Sculpted. The plinth is integrally carved.

The sculpture has sustained damage from rainwater, especially on the top of the head. The overall surface is badly stained.

? Commissioned by the Van Oss family for their country house Zwaansvliet near Purmerend, c. 1670-90;¹¹First recorded there on a photograph dating from c. 1900, see G. Köhne, ‘Bij ons in de Beemster’, Noordholland 3 (1958), p. 183 (ill.). from the owner of Zwaansvliet, purchased by the dealer Z.J. Woudstra, Amsterdam, in or before 1907;²²Note RMA. from whom, with pendant, BK-B-92-B, fl. 1,200 for both, to the museum, with the support of the Vereniging Rembrandt, 1907

Object number: BK-B-92-A

Credit line: Purchased with the support of the Vereniging Rembrandt

The present female figure stands on a heavy square plinth holding a pose that somewhat mirrors that of her pendant, Destiny (BK-B-92-B). Her pose and attire are derived from antique models known to artists via the many prints circulating across Europe starting in the sixteenth century.³³Cf. the engraving of Venus Coelestis in François Perrier, Eigentlyke afbeeldinge, van hondert der aldervermaerdste statuen, of antique beelden, staande binnen Romen: afgetekent door ... Francisco Perrier Burgund : nu in cooper gesneden door Cornelis Van Dalen de Oude, ende de Jonge, The Hague, c. 1650, pl. 11. In the woman’s partly braided hair are a diadem and a band of pearls. Bound at the back of the head is a classical tragedy mask. This mask most commonly appears as the attribute of Melpomene, the muse of song and dance, but never covering the back of the head. Leeuwenberg noted a connection between this unorthodox iconography and Prudentia (Prudence in the sense of prudent wisdom), one of four cardinal virtues, described in Cesare Ripa’s oft-consulted Iconologia as a woman having two faces: ‘The two countenances convey that Prudence is a true and absolute knowledge that dictates the proper course of action, and she arises from the consideration of things past and future.’⁴⁴De twee aengesichten bedieden dat de Voorsichtigheyt een waerachtige en sekere kennisse is, die daer beschickt watmen behoort te doen, en zy komt vort door de overweginge van de verleden en toekomende dingen.; Cesare Ripa, Iconologia, of uytbeeldinen des Verstands, Amsterdam 1644, p. 622 (Prudenza, Wijsheyt, Wetenschap van goed en quaed). If indeed a valid interpretation, Prudence’s mask is meant to signify looking into the past. At the same time, however, it suggests that prudent wisdom never deceives, as she exists unmasked in the reality of present and future. The Rijksmuseum statue indeed lacks the other attributes mentioned in Ripa’s description of Prudentia, the snake and mirror. Viewed in unison with the pendant figure of Destiny, however, the statue’s identification as a personification of Prudence proves most convincing. In Leeuwenberg’s estimation, Prudence and Destiny can therefore be seen as a joint allusion to Commerce: Prudence, because trade requires that one always exercise care; Destiny, as one must always be prepared for an unexpected turn of fate. ⁵⁵J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 240.

The provenance of the present statue and its pendant support this interpretation. Both originate from Zwaansvliet, a country house in the Beemster region built in 1628 by François van Oss (1592-1666), a son of the wealthy Amsterdam merchant Dirck van Oss. Dirck was a key instigator in the draining of the Beemster polder and the project’s most important investor, together with his brother, Hendrick. In 1653, François’s daughter, Sara van Oss, married Johan van Reygersbergh (1630-1693), scion of a patrician family from Zeeland.⁶⁶K. Bossaers, ‘Zwaansvliet’, De Nieuwe Schouwschuit, Tijdschrift van het Historisch Genootschap Beemster 7 (November 2009), pp. 21-24, esp. p. 21. In 1671, the sculptor Rombout Verhulst (1624-1698) produced a marble portrait bust depicting another member of the same family, Jacob van Reygersbergh (1625-1675), Zeeland’s delegate to the States General.⁷⁷Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. no. 84.SA.743. The terracotta modello of this bust is today held in the collection of the Rijksmuseum (BK-NM-11557).
Jacob not only maintained close personal ties with Verhulst, but also appears to have played an important mediating role between the sculptor and his patrons. In more than one case, these included members of the Van Reygersbergh family.⁸⁸F. Scholten, Sumptuous Memories: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Tomb Sculpture, Zwolle 2003, pp. 185-86. Accordingly, Verhulst may very likely have been in contact with the Van Oss family through his association with Reygersbergh, with the two statues at Zwaansvliet directly commissioned from the sculptor.

