Modelled and fired. Coated with a beige finishing layer. Traces of a toothed modelling trowel. An aeration hole has been made in the reverse.

The toes of both feet have broken off.

…; ? Stadstekenacademie (in the former Town Hall, now Royal Palace at Dam Square), Amsterdam, late 17th century or later;¹¹For the early history of the sculpture collection of the city of Amsterdam, which possibly included this terracotta since the late 17th century or later, see H.J. Wiggers, ‘De stad Amsterdam en haar vroegste beeldencollectie’, in M. Jonker et al., In beeld gebracht: Beeldhouwkunst uit de collectie van het Amsterdams Historisch Museum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1995, pp. 60-75. ? transferred to the Koninklijke Academie van Beeldende Kunsten (old Exchange of Hendrick de Keyser), Amsterdam, 1821; ? transferred to the Oude Mannenhuis, Amsterdam 1837; ? transferred to the Rijksacademie, Stadhouderskade, Amsterdam, 1875;²²Willy Halsema-Kubes’s complete translated note to the then director of the Rijksmuseum, Simon Levie: ‘Simon, a while back I sent you several photos of terracottas preserved at the Rijksacademie (two headless sculptures, Diana and Apollo and 1 terracotta after Michelangelo, signed A. Quellinius and dated 1658). I wish to obtain these terracottas on loan and the Rijksacademie is also not opposed to this. I find the Ministry’s response (see enclosed letter) rather surprising, or am I mistaken? Could you do something about this? Apparently, nothing else has happened since Nov. 1980. Willy P.S. I’m attaching the photos to this. May I have them back again in due time?’ The letter to which Halsema-Kubes is referring was written on the behalf of the minister of Culture, Recreation and Social Work, dated 9 October 1980, and addressed to the director of the Rijksacademie, in which it is proposed that the care of the sculptures in question - i.e. the present Quellinus terracotta, and two bozzetti by Ignatius van Logteren, inv. nos. BK-1997-20 (Apollo) and BK-1997-21 (Diana) - and other works preserved at the academy first be handed over to the Dienst Verspreide Rijkscollecties (Department of Dispersed State Collections), an institution charged with the task of inventorying, describing and subsequently determining a proper destination. In September 1981, Levie contacted Robert de Haas, the then director of the Dienst Verspreide Rijkscollecties (later Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, ICN, and now RCE), who by this time already had these works in his possession, as confirmed by Simon Levie’s handwritten note to Willy Halsema-Kubes (in Object File BK-1997-12), in translation: ‘Willy, I’ve spoken to Robert de Haas regarding this matter. The pieces (sculptures and drawings) are now in his possession and he will get back [to us] on that. Simon [18 September 1981] P.S. Will you remind me again if after some time we’ve not yet heard anything?’. transferred to the Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, The Hague, inv. no. R5549, before September 1981,³³Bestandscatalogus Oude beeldhouwkunst 1300-1900, coll. cat. The Hague 1995, p. 29, no. 82. on loan to the Amsterdams Historisch Museum, Amsterdam, 1982-2012; on loan from the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort, to the museum, since 2012

Object number: BK-2012-62

Credit line: Amsterdam Museum, on loan from the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, Rijswijk/Amsterdam

