Nessus and Deianeira

The two figures are indirect lost wax casts, attached to each other with screws. Deianeira is hollow and thin-walled, whereas Nessus is partly hollow and thick-walled. Both figures show several casting flaws. Most of the detailing was applied in the wax. Tomographic and radiographic images reveal that Deianeira has three core pins sticking through her body: one in the head, one between the shoulders and one at her waist. She has been cast with a smooth, even interior, whereas the inside of Nessus is very cluttered: some parts are solid, notably the horse’s hind legs and back and Nessus’s body and head, and the surface of the hollow central interior of the horse is extremely irregular and porous. Core pins connect the walls of the horse internally, as can be seen on a tomography. A natural patina has developed in those areas where the thin organic patina has sustained wear.
Alloy Nessus tin bronze with some lead; copper with impurities (Cu 91.90%; Zn 0.20%; Sn 5.46%; Pb 1.74%; Sb 0.13%; As 0.21%; Fe 0.12%; Ni 0.12%; Ag 0.16%).
Alloy Deianeira leaded tin bronze; copper with low impurities (Cu 90.35%; Zn 0.25%; Sn 5.68%; Pb 2.90%; Sb 0.12%; As 0.19%; Fe 0.18%; Ni 0.13%; Ag 0.15%).

R. van Langh in F. Scholten, M. Verber et al., From Vulcan’s Forge: Bronzes from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1450-1800, exh. cat. London (Daniel Katz Ltd.)/Vienna (Liechtenstein Museum) 2005-06, no. 30 on p. 163

Nessus’s left hind leg has broken off and was subsequently repaired with an iron joint.

…; sale R. von Kaufmann, Berlin (P. Cassirer), 4 December 1917, no. 199; …; from the dealer G. Cramer, The Hague, fl. 7,000, to the museum, 1951

ObjectNumber: BK-16508-1

This ambitious but rather primitively executed bronze is a mirror image of one of Giambologna’s well-known compositions of Nessus and Deianeira, type C.¹¹C. Avery and A. Radcliffe, Giambologna, 1529-1608: Sculptor to the Medici, exh. cat. Edinburgh (Royal Scottish Museum)/London (Victoria and Albert Museum)/Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) 1978-79, pp. 109-17. It is patently obvious, however, that the maker was not in direct contact with the Florentine sculptor, because the facial types and the style of the models betray a northern, less skilled hand. Probably in part because of the somewhat loose, almost careless modelling, the bronze was initially thought to be – and was purchased as – a work by Adriaen de Vries (1556-1626),²²H.R. Weihrauch, Europäische Bronzestatuetten, 15.-18. Jahrhundert, Braunschweig 1967, p. 353; J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, p. 171. but this attribution lacks any foundation.³³L.O. Larsson, Adrian de Vries: Adrianus Fries hagiensis Batavus 1545-1626, Vienna/Munich 1967, p. 126, no. 1. Leithe-Jasper and Avery attributed this bronze to the South German sculptor Caspar Gras (1585-1674) for the first time in 1978, and this suggestion was later repeated by Leithe-Jasper and has been accepted ever since.⁴⁴C. Avery et al., Giambologna 1529-1608: Ein Wendepunkt der europäischen Plastik, exh. cat. Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) 1978, no. 67b; G. Ammann et al., Ruhm und Sinnlichkeit, Innsbrucker Bronzeguss 1500-1650: Von Maximilian I. bis Erzherzog Ferdinand Karl, exh. cat. Innsbruck (Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum) 1996, no. 99; C. Avery, Studies in Italian Sculpture, London 2001, p. 433. Chlíbec alone looked more recently for the maker of this group among the artists at the court of Emperor Rudolph II in Prague, following Larson who attributed a stylistically comparable group of Mercury and Psyche to this circle.⁵⁵J. Chlíbec, Italské renesancní bronzy, exh. cat. Prague (National Gallery) 1992, no. 70; C. Brockhaus (ed.), Die Beschwörung des Kosmos: Europäische Bronzen der Renaissance, Duisburg (Wilhelm Lehmbruck Museum) 1994, no. 60; J. Schultze and H. Fillitz, Prag um 1600: Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II., exh. cat. Essen (Villa Hügel)/Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) 1988, no. 78.

