…; ? collection Hendrik van Heteren (1672-1749), The Hague;¹¹E.W. Moes and E. van Biema, De Nationale Konst-Gallery en Het Koninklijk Museum, Amsterdam 1909, p. 192; T.L.J. Verroen, ‘‘Een verstandig ryk Man’: de achttiende-eeuwse verzamelaar Adriaan Leonard Van Heteren’, in C. Scheffer (ed.) et al., Achttiende-eeuwse kunst in de Nederlanden, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 4 (1985), pp. 17-61, esp. p. 32. his son, Adriaan Leonard van Heteren (1724-1800), The Hague, (‘Een rustende Caravane, by eenige antique gebouwen, vol gewoel, door Paulus Bril, h. 16 en een agste d., br. 22 en drie agste d. [45.9 x 63.7 cm] K.’);²²‘Catalogus van Schilderyen, In’t Kabinet van den Heer Bewindhebber, Adriaen Leonard van Heteren in’s Hage’, in G. Hoet, Catalogus of Naamlyst van Schilderyen, met derzelver Pryzen Zedert een langen reeks van Jaaren zoo in Holland als op andere Plaatzen in het openbaar verkogt. Benevens een Verzamelingvan Lysten van Verscheyden nog in wezen zynde Cabinetten, 3 vols., The Hague 1752-70, II, p. 452. his third cousin and godson, Adriaan Leonard van Heteren Gevers (1794-1866), Rotterdam, (‘Paul Bril. Beau tableau représentant une caravanne en repos, cuivre h. 16 l. 22 [45.6 x 62.7 cm]’);³³‘Catalogue Raisonné d’une Collection de Tableaux appartenant à Monsieur A.L. Gevers, Page de Leurs Majestés le Roi et la Reine de Hollande’, s.l. 1808, transcribed in E.W. Moes and E. van Biema, De Nationale Konst-Gallery en Het Koninklijk Museum, Amsterdam 1909, pp. 145-51, esp. p. 145, no. 13. from whom, fl. 100,000, with 136 other paintings en bloc (known as the ‘Kabinet van Heteren Gevers’), to the museum by decree of Lodewijk Napoleon, King of Holland, and through the mediation of his father Dirk Cornelis Gevers (1763-1839), 8 June 1809

Object number: SK-A-63

As Faggin first recognized,⁷⁷G. Faggin, ‘Per Paolo Bril’, Paragone 185 (1965), pp. 21-35, esp. p. 30, no. 12. depicted in the middle distance is Rebecca offering her pitcher to Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, as related in Genesis, 24:45-46.

The fountain required by the narrative is conveyed by a generalized depiction from the side of the fountain and bowl placed in the Foro Romano or Roman forum (Campo Vaccino) in Rome, in 1593.⁸⁸A. Ambrogi, Labra di èta romana in marmi bianchi e colorati, Rome 2005, p. 234, under no. L.36. Sutton⁹⁹D. Mahon and D. Sutton, Artists in 17th Century Rome, London (Wildenstein & Co.) 1955, no. 15. named the general setting as such, but it should rather be described as a capriccio view of ancient Rome for he himself identified the ruins as being from several parts of the city. On the right is the temple of Vespasian (showing Ionic rather than Corinthian capitals) with the temple of Saturn behind; beyond are the Palatine palaces. On the left is the temple of Minerva, demolished in 1602. Aikema¹⁰¹⁰B. Aikema, ‘Romeinse ruïnes in een schilderij van Paul Bril’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 28 (1980), pp. 10-16, esp. pp. 11-12; Leuven-Paris 2013, nos. 9.4, 9.11. subsequently demonstrated that the portrayal of the first two groups of monuments was taken from engravings by Hieronymus Cock (1518-1570).¹¹¹¹J. van Griken et al., Hieronymus Cock: La Gravure à la Renaissance, exh. cat. Leuven (M-Museum)/Paris (Institut Néerlandais) 2013, pp. 90, 95, 92, nos. 9.11, 9.4.

The present painting was for long accepted as the work of Paulus Bril (1554-1626).¹²¹²It was accepted in the first monograph devoted to the brothers Bril, by A. Mayer, Das Leben und die Werke der Brüder Matthäus und Paul Brill, Leipzig 1910, p. 73 and fig. XXXV. But an alteration circa 2003-04 to the museum inventory card gives Willem van Nieulandt II as the artist, which is an attribution first proposed by Faggin in 1965,¹³¹³G. Faggin, ‘Per Paolo Bril’, Paragone 185 (1965), pp. 21-35, esp. p. 30, no. 12. Faggin’s view was to be accepted by A. Berger, Die Tafelgemälde Paul Brils, Münster 1993, p. 210 under no. 8.3). and subsequently endorsed by Pijl.¹⁴¹⁴Pijl in Saur Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: Die Bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker, Munich/Leipzig 1983-, XIV, p. 229. However, Cappelletti has recently reaffirmed, following Bodart¹⁵¹⁵D. Bodart, Les peintres des Pays-Bas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège à Rome au XVIIème siècle, 2 vols., Brussels/Rome 1970, I, p. 267 and note 4. and Aikema,¹⁶¹⁶B. Aikema, ‘Romeinse ruïnes in een schilderij van Paul Bril’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 28 (1980), pp. 10-16, esp. p. 10. the traditional attribution to Bril,¹⁷¹⁷F. Cappelletti, Paul Bril e la pittura di paesaggio a Roma, 1580-1630, Rome 2006, p. 250, no. 68. while postulating some assistance from a collaborator in the foreground figures. However, there is more agreement over dating: Pijl placed it soon after 1604 (after Van Nieulandt’s return to Amsterdam); Cappelletti proposed immediately after 1602-03.