From 1650 to 1665, the Flemish sculptor Artus Quellinus I (1609-1668) lived in Amsterdam, where he oversaw the sculptural decoration of the town hall under construction. During this time, he maintained his connections with his native city of Antwerp and also continued to do work for various patrons there.⁴⁴A.W. Kroon, Het Amsterdamsche stadhuis, Amsterdam 1867 and J. Gabriels, Artus Quellien, de Oude: ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, Antwerp 1930, p. 39. He also owned several houses in the city. In 1655, he purchased the house ‘Het schilt van Bourgoigne’ on the Cammerstraat in Antwerp.⁵⁵J. Gabriels, Artus Quellien, de Oude: ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, Antwerp 1930, p. 44. Two years later, he invested his capital in two country estates in Hoboken, one of which was a huysinge van plaisantie (country house, house of leasure) with a drawbridge, orchard, barns and horse stalls. In 1658, Quellinus had his will drawn up in Antwerp.⁶⁶J. Gabriels, Artus Quellien, de Oude: ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, Antwerp 1930, p. 161. It was around this time that he worked on sculptures such as the life-size, oak-carved carved Recumbent Greyhound in the Rijksmuseum (BK-2008-120), made in 1657 for a member of the Antwerp patrician family Roose. Shortly thereafter, in 1658 or 1659, he supplied a large marble statue of St Peter the Apostle for the tomb monument of the deceased Antwerp merchant Pieter Saboth (Sint-Andrieskerk, Antwerp).⁷⁷J. Gabriels, Artus Quellien, de Oude: ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, Antwerp 1930, pp. 158-62. C. Lawrence, Flemish Baroque Commemorative Monuments 1566-1725, 1978 (diss. University of Chicago), pp. 259-60 (no. 71). P. Philippot, D. Coekelberghs, P. Loze and D. Vautier, L’Architecture religieuse et la sculpture baroques dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux et la principauté de Liège: 1600-1770, Sprimont 2003, p. 395.

The present personification of Day dates from this same year, modelled after Michelangelo’s figure on Giuliano de’ Medici’s monumental tomb in the Medici Chapel in the Church of San Lorenzo (Florence). Because Quellinus was working, not in Italy, but in Flanders and the Dutch Republic at this time, it remains unclear for what purpose and for whom this terracotta was made. Amsterdam is the most likely place of manufacture, as suggested by the sculpture’s provenance as part of the collection of the Rijksacademie (State Academy of Art). This is the same location where a large number of Quellinus terracottas – invariably studies for the sculptural programme of the Amsterdam town hall – were preserved via the Stadstekenacademie (City Drawing Academy, precursor of the Rijksacademie) in Amsterdam.⁸⁸H.J. Wiggers, ‘De stad Amsterdam en haar vroegste beeldencollectie’, in M. Jonker et al., In beeld gebracht: Beeldhouwkunst uit de collectie van het Amsterdams Historisch Museum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1995, pp. 60-75. Quellinus’s prominently placed signature indicates he considered this work to be a full-fledged work of art in itself – not a study model for in the studio as its seemingly unfinished curved base might suggest. Accordingly, one may reasonably conclude the terracotta Day was made at the request of an (Amsterdam) collector.

