly reveals the work of another hand in the details of the still life (see technical notes above). GCB 1 See the letter from Comte Philippe d’Arschot in Nationalmuseum curatorial files. 2 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. 3 Allegoria del Amor con emblemas de guerra y arte, oil on canvas, 153 x 203 cm, no. 173, Madrid. Museo Lázaro Galdiano. See Heinrich 2003, no. A62, fig. 95. 4 Ganymede, 1611–1612. Sammlung Fürst Karl zu Schwarzenberg, Vienna. 5 The composition has been considered to echo two lost paintings by Anthony van Dyck, known to us through a drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and an engraving by H. Winstanley. See Heinrich 2003, p. 71. 6 Oil on canvas, 174 x 245 cm, sold in London, Sotheby’s, 13 December 1978, lot 263. See Heinrich 2003, p. 180, no. 22Ka, fig. 34. In the seventeenth century there was a palpable desire to master and explain one’s surroundings. Reality was to be conquered, measured, calculated, and understood. But the understanding of the world, and humankind’s place in it, also brought with it a deep crisis when the religious worldview was shaken by new theories. In this painting the god of love is seated among scientific instruments, artistic attributes, and symbols of war. The image can be interpreted to mean that love conquers all.Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 27: Technical notes: The painting’s original support consists of two pieces of fine, densely woven, plain weave, single-threaded fabric, respectively c. 121.6/124.0 cm (left) and 119.1/121.0 cm (right) wide, sewn together with a vertical seam near centre. Both pieces of fabric have identical weave structures, with a weave count per cm of 18 horizontal threads and 17 vertical threads. The original support has been glue-lined on a fabric support, the original tacking edges cropped on all sides and the painting attached to a non-original stretcher at the tacking edges of the lining fabric. The texture of the fabric support has become apparent in the painting as a result of the lining process. Broad cusping is present on all sides, indicating that the painting has retained its original dimensions. The support has suffered damage in the form of a small L-shaped tear at the upper left (between Amor’s right wing and the red drapery across his right arm). The support was prepared with a thin, smooth, pale greyish beige ground layer, originally intended to hide the canvas texture. Infrared reflectography detected a dark underdrawing in a dry medium, probably black chalk, partially visible as fine, controlled, contour lines in some of the musical instruments, for example, the cello and in the arrow held by Amor. Paint was applied in opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Differences observed in the handling of paint between the figure of Amor and the still life objects would seem to lend support to Heinrich’s attribution of the painting to two different hands (Heinrich 2003) This is also borne out by the numerous pentimenti at the painting stage, visible to the naked eye or revealed by infrared reflectography, indicating that substantial adjustments were made to the initial composition of the still life in order to accommodate the figure of Amor, added after its completion: the armour on the right leg and the lance (under Amor’s left thigh) as well as the sword (under his right thigh) were fully rendered in paint, in slightly different shapes and positions from those of the final painting, before the figure of Amor and his red drapery were painted. The sword and lance were initially painted more diagonally: the armoured left leg viewed more frontally, like the right leg-piece. Amor’s left hand was painted over the cuirass, his right foot over the edge of the palette, while his left foot hugs the contour of the already executed right leg-piece. Amor’s wings, followed by the arrow in his right hand, were added after the figure and drapery had been executed. The giant broken sculpture and columns in the background were added after the still life objects had been painted. The blue sky was filled in last. The plants in the right foreground were added after the scientific instruments had been painted. The painting is in excellent condition. A thick, heavily discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Abrasion is moderate overall. Retouching covers abrasion and slight repaired losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges, mainly concentrated to the left edge. A small repaired L-shaped tear in the fabric support at the upper left (see above) has been retouched. Scattered retouches cover slight abrasion and small, flaked losses, visible in ultraviolet fluorescence, in the figure of Amor, the cuirasses, the still life objects and the broken sculpture and columns at the upper right. Areas of localized craquelure occur in the more thickly painted flesh tones of Amor, in highlighted areas of the plain, polished cuirasses at the lower centre and in the sculpture at the upper right. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1935, 1972 and 1994. Exhibited: Stockholm 1977, no. 83; (as Jan van den Hoecke); Stockholm 1978 (travelling exhibition), no. 4; Stockholm, 1995, no. 249; Stockholm, 2000 (without cat.); Stockholm 2010, no. 46. Bibliography: Von Breda 1791, p. 170 (as Anthony van Dyck); Sander I, 1972, p. 83, no. 99; Guiffrey 1882, p. 255, no. 294; Göthe 1883, p. 28; Göthe 1887, p. 78; Göthe 1893, p. 96 (as manner of Anthony van Dyck); Göthe 1910, pp. 10–11; Granberg 1930, p. 167 (as attributed to Anthony van Dyck); NM Cat.1958, p. 93, (as attributed to J. van den Hoecke and Paul de Vos); De Mirimonde 1967, p. 324; Filipzak 1969–1972, pp. 204–205; Díaz Pádron 1972, p. 97; Pigler 1974, p. 20; Hairs 1977, p. 243; Cavalli-Björkman 1979, p. 66; Holgén 1987; NM Cat. 1990, p. 42; Sidén 2001, pp. 152–154; Heinrich 2003, pp. 61, 70–72, 158, 162, 178–180, no. A22. The painting depicts an allegory of the triumph of Amor, a popular motif during the