The Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite
Artist/Maker
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 69 x 96 cm h x w x d: Ram 79 x 106 x 4 cm
Inventory numberNM 609
AcqusitionTransferred 1866 from Kongl. Museum (Lovisa Ulrika 1760)
Other titlesTitle (sv): Neptunus och Amfitrite Title (en): The Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite
DescriptionCatalogue raisonné: Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 63: Technical notes: The painting’s support is an oak panel (±0.6–0.8 cm thick) constructed of four horizontal, butt-joined, radial boards with horizontal grain. Bevel- ling occurs along the left and right edges on the verso. The lower corners are slightly dented. The verso of the panel has been painted a dull yellow-green over a white ground layer that may be original. Dendrochronological examination has determined a felling date for the tree between c. 1621 and 1631. The wood originates from the Baltic region. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and a minimum of 2 years for seasoning of the wood, the most plausible date for use of the panel would be 1629 or later. Paint is applied thinly over a pale cream-coloured ground, with impastos in the whites, the flesh tones, clouds and frothing waves. Infrared reflectography revealed an extensive dark underdrawing in a dry medium, probably black chalk, a loosely executed compositional sketch that has also become partially visible to the naked eye due to the increasing transparency of the paint layers. This underdrawing indicates the various features of the background landscape, including the clouds, and delineates the contours and modelling of the figures – using curved parallel hatching in the limbs – their facial features, coiffures and draperies (Fig. 1), as well as the overall pattern of light and shade – using sweeping lines of broad parallel hatching – throughout the foreground groups of figures and animals. Except for some of the more carefully drawn principal figures, the underdrawing was often not followed exactly in the final painting, so that there are numerous observable changes between the drawing and painting. For example, in the sea-nymph straddling a fish-like creature on the right, whose drawn profile and chest differ from the painted version. The small-scale figure of Juno and her peacock-drawn carriage in the sky at the upper left were very sketchily underdrawn, but the figures in the middle ground on the right were painted directly over the landscape without prior drawing. Numerous small retouches occur throughout the sky, in the riverbank at the lower left and along a short horizontal scratch through the paint layers at the lower lefthand side. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1977. Provenance: Lovisa Ulrika 1760, no. 272 (as “the Triumph of Thetis, painted by Rubens”); Gustav III 1792, no. 123 (as Rubens); KM 1795, no. 44; KM 1816, no.689). Exhibited: Stockholm 1977, no. 77. Bibliography: NM Cat. 1867, p. 44 (as by Rubens); Sander I, p. 103, II, p. 113; Göthe 1887, p. 230 (as circle of Rubens); Göthe 1893, pp. 283–284 (as circle of Rubens); Göthe 1910, pp. 309–310 (as circle of Rubens); NM Cat. 1958, p. 74 (as by Frans Francken II); Härting 1983, cat. no. B223 (attribution to Frans Francken II rejected); NM Cat. 1990, p. 136. The sea-nymph Amphitrite fled from the persistent wooing of Neptune, in classical mythology the god who ruled the sea and its inhabitants, but he sent dolphins after her which succeeded in persuading her to return to become his bride. Amphitrite is here shown beside a confident Neptune holding his trident, his seaweed-covered locks streaming in the wind, as they ride in a cockle-shell chariot drawn by sea-horses, or hippocampi, which have the hind-parts of a fish. The draperies of the bridal couple billow behind them, as Amphitrite affectionately tugs at Neptune’s flowing beard. Their chariot is surrounded by an exuberant retinue that includes a rotund figure of Bacchus, the god of wine and fertility, wreathed with vine leaves, who offers a toast to the happy couple, while carried aloft by two horned satyrs. Tritons blow their conchshells and Nereids frolic in the waves near a rocky shore where, in a large cave, preparations are under way for the wedding banquet. In the sky above, at the upper left, the goddess Juno, protectress of women, of marriage and childbirth, appears in a burst of light, her chariot drawn by a pair of peacocks. This painting, which carries an old attribution to Rubens, was subsequently reassigned, in 1958, to the Antwerp history painter Frans Francken II. Francken II and his workshop developed and popularized the theme depicted here in a series of cabinet-sized pictures beginning in the first decade of the 17th century.1 For natural reasons the subject of the “Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite” – which is not mentioned in the classical literary sources – became an increasingly popular one among art collectors in the seafaring town of Antwerp in the 17th century.2 In general composition, and