Worship of Venus
Artist/Maker
DatesMade: Made 1635 - 1638
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 195 x 210 cm h x w x d: Ram 239 x 254 x 19 cm
Inventory numberNM 599
AcqusitionGift 1865 Karl XV
Other titlesTitle (sv): Offer till Venus Title (en): Worship of Venus
DescriptionDescription: The legendary book Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, published in Venice in 1499, includes a description of the garden of the goddess of love on Kythira Island. This depiction later inspired Titian and Watteau. When the former portrayed Venus’ garden, here as a free copy by Rubens, it is not apparent that the vegetation was based on advanced geometry. It is all hidden by a multitude of winged putti, who are picking apples to honour the goddess of love. Catalogue raisonné: Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 150: Technical notes: The painting’s original support consists of a single piece of plain (or tabby) weave fabric of exceptional width, with the warp aligned horizontally. No seams are visible on the surface of the painting, nor in the X-radiograph. The fabric (probably linen) has a high average density per cm2 of 20 threads in the warp and in the weft, resulting in a fine texture. The slight irregularities of the threads are characteristic of handwoven manufacture. The support was subsequently gluelined in 1868, and the tacking edges of the original canvas support trimmed off on all sides. No cusping is visible along the edges. A small piece of the original support is missing at the upper right corner. The thread density and weave characteristics of the painting’s original fabric support suggest that it was probably cut from the same bolt as that used for the companion piece, no. 151 (see below), with an original strip-width of c. 210 cm (3 ell). The preparatory layers consist of a thick, smooth whiteish ground followed by an opaque, grey imprimatura, ranging in tone from a dark to a medium grey that extends to the edges of the support and completely obscures the canvas texture. As can be seen in X-radiographs, this layer was applied with both a brush and a spatula. The cool-grey imprimatura was incorporated as a mid-tone in the shadows of the flesh tones. Paint was applied broadly in pastes of varying fluidity and thickness worked both wet-into-wet and wet-overdry. As seen in the X-radiograph, the artist made hardly any changes in the painting. A few minor adjustments of the contours of individual figures are visible to the naked eye. The smoothly blended flesh tones, ranging from a pinkish white to a darker brownish complexion, are built up in layers, the thinly painted shaded areas applied either directly over the grey imprimatura, or a translucent warm red-brown underpaint that partially blocks-in forms. Fine brushstrokes in brown/red-brown paint delineate contours, with occasional parallel hatching in shaded areas; in the faces a dark red glaze is used for details (nostrils, mouths). The impastoed yellowish white highlights on the arms, legs and faces of several foreground putti, were applied over a dry paint surface, suggesting they were probably reworked by the artist at a later date: an intermediate thin dark layer (varnish? dirt?) is visible in a paint cross-section taken from a putto on the lower right. The intense blue sky, probably lapis lazuli ultramarine admixed with lead white, is applied thinly over a cream underpaint, with strong impastos and vigorous brushwork in the whites and bright yellows (lead-tin yellow?) of the clouds. The central trees were painted partly over the grey imprimatura, partly over their red-brown blocked-in forms, before the sky was painted around them and the details of leaves and branches elaborated over the edges of the sky paint. A putto at upper left was executed before the foliage that slightly overlaps the contours. The foliage greens are probably based largely on a mixture of blue mineral azurite, yellow lakes and earth pigments; the presence of a oxydized copper green was also noted. The final touches, white and yellow lights on the foliage and tree trunks, the apples’ reds and yellows, were added with great freedom and immediacy. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1868, 1933, 1937, 1977, 1987 and 2009. Provenance: Peter Paul Rubens, Antwerp, until 1640 (inv. 1640, no. 81: “Une piece des Cupidons s’esbatans, prise de Philostrate”); by purchase c. 1640/1645 to Philip IV of Spain; Carlos II; King Carlos III, Palacio Nuevo, Madrid (Ponz 1776, VI, Del Alcázar, 57; inv.1814). Acquired after 1814 by Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, King of Sweden and Norway as Karl XIV Johan in 1818, and his spouse, Eugénie Bernardine Desirée Bernadotte, Stockholm; Oscar I, Royal Palace, Stockholm ; bequeathed by Karl XV to the KM in 1865; KM 1861/1867, no. 1386. Exhibited: Stockholm 1945, no. 92; Stockholm 1977, no. 4; Stockholm 1987, no. 4; Madrid 1987, no. 4; Munich 2009, no. 16; Stockholm 2010, no. 15. Bibliography: Sander IV, p. 161, no. 1386; Sainsbury 1859, p. 238; Cruzada Villaamil 