Besides the Amsterdam bronze there are three known versions of the Nessus and Deianeira, of which the example in the John Lewis collection is considerably larger (h. 39.4 cm) and appears to have been more carefully finished than the others.⁶⁶C. Avery et al., Giambologna 1529-1608: Ein Wendepunkt der europäischen Plastik, exh. cat. Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) 1978, no. 67b. Furthermore there is a replica in the collection of Prince Waldburg-Wolfegg in Schloss Wolfegg,⁷⁷O. Sandner and U. Krinzinger-Humpeler, Meisterwerke der Plastik aus Privatsammlungen im Bodenseegebiet, exh. cat. Bregenz (Künstlerhaus, Palais Thurn und Taxis) 1967, no. 166; C. Avery, Studies in Italian Sculpture, London 2001, fig. 3. and one in the National Gallery Prague, originating from the eighteenth-century collection of Count Nostisz-Rieneck in Prague.⁸⁸J. Chlíbec, Italské renesancní bronzy, exh. cat. Prague (National Gallery) 1992, no. 70; C. Brockhaus (ed.), Die Beschwörung des Kosmos: Europäische Bronzen der Renaissance, Duisburg (Wilhelm Lehmbruck Museum) 1994, no. 60. In a comparison of all these versions it is noticeable that the position of the tail on the Amsterdam bronze differs from the other examples. The fact that two of the four known examples have provenances from old Central European collections argues in favour of an attribution to a sculptor such as Caspar Gras, who was active in the Austrian Habsburg milieu.

The attribution to Gras is also justified on stylistic grounds; there is a close resemblance in style to a series of equestrian statuettes of members of the Austrian House of Habsburg attributed to the sculptor, particularly in regard to the modelling of the horses’ bodies and their flowing tails.⁹⁹G. Ammann et al., Ruhm und Sinnlichkeit, Innsbrucker Bronzeguss 1500-1650: Von Maximilian I. bis Erzherzog Ferdinand Karl, exh. cat. Innsbruck (Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum) 1996, nos. 92-95. In spite of the huge difference in size there is a similarity between Deianeira and the sea goddesses on Gras’s 1622-30 Leopold Fountain in Innsbruck, who have the same types of faces, hairstyles and modelling of the body.¹⁰¹⁰Cf. G. Ammann et al., Ruhm und Sinnlichkeit, Innsbrucker Bronzeguss 1500-1650: Von Maximilian I. bis Erzherzog Ferdinand Karl, exh. cat. Innsbruck (Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum) 1996, no. 88, esp. pp. 291-93. Leithe-Jasper moreover pointed to the considerable similarities to a Mercury and Psyche group that he also credits to Gras, after earlier attributions to Francavilla (1548-1615), Adriaen de Vries and Hubert Gerhard (c. 1540/50-before 1621) proved to be untenable.¹¹¹¹M. Leithe-Jasper, Renaissance Master Bronzes from the Collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, exh. cat. Washington (National Gallery of Art)/Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Museum of Art)/Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago) 1986, no. 67; G. Ammann et al., Ruhm und Sinnlichkeit, Innsbrucker Bronzeguss 1500-1650: Von Maximilian I. bis Erzherzog Ferdinand Karl, exh. cat. Innsbruck (Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum) 1996, no. 100.

It is notable that Deianeira has been cast separately and mounted on Nessus’s back with a screw. A method of construction like this, which suggests economical work in batches, also occurs in the three other known versions of the statue and is reminiscent of the method of manufacture of the four Habsburg equestrian statuettes – horse and rider separately cast and screwed together. Gras is also attributed with a number of separately cast ‘spare heads’ of Austrian archdukes that can be mounted on equestrian statuettes like these. Finally this method of assembly is found in the Mercury and Psyche group mentioned above and its variants.¹²¹²M. Leithe-Jasper, Renaissance Master Bronzes from the Collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, exh. cat. Washington (National Gallery of Art)/Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Museum of Art)/Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago) 1986, no. 67; D. Diemer, Hubert Gerhard und Carlo di Cesare del Palagio: Bronzeplastiker der Spätrenaissance, 2 vols., Berlin 2004, vol. 2, nos. G 31-a to -f. Leithe-Jasper’s supposition that this manner of mounting statuettes is characteristic of Caspar Gras is very plausible. Evidently the sculptor made use of a quite primitive, yet economically effective method of assembly in his mass-produced little bronze sculptures.

Frits Scholten, 2024
This entry was originally published in F. Scholten, M. Verber et al., From Vulcan’s Forge: Bronzes from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1450-1800, exh. cat. London (Daniel Katz Ltd.)/Vienna (Liechtenstein Museum) 2005-06, no. 30

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 206, with earlier literature; C. Avery et al., Giambologna 1529-1608: Ein Wendepunkt der europäischen Plastik, exh. cat. Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) 1978, no. 67b; G. Ammann et al., Ruhm und Sinnlichkeit, Innsbrucker Bronzeguss 1500-1650: Von Maximilian I. bis Erzherzog Ferdinand Karl, exh. cat. Innsbruck (Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum) 1996, no. 99; C. Avery, Studies in Italian Sculpture, London 2001, pp. 433-35; Scholten in F. Scholten, M. Verber et al., From Vulcan’s Forge: Bronzes from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 1450-1800, exh. cat. London (Daniel Katz Ltd.)/Vienna (Liechtenstein Museum) 2005-06, no. 30; F. Scholten et al., Het wonder van Adriaen de Vries: Van ons allemaal sinds 2004, The Hague 2015, p. 43

F. Scholten, 2024, 'Caspar Gras and after Giambologna, Nessus and Deianeira, Innsbruck, c. 1640 - c. 1650', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.24491