Baroque period, which originates from a quotation from Vergil: “Omnia vincit Amor” or “Love conquers all” (Bucolica, Ecl. 10, 69). Artists have been inspired to render this theme in many different ways. Here the figure of Amor is composed of symbols from human culture such as music, art, science and warfare. The god of love is depicted as fair, pale and golden-haired youth. His attributes are his bow, arrows and quiver. The other objects in the picture can be classified as three groups: 1 Weapons = armour, a lance, a sword, a pair of cuirasses and a shield: 2 Artistic utensils and musical instruments = a palette with seven brushes, a graphic print, a shawm, a descant cornet, a slide trombone, a lute and a cello: 3 Scientific objects = two books, a globe, two marine astrolabes, a compass and an instrument for measuring angles and heights. A laurel wreath also belongs to this group. The weapons symbolize warfare and the musical instruments earthly love. The broken strings on the lute and its damaged condition represent the transitory nature of earthly love. Books usually symbolize the impermanence of knowledge. The graphic print and the palette indicate an artistic profession, but seeing that the print depicts the Flood these objects could also be seen as vanitas symbols as death always ensues, in spite of knowledge and earthly joys. The scientific objects represent the power of man over nature. The laurel wreath is one of the attributes of a victor. In the background can be seen on the right a stone wall, timber beams, a broken column and a fallen torso that depicts a bearded man. Göthe (1893) saw the sculpture as a representation of Hercules. His attributes – the head of a lion and his club – are missing, however. The broken column is rather one of the attributes of Samson. The background scene could therefore depict the moment when Samson destroyed the pillars in the Temple of the Philistines and died with his captors in its ruins. Henrich views the statue as a Hercules figure and suggests that here two opposing principles are invoked – the power of love over human beings in the form of the figure of Amor and Virtue embodied in the fallen Hercules. This would in its turn serve as a warning to the viewer not to depart from the path of virtue. This painting has been attributed over the years to several artists: by Von Breda in 1791 to Van Dyck with the still life by Peeter Boel, in the Nationalmuseum Catalogue in 1958 to J. van den Hoecke and the still life the work of Paul de Vos. In the 1960s attribution of the work to Antoine Sallaerts was discussed.1 De Mirimonde (1967) ascribes both the work in th Nationalmuseum and in Madrid to J. van den Hoecke. He bases his arguments on an engraving by H. Winstanley: “The Allegory of Love” after Van Hoecke. Not until the 1970s was the painting attributed to Willeboirts Bosschaert (Díaz Pádron, Hairs, Cavalli- Björkman). An Amor Triumphant with the same kind of objects as in the Nationalmuseum’s painting can be seen in Vienna, where it has been attributed to Van den Hoecke and Paul de Vos. Here the figure of Amor is a chubby child.2 There is an Amor Triumphant attributed to Willeboirts in the Museo Lazaro Galdiano in Madrid that is more reminiscent of this one, even though the figure of Amor more resembles Van Dyck’s style .3 The posture of the youth with his flowing locks can in both cases be compared to Rubens’ Ganymedes, which in their turn can be traced back to classical prototypes.4 It would therefore appear that a large number of artists from the same circle may have attempted this motif, which is considered to have originated in a painting by Van Dyck that has since disappeared.5 Where the Nationalmuseum’s version of Amor triumphans is concerned, the attribution to Willeboirts Bosschaert is convincing. This is made clear by Díaz Pádron’s article comparing several of the artist’s studies of heads. The physiognomy of the god of love, with his melancholy and somewhat saccharine features, appears to be typical of Willeboirts, as is the long flowing hair. Heinrich lists a replica of approximately the same size which he also considers to be by the artist’s own hand in collaboration with Paul de Vos.6 He dates the Stockholm picture to 1645–1650. Similarly there seems to be no reason to doubt the collaboration of Paul de Vos in the still life in the foreground. Collaboration between artists on the same painting was a common phenomenon in the circle around Rubens in Antwerp. In the case of the National museum’s painting, this assumption is supported by the technical analysis, which clearly reveals the work of another hand in the details of the still life (see technical notes above). GCB 1 See the letter from Comte Philippe d’Arschot in Nationalmuseum curatorial files. 2 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. 3 Allegoria del Amor con emblemas de guerra y arte, oil on canvas, 153 x 203 cm, no. 173, Madrid. Museo Lázaro Galdiano. See Heinrich 2003, no. A62, fig. 95. 4 Ganymede, 1611–1612. Sammlung Fürst Karl zu Schwarzenberg, Vienna. 5 The composition has been considered to echo two lost paintings by Anthony van Dyck, known to us through a drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and an engraving by H. Winstanley. See Heinrich 2003, p. 71. 6 Oil on canvas, 174 x 245 cm, sold in London, Sotheby’s, 13 December 1978, lot 263. See Heinrich 2003, p. 180, no. 22Ka, fig. 34. In the seventeenth century there was a palpable desire to master and explain one’s surroundings. Reality was to be conquered, measured, calculated, and understood. But the understanding of the world, and humankind’s place in it, also brought with it a deep crisis when the religious worldview was shaken by new theories. In this painting the god of love is seated among scientific instruments, artistic attributes, and symbols of war. The image can be interpreted to mean that love conquers all.
Exhibited
Motif categoryReligion/Mythology
Collection
TechniquePainting
Object category
Keyword