Quellinus possibly based this work on a (lost) study modelled directly after Michelangelo’s original, made during one of his trips to or from Rome, documented in 1635, 1638-39 and circa 1645. The sculptor paid his first visit to the city around the age of twenty-five, motivated by a desire to study Roman classical sculpture and to serve as an apprentice to François du Quesnoy (1597-1643), a fellow Flemish sculptor active in the city since 1618. Reflecting back on this time, the German painter Joachim von Sandrart – an artist in close proximity to Quellinus – wrote in his Teutsche Academie (1675-1679) that Du Quesnoy ‘was very taken with him [= Quellinus], giving him the proper insight in all matters, and actively involving him in the study of antique art, thus allowing him to make great progress.’⁹⁹(...) ihm wolgeneigt gewesen, in allem das rechte Liecht überkommen, auch ihme sich bey denen antichen Academien steif zu halten, fleissig angelegen seyn lassen, wordurch er dann merklich zugenommen (...), see Joachim von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie der edlen Bau- Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste (ed. C. Klemm), Nördlingen 1994 (original ed. Frankfurt 1675-79), vol. 2, Book 3, chapter XXIV, p. 351. Upon returning to Antwerp in 1639, Quellinus began applying the chic, Latinized appellation by which he is best known today: Artus Quellinus. He is also believed to have made a shorter, second trip to Italy around the years 1644-45, based on documented time spent in Lyon with the painter Jan Asselijn (after 1610-1652) in 1645, then an important stopping point between the Netherlands and Rome.¹⁰¹⁰E. Neurdenburg, De zeventiende eeuwsche beeldhouwkunst in de noordelijke Nederlanden: Hendrick de Keyser, Artus Quellinus, Rombout Verhulst en tijdgenooten, Amsterdam 1948, p. 175. The two artists had previously met during Quellinus’s first visit to Rome, at which time both joined the Bentvueghels, a convivial society of Dutch and Flemish artists working in Rome. There they were respectively dubbed ‘Crabbetje’ or little crab (Asselijn), and ‘Corpus’, the latter nickname apparently referring to the rather rotund Quellinus.¹¹¹¹J. Gabriels, Artus Quellien, de Oude: ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, Antwerp 1930, p. 38. Acknowledging two separate sojourns to Italy, it seems highly unlikely that Quellinus would have neglected Florence. Like so many other artists of his generation (and those prior), he would undoubtedly have devoted intensive study to Michelangelo’s sculptures in the Medici Chapel. The fascination with this sculptural ensemble is aptly portrayed in a drawing by Federico Zuccaro, today preserved at the Louvre, which shows a large group of artists at work in the Medici Chapel, including a sculptor modelling in clay or wax.¹²¹²Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des arts graphiques, inv. no. 4554 recto. Also C. Kryza-Gersch (ed.), Shadows of Time: Giambologna, Michelangelo and the Medici Chapel, Dresden/Munich 2018, no. 9.

The present terracotta is by no means a literal copy of the original model. While maintaining the elementary forms, Quellinus chose to somewhat soften the highly pronounced musculature of Michelangelo’s marble version. He also completed Day’s non finito face in line with his own vision. By introducing a new section of drapery – traversing the lower edge of the figure’s back and continuing on the reverse – Quellinus assigned the rear supporting arm a more clearly defined role in the overall composition, with the left hand now logically clasping the drapery’s end. This was by no means a solution of the sculptor’s own invention: numerous artists before Quellinus had sought to resolve evident ‘lacunae’ on Michelangelo’s original, as therein presumably lay an additional artistic challenge. The same solution is found on a terracotta study by Johan Gregor van der Schardt (1530-1591) and numerous other replicated versions of the monumental Day.¹³¹³P.J. Lebrooy, Michelangelo Models Formerly in the Paul von Praun Collection, Vancouver 1972, pp. 52-61. Nevertheless, the source of Quellinus’s treatment of the left hand might very well be Michelangelo too: an adaptation of the right hand on his monumental Moses in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome.¹⁴¹⁴P.J. Lebrooy, Michelangelo Models Formerly in the Paul von Praun Collection, Vancouver 1972, p. 90. The ostensibly unfinished base of the terracotta essentially adheres to the volute form of the monumental marble sarcophagus. Quellinus chose to slightly modify its form, however, thus rendering his version as a complete and autonomous work.

Frits Scholten, 2025

M. Jonker et al., In beeld gebracht: Beeldhouwkunst uit de collectie van het Amsterdams Historisch Museum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1995, p. 207, no. 130; Bestandscatalogus Oude beeldhouwkunst 1300-1900, coll. cat. The Hague 1995, p. 29, no. 82; F. Scholten, Artus Quellinus: Sculptor of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 2010, p. 7, fig. 3; F. Scholten, ‘Acquisitions: Sculpture’, The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 62 (2014), pp. 289-327, esp. pp. 304-07 (no. 8); B. van der Mark, Artus Quellinus. Sculptor of Amsterdam exh. cat. Amsterdam (Royal Palace Amsterdam/ Rijksmuseum) 2025, pp. 70-71, 211

F. Scholten, 2025, 'Artus (I) Quellinus, Day, Amsterdam, 1658', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20020744