The matter of the signature has not been addressed,¹⁸¹⁸But for Aikema who claimed there was no reason to doubt it, see B. Aikema, ‘Romeinse ruïnes in een schilderij van Paul Bril’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 28 (1980), pp. 10-16, esp. 10. although obviously it is key. Visual examination suggests that it is integral, if damaged and strengthened, but evidently its status can only be properly determined by cleaning. Unusual are both its placement and the lettering in reddish pigment which make doubts about its authenticity legitimate.

In support of the traditional view of Bril’s authorship is the setting of Roman ruins which shows clear affinity with his signed View of the Campo Vaccino of 1600 in the Dresden Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister.¹⁹¹⁹H. Marx et al., Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister Dresden: Illustrierte Katalog in zwei Bänden, I: Die Ausgestellten Werke, II: Illustriertes Gesamtverzeichnis, 2 vols., Dresden (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen), Cologne 2005-06, p. 350, no. 858; F. Cappelletti, Paul Bril e la pittura di paesaggio a Roma, 1580-1630, Rome 2006, p. 243, no. 54. Further, the dramatic contrast of light and shade was a device much favoured by Bril in these years.²⁰²⁰For instance, the coastal landscape of 1601 in Vienna (S. Ferino-Pagden et al., Die Gemäldegalerie des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien: Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Vienna 1991, p. 381, no. 5770); F. Cappelletti, Paul Bril e la pittura di paesaggio a Roma, 1580-1630, Rome 2006, p. 249, no. 66. But these factors have little weight in so far as Van Mander records that Van Nieulandt was Bril’s pupil in Rome circa 1600,²¹²¹See above under the biography of Van Nieulandt. and the more generalized facial types in the Rijksmuseum painting are rather to be associated with him than with Bril whose physiognomies are more characterful. Also, the introduction of the motif of Rebecca and Eliezer in such scenes was popular with Van Nieulandt²²²²For instance, the picture on the Amsterdam market in 1997, of 1610 (illustrated in J.G.C.A. Briels, Peintres flamands au berceau du siècle d’or hollandais, 1585-1630, Antwerp 1997, p. 57, fig. 63) and that in Warsaw of 1632 (J. Bialostocki and A. Chudijkowski (eds.), National Museum in Warsaw: Catalogue of Paintings in Foreign Schools, translated by M. Murdzeniaka, 2 vols., Warsaw 1969-70, II, p. 17, no. 903). as was to a lesser extent the presence of the resting travellers in his foregrounds.²³²³In J.G.C.A. Briels, Peintres flamands au berceau du siècle d’or hollandais, 1585-1630, Antwerp 1997, p. 57, fig. 63 and J. Bialostocki and A. Chudijkowski (eds.), National Museum in Warsaw: Catalogue of Paintings in Foreign Schools, translated by M. Murdzeniaka, 2 vols., Warsaw 1969-70, II, p. 17, no. 903. See also the painting with Robert Finck, Brussels, 1972 (Collection de Tableaux Anciens du XVe au XVIIIe Siècle, Brussels (Galerie Robert Finck) 1972, no. 47); illustrated in D. Bodart, Les peintres des Pays-Bas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège à Rome au XVIIème siècle, 2 vols., Brussels/Rome 1970, II, fig. 130.

Quite lacking in the present painting is the colourful, hard-edge style typical of Van Nieulandt in the first two decades of his activity; and it has to be asked whether the handling is of sufficient merit to justify an attribution to him in full. As the discoloured varnish impedes assessment of the handling and a resolution of the ambiguities attaching to the signature, it is best to qualify an attribution to him. Furthermore, the possibility cannot be excluded that the present painting is in fact an old copy of a lost composition by Van Nieulandt, thought at the time to be by Bril, whose signature was added in justification.

**Gregory Martin, 2022

**

G. Faggin, ‘Per Paolo Bril’, Paragone 185 (1965), pp. 21-35, esp. p. 30 no. 12; B. Aikema, ‘Romeinse ruïnes in een schilderij van Paul Bril’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 28 (1980), pp. 10-16, pp. 10-16; F. Cappelletti, Paul Bril e la pittura di paesaggio a Roma, 1580-1630, Rome 2006, p. 250, no. 68

1809, p. 13, no. 54 (‘Bril (Paulus) In een Landscap ziet man eenige menigte Reizigers welke schijnen te rusten’); 1832, p. 14, no. 51; 1843, p. 12, no. 51; 1858, p. 23, no. 51; 1880, p. 390, no. 453 (as signed ‘P. Bril.’); 1885, p. 67, no. 453; 1887, p. 25, no. 195; 1904, p. 65, no. 633; 1934, p. 64, no. 633; 1951, p. 38, no. 633; 1976, p. 151, no. A 63 (as Paulus Bril, 'Landscape with Roman ruins'); 1992, p. 46, no. A 63 (as Paulus Bril)

G. Martin, 2022, 'attributed to Guilliam van (II) Nieulandt, Travellers among Roman Ruins with Rebecca and Eliezer at the Well, c. 1602 - c. 1605', in Flemish Paintings in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20026795