1874, p. 324; Göthe 1880; Göthe 1887, p. 223; Göthe 1893, p. 275; Göthe 1900, p. 285; Granberg 1912, p. 94, no. 338; Roosval, 1915, p. 11ff; Denucé 1932, p. 60; Glück 1933, p. 303f, 319, 411; Nordenfalk 1938, pp. 40–47; Evers 1943, p. 317; Norris, , 1951, p. 25; Walker 1956, pp. 83–92, 113–14, figs. 40, 41; Bottineau 1956, p. 322; NM Cat. 1958, p. 174–175; Gerson and Ter Kuile 1960, p. 100, 188, no. 128; Fehl 1972, pp. 159–162; Wethey 1969–1975, III, pp. 146 no.13, 151 no.15, 152; Glang- Süberkrüb 1975, p. 67f; Cavalli-Björkman 1977, pp. 13–29; Held 1982, pp. 312–315; Glang-Süberkrüb 1985, pp. 125–126; Filipczak 1987 p. 63; Belkin 1987, pp. 143–152; Cavalli-Björkman 1987 a, pp. 93–106; Cavalli- Björkman 1987b, pp. 53–60; Fehl 1987, pp. 107–119; Müller 1987, pp. 75–80; Rosand 1987, pp. 86–90; Perez- Sanchez 1987, p. 94; White 1987, pp. 219–220; Müller 1989, p. 111, no. 81; Pochat 1989, pp. 63–66; NM Cat. 1990, p. 315; Bjurström 1992, p. 132; Sutton 1993, p. 40; Von Simson 1996, p. 381; Vergara 1999, p. 146, 151, fig. 64; Van Hout 2001, pp. 16–17; Muller (in Belkin and Healy 2004), pp. 27–28; Rosenthal 2005, p. 94; Cavalli- Björkman 2009, pp. 237–246; Baumstark 2009, pp. 104–107; Wood 2009, pp. 75–77; Cavalli-Björkman in Stockholm 2010, pp. 29–38. Rubens’ two paintings The Worship of Venus and The Andrians have an interesting and rather complicated history. They were among the paintings remaining in Rubens’ estate and after his death 1640 they were bought by the king of Spain Philip IV for 1,800 florins.1 The king had known the painter personally during his lifetime and had made use of his services in important diplomatic affairs and continually commissioned paintings from him. It is hardly surprising that these two paintings were particularly important acquisitions for the king as he already possessed Titian’s works with the same motifs. The paintings, which remained in the royal collection in Spain for the next two centuries, became spoils of war during Napoleon’s invasion of the country. It has been assumed that the works were taken to Sweden by Marshall Jean Baptiste Bernadotte when he became Sweden’s Crown Prince in 1810. Perez Sanchez (1987) states, however, that the two Rubens paintings are still listed in the Spanish inventories as late as 1814. It therefore seems more reasonable to assume that they came into the possession of Berna - dotte on some later occasion. They may have been taken to Paris by Napoleon’s brother Joseph after 1814 and later brought to Sweden by Bernadotte’s wife Desirée, who remained in Paris until 1823.2 It is confirmed, however, that they belonged to Bernadotte on his death in 1844. They are listed in the inventory of his estate.3 In 1865 the paintings were donated to Nationalmuseum by King Karl XV in connection with the inauguration of the new museum building. Rubens’ paintings are free copies after two paintings by Titian originally belonging to a series of paintings decorating Alfonso d’Este’s studiolo in Ferrara.The subjects are derived from Philostratos’ Imagines, a series of rhetorical exercises written in the 3rd century A.D. Worship of Venus is inspired by a description (Imagines I:V I) of an enchanted garden in which the cupids, small winged children taken to be the offspring of nymphs, indulge in symbolic love play. “See cupids are gathering apples: and if there are many of them, do not be surprised /…/ The cupids’ quivers are studded with gold, and golden also are the darts in them…they have hung their quivers on the apple trees; and in the grass lie their broidered mantles /…/ Ah the baskets into which they gather the apples! What abundance of sardonyx, of emeralds, adorns them, and the pearls are true pearls; but the workmanship must be attributed to Hephaestus! But the cupids need no ladders wrought by him to reach the trees, for aloft they fly even to where the apples hang /…/ As for the cupids further away, surrounded by many spectators, they have come at each other with spirit and are engaged in a sort of wrestling-match..One has caught his opponent by lighting on his back, and seizes his throat to choke him, and grips him with his legs; the other does not yield, but struggles upright and tries to loosen the hand that chokes him by bending back one of the fingers till the others no longer hold or keep their grip. In pain the cupid whose finger is being bent back bites the ear of his opponent /…/ And let not the hare yonder escape us, but let us join the cupids in hunting it down /…/ the cupids hunt it from place to place and make it dash headlong, one by clapping his hands, another by screaming, another by waving his cloth /…/”.4 The two women entering the picture from the right can be interpreted as the cupids’ mothers mentioned in the text. They are offering gifts to the love goddess depicted as a marble statue in the picture. There is a great deal to suggest that Rubens had read Philostratus text. In some ways he appears to have elucidated the substance of the text. He underscores the theme of fertility by increasing the quantity of fruit