The Beemster country house remained in the possession of François van Oss’s descendants until 1833. Shortly thereafter, in 1855, the park was dug up and the house demolished. At some point in the twentieth century, the portal building and entry gate suffered the same fate. Around 1900, the two statues crowned the gateposts of the entry gate, as an old photo attests.⁹⁹See G. Köhne, ‘Bij ons in de Beemster’, Noordholland 3 (1958), p. 183 (ill.). The statues can still be seen in later etchings by Simon de Heer (1885-1970) (see www.simondeheer.nl); De Heer presumably relied on old photos as his model. The gate was reconstructed in 2006-07 at the Beemster Arboretum in Zuidoostbeemster. Casts of the originals in the Rijksmuseum today crown the gateposts. Nonetheless, statues serving as gatepost elements in this manner are highly unusual in the Northern Netherlands. When indeed functioning as some kind of sculptural crownpiece framing an entry gate or entryway, these virtually always had the form of urns or escutcheon-bearing lions.¹⁰¹⁰Exceptions are the now lost entry gate of Huis te Ramp, outside Bergen N.H. (also with two large statues, see Het verheerlykt Nederland of Kabinet van hedendaagsche Gezigten, Amsterdam, 1752, vol. 4, pl. 333) and the former gateway bridge providing access to the forecourt of Honselaersdijk Palace. Surmounting the bridge’s posts were life-size statues of stone dogs (E.V. Buitenhuis, De tuinsieraadkunst in de Hollandse tuin, 1983 (unpublished thesis, Leiden University)., pp. 29-30; D.F. Slothouwer, De paleizen van Frederik Hendrik, Leiden 1945, pp. 270, 735, fol. 185. Therefore their original placement was probably in the garden of the house, as such facilitating the figures’ recognizability when viewed at a lower level. Not until the gradual dilapidation of the house and park would they have been moved to their new location, where they served as sculptural elements adorning the gateposts.

Leeuwenberg dated the statues around 1660-65, thus implying that they were carved prior to the great surge in demand for garden sculpture that occurred in the Northern Netherlands soon after.¹¹¹¹J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 240. Indeed, early Dutch garden sculpture is what first springs to mind, if acknowledging the rather unwieldy execution. Yet the explanation more likely lies in the limited artistic skill of the maker, a workshop assistant, as opposed to the hallmark of an early formal idiom. Leeuwenberg’s early dating was partly based on the substantial agreement between Destiny’s pose and that of Venus in Verhulst’s relief Venus with her Children Cupid and Antheros, made for the Amsterdam town hall (now the Royal Palace on the Dam Square) in c. 1651-58.¹²¹²For the relief with Venus, see E. Neurdenburg, De zeventiende eeuwsche beeldhouwkunst in de noordelijke Nederlanden: Hendrick de Keyser, Artus Quellinus, Rombout Verhulst en tijdgenooten, Amsterdam 1948, fig. 155. Far more striking, however, is the Destiny’s resemblance to Verhulst’s signed Flora from 1671 in the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo,¹³¹³Otterlo, Kröller-Müller Museum, inv. no. KM 116.084, see T. van Kooten, M. Bloemheuvel, Beeldentuin Kröller-Müller Museum, coll. cat. Otterlo 2007, pp. 368-369. The statue is carved from Obernkirchen sandstone. especially in terms of facial type. It therefore appears that the statues of Prudence and Destiny date from later in the century, in any case no earlier than 1671. Verhulst’s workshop assistant(s) responsible for the carving may then have looked to the Flora and perhaps also the Venus as models.¹⁴¹⁴Cf. also with the Cleopatra and Lucretia at the Museum Prinsenhof Delft, see P.M. Fischer, Ignatius en Jan van Logteren: Beeldhouwers en stuckunstenaars in het Amsterdam van de 18e eeuw, Alphen aan de Rijn 2005, p. 514. A later dating would also further corroborate the possible mediating role of Jacob van Reygersbergh in the Van Oss family’s awarding of the commission to Rombout Verhulst.

The painter Carel Willink (1900-1983) incorporated the statues of Prudence and Destiny as models for two of his paintings, respectively the Melpomene from 1945 and Landscape with Ruin from 1947.¹⁵¹⁵H.L.C. Jaffé, Willink, Amsterdam 1986, nos. 207, 215.

Titia de Haseth Möller, 2025

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 317a with earlier literature; E.V. Buitenhuis, De tuinsieraadkunst in de Hollandse tuin, 1983 (unpublished thesis, Leiden University), pp. 79; F. Scholten, Rombout Verhulst in Groningen: Zeventiende eeuwse praalgraven in Midwolde en Stedum (Stad en Lande Historische reeks, 1-2), Utrecht 1983, p. 30

T. de Haseth Möller, 2025, 'attributed to workshop of Rombout Verhulst, Prudence (Prudentia), The Hague, c. 1670 - c. 1690', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/200116037