Sculpted. The robe has been flattened on the reverse side at the bottom, to facilitate future placement against a rear wall.

The (original?) bronze-painted plaster layer has been removed. The left thumb and two toes are damaged; a section of the plinth is missing. The surface has sustained damage in various areas, but with relatively little wear. The front of the statue is soiled. A crack in the plinth has been restored. The statue is accompanied by its original socle (BK-18042-A-2).

Commissioned by Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) for his residence the Huygenhuis, The Hague, c. 1637;¹¹T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. p. 184. with the house, acquired by the Dutch State, 1827;²²T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. p. 181. removed when the house was demolished, 1876;³³T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. p. 182. with pendant (BK-18042-B-1), transferred to the museum, 1882

Object number: BK-18042-A-1

The standing female figure holds a cornucopia filled with fruit, which rests on her left hip. A pleated robe draped over her left shoulder exposes the torso and right arm, with the left arm and both legs entirely covered.

The statue and its pendant figure, Providentia/Oeconomia (BK-18042-B), originally stood in the vestibule of the former Huygenshuis on the square ‘Het Plein’ in the old city centre of The Hague, a building commissioned and designed by Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) in the years 1634-37 in collaboration with the architects Jacob van Campen (1598-1657) and Simon de la Vallée (1590-1642).⁴⁴For the history of the Huygenshuis, see G. Kamphuis, ‘Constantijn Huygens, bouwheer of bouwmeester?’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 151-80. Although acquired by the Dutch government in 1827, the house was eventually demolished in 1876. Prior to its demolition, a number of objects deemed of importance were removed from the building, among them the present statue and its pendant. In 1882, the two statues were transferred to the Rijksmuseum, where they have since been displayed in various locations in and around the museum.⁵⁵In the 19th century, the two statues stood in the facade niches of the museum’s Fragments Building. Later, Abundantia stood on a pedestal in the garden. Circa 1980, the two statues were displayed together adjacent to the bathroom facilities in the basement of the main building.

Not until the middle of the twentieth century was the incised monogram PH discovered on the pendant figure, located on the tree stump behind the left leg. Lunsingh Scheurleer identified the artist associated with this monogram as Pieter Adriaensz ’t Hooft (1610-1649/50), a sculptor/stonecutter active in The Hague during the 1630s.⁶⁶T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. p. 194. In his capacity as sculptor, ’t Hooft was highly esteemed in the circles of the Dutch court. Besides Huygens, his most prestigious patrons included the Stadholder Frederick Henry and Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen.⁷⁷For Pieter ’t Hooft, see E. Neurdenburg, ‘Pieter Adriaensz ’t Hooft, Haags steen- en beeldhouwer’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 3 (1950), pp. 47-56. Unquestionably, ’t Hooft’s popularity stemmed from the fact as one of the first sculptors to adopt and apply the new classicist idiom in the Northern Netherlands, as propagated there by Constantijn Huygens and Jacob van Campen starting in the 1620s. Three sandstone statues by ’t Hooft survive today in situ, surmounting the tympanum of Middelharnis Town Hall (South Holland).⁸⁸E. Neurdenburg, ‘Pieter Adriaensz ’t Hooft, Haags steen- en beeldhouwer’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 3 (1950), pp. 47-56, esp. pp. 51-52, with ill. Compared to the Rijksmuseum statues, these three works are in a far more deteriorated condition. Clear agreements can nevertheless be discerned in the figures’ robust posture, the somewhat ungainly pose and fairly rigid facial expression. In addition to the Huygenshuis, other architectural projects jointly undertaken by Huygens and Van Campen also involved ’t Hooft, whose work includes the carved reliefs adorning the frontons on the facades of Noordeinde Palace and the Mauritshuis in The Hague.⁹⁹E. Neurdenburg, ‘Pieter Adriaensz ’t Hooft, Haags steen- en beeldhouwer’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 3 (1950), pp. 47-56, esp. pp. 52-54. In all probability, the conception and design of the Huygenshuis statues are another example of Huygens and Van Campen’s collaboration. Besides the Providentia/Oeconomia and Abundantia, the Huygenshuis was adorned by three additional statues – Firmitas, Utilitas and Venustas – but these three were ordered form an unknown sculptor in Antwerp.¹⁰¹⁰P. Vlaardingerbroek, ‘De stadhouder, zijn secretaris en de architectuur Jacob van Campen als ontwerper van het Huygenshuis en de hofarchitectuur onder Frederik Hendrik’, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 51 (2000), pp. 60-81, esp. pp. 61-63. Like the figures in Middelharnis, these now lost figures originally lined the roof, standing directly above the tympanum.¹¹¹¹E. Goossens, ‘De rol van de beeldhouwkunst’, in J. Huisken et al., Jacob van Campen: Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Royal Palace) 1995, pp. 201-26, esp. p. 208. In a photo of the Huygenshuis taken shortly before its demolition, the statues are already absent, see T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. fig. 1.