in the iconography, the scene as represented in the Nationalmuseum painting indeed adheres rather closely in its particulars to that developed by the Francken studio, as seen, for example, in a painting now at Kromériž (Schlossgalerie).3 However, Härting (1983) firmly rejected the attribution of the painting to Francken I or his circle, arguing instead that the figure style is closer to that of Hendrick van Balen II and, further, that the inclusion of Bacchus in the scene points in the same direction.4 In our view, the same hand responsible for the Nationalmuseum painting can be recognized in two paintings with similar Rubenesque figures in Dresden (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister)5 and formerly in Evanston, Illinois (present whereabouts unknown),6 both variations on the same theme, employing a slightly different cast of characters. The latter painting includes not only a similar figure of Bacchus, but also a nearly identical Juno in her chariot at the upper left. The Dresden and Evanston pictures have both been attributed to the Antwerp history painter Abraham van Diepenbeeck, a rather eclectic follower of Rubens, who worked for a time, in the late 1620s and 1630s, making preparatory drawings for prints after the master’s paintings. Several of the Nereids seen from the back in profiles perdues in the present painting recur in similar twisting poses in drawings by the artist as, for example, his Diana and Actaeon in Paris (Institut néerlandais, Fondation Custodia, Coll. Frits Lugt).7 It is not surprising, given Van Diepenbeeck’s close association with the Rubens studio, that all three paintings contain references to Rubens’ work. They also show borrowings from popular reproductive prints after Italian Renaissance masters. Thus, the pose of Amphitrite was modelled after that of the sea-nymph Galatea in the engraving of The Triumph of Galatea (c. 1515) by Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael,8 while Bacchus was inspired either by the drunken god, straddling an ass and supported by satyrs, in Marcantonio’s engraving after Raphael or Giulio Romano, The Procession of Silenus,9 or the same figure in Mantegna’s engraving Bacchanal with Silenus (B.20; 1470s),10 which may also have been the source for the fat nude figure seen from behind in the immediate foreground. This thinly painted, sketch-like picture on a wood panel dated by recent dendrochronological examination to around 1629 (see Technical Notes), seems stylistically and technically related to Van Diepenbeeck’s work of the early 1630s, especially his oil sketches such as the Conversion of St. Paul of c. 1633/1634 in Munich (Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen Alte Pina ko - thek), a modello for stained glass in St. Paul’s Cathedral at Antwerp.11 CF 1 See Härting 1989, pp. 97–113, 310–314 nos. 276–296, figs. 88–91, colour pl. 20. 2 See ibid, esp. pp. 100ff. 3 Oil on wood, 55 x 73 cm, signed “Do ffranck IN”, Kromériž, Schlossgalerie, inv. no. 031; see ibid, p. 311 no. 279, illus. 4 Härting 1983, no. B223, citing the following examples in Ertz 1979, nos. 230, 231, 359. 5 Oil on wood, 51 x 74 cm, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. no. 1016; see Cat. Dresden 1912, p. 105 no. 1016 (as Abraham van Diepenbeeck); Not in Hairs (1977) or Steadman (1982). Cf. a second picture of the same theme at Dresden that includes the chariot of Juno; see Cat. Dresden 1912, p. 105 no. 1003 (as circle of Rubens); and Cat. Dresden 1930, no. 1003 (as circle of Rubens). 6 Oil on wood, 51.7 x 77.2 cm, Evanston, Illinois, Coll. Louis Pomerantz, 1964; see a photograph on file at the RKD, The Hague (as Abraham van Diepenbeeck). Not in Hairs (1977) or Steadman (1982). 7 Pen and brown ink and wash, heightened with white, 98 x 160 mm, Paris, Institut Néerlandais, Fondation Custodia, Coll. Frits Lugt; for which see London/Paris/Bern/Brussels 1972, pp. 29–30 no. 21, pl. 70. 8 See Geneva 1984, pp. 66–68 no. 82, illus.; and The Illus. Bartsch, vol. 27 no. 350, illus. on p. 47. 9 See The Illus. Bartsch, vol. 26. 10 See The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 25, pp. 93–95 and 96 no. 240. It may be noted that both of these figures from Mantegna’s print recur among the damned in Rubens’ so-called Large Last Judgment of c. 1621 in Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen Alte Pinakothek, inv. no. 320; for which see Renger 2002, pp. 330–333. Drawings by Rubens or his assistants after Mantegna’s print may even have been available to Van Diepenbeeck during his close association with the studio after 1627. Cf., for example, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des arts graphiques, Cabinet de dessins, inv. no. 20.178; see Burchard and d’Hulst 1963, no. 67 (as Rubens). 11 Oil on wood, 46 x 36 cm, Munich, Bayerische Gemäldesammlungen Alte Pinakothek, inv. no. 1222 (as “Rubens’ School”); for which see Steadman 1982, pp. 9, 85–86 no. 5, fig. 7; and s’-Hertogenbosch 2000, p. 66, fig. 39.[End]
Motif categoryReligion/Mythology
Collection
TechniquePainting
Object category
Keyword