in the apple trees. He has indicated the presence of the goddess not only by a statue. He has painted her constellation in the sky, a chariot pulled by two swans. Another significant detail concerns the idea of combining male and female cupids. Titian’s children all are boys. Rubens’ cupid in the right foreground now aims his arrow toward a girl who is marked by an expression of playful delight. All the girls in Rubens’s paintings are depicted without wings. Thereby he has transformed Titian’s rather general expression of the power of Venus and her retinue of cupids to arouse love into a very specific statement of heterosexual love as the natural bond between men and women. It seems that the artist first introduced male-female cupids in his Feast of Venus Verticordia in Vienna. This painting recalls a passage from Ovid’s Fasti (IV:133–192) describing a feast during which mothers, brides and prostitutes together paid tribute to the goddess of love. Rubens began work on it in the early 1630s, but completed the picture in 1636.5 In format Rubens’ Worship of Venus is wider than Titian’s. The landscape is more open and spacious and the tree tops less compact. A broad sweep between the cupids directs our gaze into the distance. The branches of the trees bend gently down towards the statue of Venus which seems to have come to life in a terrestrial sense. Nature has vanquished classical antiquity. The Worship of Venus and The Bacchanal at Andros are described in the inventory of Rubens’ estate as “originals” after Philostratos. The two paintings are indeed masterworks in their own right, glowing with brilliant colour and energy of touch. Like many of the pictures that Rubens painted between 1630 and 1640 they were inspired by Titian’s painting technique. At this time he had brought home all the full-scale copies he had painted after Titian’s pictures in Madrid and London. His own pictures began to resemble Titian’s bold late style of painting, in which the colours, above all those used for flesh, became more unified.6 The dating of the Nationalmuseum paintings has been discussed repeatedly by art historians. Rubens may have seen Titian’s originals during one of his two visits to Rome in 1601–1602 and 1605–1608 when they were exhibited in the Aldobrandini Palace. The sources tell us that he visited Spain 1628–1629 but not after 1638 when Titian’s paintings had come into the hands of Philip IV. For stylistic reasons, the two paintings must however have been made in the 1630s when his painting style was distinguished by thick, sweeping brushstrokes and copious colouring. Suggestions vary from around 1630 to 1638, though on the basis of style a later date, between 1635 and 1638, seems more plausible. A distinctive characteristic from this period is that Rubens painted rather directly on the canvas without underpainting. X-ray photographs of the two Bacchanals show that there is practically no trace of alterations. Both paintings are to be regarded as large-scale sketches, fresh and immediate in their depiction of the subject. There has been a good deal of debate concerning how and when Rubens renewed his contact with Titian’s two originals. Nordenfalk (1938) and Belkin (1987) believed that Rubens in Antwerp had access to other large-scale copies not known today – possibly by Van Dyck. Held (1982a) also assumes that Rubens worked from copies which he meant could account for the many small deviations. The great and original quality of the paintings suggests the possibility that he had saved colour sketches of his own.7 Worth mentioning is, however, that Titian’s originals are from his youth while Rubens’ two Bacchanals reflect Titian’s late style of painting.8 GCB 1 They were among 32 paintings bought from the estate, fifteen works by Rubens and the rest by other artists. Eight of the Rubens paintings bought by the king were copies after Titian. See Vergara pp. 145–146, 150; See also Müller 1989, p. 111, n. 1–2. 2 An interesting comparison in this context can be found in the painting depicting St. Jerome by Van Dyck, which also came from Rubens’ collection and was acquired after his death by Philip IV, later to be seized by Joseph Bonaparte,who in his turn gave it to Marshall Soult. 3 No earlier inventories of his art collections are known. 4 An extract from Philostratus text quoted from A. Fairbanks, Philostratus imagines, Callistratus descriptions. Heinemann, London 1931, book I, 6. 5 See Cavalli-Björkman 1977a, pp. 108–109. 6 See H. von Sonnenburg ”Rubens Bildaufbau und Technik, II, Farbe und uftraugstechnik” in Rubens, gesammelte Aufsätze zur Technik, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen München, Abteilung für Restaurierung und naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, Doerner-Institut, Mitteilungen 3, 1979, p. 27. 7 For the different theories on the dates of Rubens’ paintings see Cavalli- Björkman, 1987 a. and 1987b, p. 94. See also Pochat 1989, (a review of the symposium publication). 8 See Baumstark 2009, p. 105. [END]
Collection
TechniquePainting
Object category