In 1827, the sandstone sculptures were described as ‘two large statues of bronzed plaster, each on a pedestal of stone of very fine Italian work, representing agriculture’. This inaccurate material description of 1827 can be explained by the fact that, during the process of ‘bronzing’, the Bentheim sandstone was first coated with a thin layer of plaster prior to applying the bronze-coloured paint. As late as 1876, the two statues were still described as being bronze-coloured.¹²¹²twee groote standbeelden van gebronsd gips, ieder op een voetstuk van hartsteen van zeer fraai Italiaans werk, voorstellende de landbouw, see T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. p. 184. At some point after this, this bronze finish layer was removed, presumably because it was seen as a modern addition. In all probability, however, this layer was indeed original: in the seventeenth century, the so-called ‘bronzing’ of (garden) statues – especially those sculpted in lead, plaster or sandstone – was fairly common. Given the prominent location for which these works were destined, i.e. the vestibule of Huygens’s palace in the city, it seems readily conceivable that statues in prestigious bronze would have been preferred to those carved in unfinished sandstone.

Based on the attributes of the ‘shovel’ and the cornucopia, the present statue and its pendant were long thought to be allegories of Agriculture.¹³¹³As late as 1897, Victor de Stuers was still speaking in terms of L’Horticulture and La Récolte, see V. de Stuers, Het Rijks Museum te Amsterdam, met platen door P. J. H. Cuypers, Amsterdam 1897, p. 38. This interpretation proves unconvincing, as it in no way corresponds to the urban setting for which the works were destined. Especially for an erudite humanist like Huygens, one may expect an allegorical allusion more befitting an urban villa. Lunsingh Scheurleer’s interpretation does far more justice to the original location, while at the same time reflecting a predilection for the complexity of allegory and verbal and visual allusion enjoyed by those in humanist circles.¹⁴¹⁴T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, ‘Beeldhouwwerk in Huygens’ Haagse Huis’, Oud Holland 77 (1962), no. 3/4, pp. 181-205, esp. pp. 184-94. Lunsingh Scheurleer laid the groundwork by first establishing that the object clasped in Oeconomia’s left hand was in fact a ship’s rudder, not a shovel, thus identifying the combined attributes of Good Fortune described in Ripa’s Iconologia. In this specific case, however, the rudder and cornucopia are presented by two separate figures, as likewise occurs on Rubens’ design for the Arcus Ferdinandinus, a triumphal arch erected in 1635 on the occasion of the Antwerp Grand Procession of Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria, then newly appointed as governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Theodoor van Thulden’s engraving of the triumphal arch (fig. a) identifies the woman with the rudder as a symbol of providentia regis (the prudent eye of a good ruler) and the woman with the cornucopia as liberalitas regis (the prosperity that flows therefrom). Together, the two statues functioned to glorify the Spanish king, and in the same line, his chosen representative, the governor. In Lunsingh Scheurleer’s view, the symbolic meaning of the statues in the entryway of the Huygenshuis refers back to these two Antwerp figures, an interpretation further strengthened by the knowledge that Huygens – a great admirer of Rubens – held a copy of Van Thulden’s print in his personal possession The statues’ therefore symbolize not only Good Fortune, they also serve to convey honour bestowed on Stadholder Frederick Henry, whose good leadership had brought prosperity to the Northern Netherlands. Goossens introduced a third layer to the interpretation of the statues’ symbolic meaning: because the Huygenshuis also served as a private residence, the woman with the rudder can also be seen as a personification of Oeconomia (the wisely run household), a concept also cited by Ripa. Her pendant, holding the cornucopia, can therefore be more specifically interpreted as the prosperity in the home that results.¹⁵¹⁵E. Goossens, ‘De rol van de beeldhouwkunst’, in J. Huisken et al., Jacob van Campen: Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Royal Palace) 1995, pp. 201-26, esp. p. 208.

Titia de Haseth Möller, 2024

V. de Stuers, Het Rijks Museum te Amsterdam, met platen door P.J.H. Cuypers, Amsterdam 1897, p. 38; J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 246b, with earlier literature; J. Huisken et al., Jacob van Campen: Het klassieke ideaal in de Gouden Eeuw, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Royal Palace) 1995, pp. 207-08; P. Vlaardingerbroek, ‘De stadhouder, zijn secretaris en de architectuur Jacob van Campen als ontwerper van het Huygenshuis en de hofarchitectuur onder Frederik Hendrik’, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 51 (2000), pp. 60-81, esp. pp. 62-63; F. Scholten, ‘Sir Constantijn Huygens and François Dieussart: A Portrait Observed’, The Sculpture Journal 1 (1997), pp. 7-15, esp. p. 8; F. Scholten, Sumptuous Memories: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Tomb Sculpture, Zwolle 2003, pp. 125-27; J. de Fouw, ‘‘Ce superbe Palais’: The Interior of the Huygens House in The Hague (1634-1785)’, Oud Holland 138 (2025), pp. 102-40, esp. pp. 108, 133, fig. 6b

T. de Haseth Möller, 2024, 'Pieter Adriaensz 't Hooft, Abundantia, The Hague, c. 1637', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/20035658