Grotesque Animal, Oil Lamp

Hollow indirect (?) cast. V-shaped iron wire of an internal support or armature is present inside. The legs have been cast separately; the lower parts of both legs have repaired casting flaws, possibly caused by uneven shrinkage during the casting process; these were brazed before the black, organic lacquer patina was applied. The purity of the copper indicates a modern cast. Technical and chemical comparison of this cast with three other versions in the Dutch art market has pointed out a very close similarity between all four. It suggests these casts were made in serial production in the late 18th or 19th century, possibly in Rome or Paris, and probably for the Grand Tour market.¹¹Written communication Arie Pappot, 28 September 2020. The three other versions examined in 2019 by Pappot were at the time with the dealers Dick Endlich, Amsterdam and Bruil & Brandsma, Amsterdam (a pair).
Alloy brass alloy with tin and some lead; copper with some impurities (Cu 88.45%; Zn 6.34%; Sn 3.60%; Pb 1.28%; Sb 0.08%; As 0.12%; Fe 0.11%).

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. 40 on p. 166; D. Visser, ‘Neutron Radiography and Tomography, a New Technique for the Scientific Study of Bronzes’, 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, pp. 150-54, esp. pp. 153-54 and fig. 7

…; from the dealer F. Partridge, London, fl. 698, to the museum, 1949

ObjectNumber: BK-16127

This walking fantasy animal is a grotesque hodgepodge, consisting of the long legs of a bird, the body of a snail and a caricatured human head with a gaping mouth. Its walking motion lends the monster a striking liveliness, and the prominent genitals give it an erotic air. The person who thought up this hybrid beast was the silversmith and designer Arent van Bolten (c. 1573-before 1633), as Leeuwenberg has convincingly proved.²²J. Leeuwenberg, ‘The Grotesques Ascribed to Arent van Bolten’, Apollo 83 (1966), pp. 272-77. His attribution is based primarily on a large album containing four hundred and twenty-five drawings by Van Bolten in the British Museum, in which as well as designs for works in precious metals, mythological and biblical scenes, there is a series of grotesque monsters and figures that are very like – but not identical to – this bronze. Moreover, there are about thirty known engravings by him that also show similar drôleries.³³G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, p. 301; ‘Keuze uit de aanwinsten: Zeventiende-eeuwse prenten’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 338-65, esp. nos. 3a to -j. None of the drawn and engraved animals is exactly the same as the bronze, although among the engravings there is a design for a grotesque oil lamp.⁴⁴‘Keuze uit de aanwinsten: Zeventiende-eeuwse prenten’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 338-65, esp. no. 3d.

In fact, the model for this bronze fantasy creature may be seen as a free adaptation of two of the monsters in the London album of drawings,⁵⁵London, British Museum, inv. nos. SL,5217.151 and SL,5217.152. both of which were reproduced in print form – next to each other – by Pierre Firens in Paris before 1616 (RP-P-1965-796).⁶⁶G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, no. 66. This raises the question of whether the model for the Amsterdam bronze was indeed based on Van Bolten’s invention, possibly initially intended for a piece cast in silver. Or was perhaps the model created by another artist, inspired by the prints with Van Bolten’s designs?⁷⁷This suggestion was made by Arie Pappot (written communication 28 September 2020). This latter conclusion is contradicted by the fact that both monsters in the engraving are being ridden by monkeys, found nowhere in the original Van Bolten drawings nor in any of the versions in bronze. Certain is that the engravings after Van Bolten inspired other silversmiths, as in the case of the silver tankard bearing the Amsterdam hallmark and letter for the year 1645.⁸⁸R. Baarsen and I. Castlijns van Beek, Kwab: Ornament as Art in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2018, no. 23.

The large number of surviving replicas of the prototype – Leeuwenberg counted ten in 1966 – vary greatly in manufacture, patination and model.⁹⁹The following can be added to Leeuwenberg’s list: Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum, inv. no. M.8-1997; New York, the dealer Rosenberg & Stiebel (two versions in 1985); sale London (Christie’s), 7 July 1992, no. 164; sale London (Sotheby’s), 3 December 1997, nos. 116, 117 (two versions); sale Cologne (Lempertz), 17 May 2014, no. 1307; Amsterdam, the dealer Bruil & Brandsma (a pair, 2019); sale Paris (Millon/ Drouot), 28 June 2019, no. 577, acquired by the dealer Dick Endlich, Amsterdam; sale Paris (Giquello/ Drouot), 5 July 2023, no. 108. By no means do they all originate from Van Bolten’s time, nor were they all made in the Netherlands. Most are probably late-eighteenth or even nineteenth-century casts that are simplified versions of a seventeenth-century model executed in either bronze or silver. The appearance of this prototype is probably reflected in an example from the former collection of the Prince of Romania.¹⁰¹⁰J. Leeuwenberg, ‘The Grotesques Ascribed to Arent van Bolten’, Apollo 83 (1966), pp. 272-77, esp. pp. 273-74 and fig. 1. This bronze shows a separately cast, nude youth riding on the back of the fantasy animal. On its head are two small antennae not found on the majority of the other versions; on the Amsterdam bronze , which probably originates from the late eighteenth or nineteenth century, only two little bumps can be discerned on the head. Animal and youth on the bronze formerly with the Prince of Romania are moreover marked with a crowned ‘C’ for cuivre, indicating that this specific version changed hands in Paris between 1745 and 1749.

The original model was probably intended as an oil lamp or perfume burner, in view of the creature’s large gaping mouth and small antennae from which smoke could escape. Noteworthy in this context is that, in the aforementioned engraving by Firens, one of the monster-riding monkeys is breaking wind (RP-P-1965-796). The vapour emitting from its backside could point to the intended function of the beast as a design for a perfume burner, with which Van Bolten wanted to achieve a comic reversal effect: the evil smell of a monkey’s fart turning out to be a pleasant perfume.

In addition to the Amsterdam fantasy animal there are several other unique bronze monsters which, in view of their similarity to his designs, can also be attributed to Van Bolten. The Victoria and Albert Museum has an animal with the head of a reptile, the body of a bird and wings like the shell of a snail,¹¹¹¹J. Leeuwenberg, ‘The Grotesques Ascribed to Arent van Bolten’, Apollo 83 (1966), pp. 272-77, esp. fig. 7; G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, no. 68. and in 1975 the Hannema-De Stuers Foundation (Heino) acquired an example with the head of a buffalo, the body of a frog and the legs of a hoofed animal, which originally also had a rider on its back.¹²¹²Heino, Hannema-De Stuers Foundation, inv. no. 648, see R. Baarsen and I. Castlijns van Beek, Kwab: Ornament as Art in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 2018, no. 69; coll. cat. Zwolle 2005, p. 25. A smaller oil lamp in the shape of a monster, with a phallus as the oil receptacle, decorated with scroll and strapwork ornaments, has not yet been attributed to Van Bolten.¹³¹³P. Bloch, Ex Aere Solido: Bronzen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, exh. cat. Münster (Westfälisches Landesmuseum)/Saarbrücken (Saarland-Museum)/Hanover (Kestner-Museum) 1983, no. 90. The hideous face, the round belly and the curling tentacle arms strongly resemble his graphic work.¹⁴¹⁴Cf. ‘Keuze uit de aanwinsten: Zeventiende-eeuwse prenten’, Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 52 (2004), pp. 338-65, esp. nos. 3a to -j. The similarities to an oil lamp in the shape of a flying monster – particularly the head, the smooth modelling and the scaly back – are not, however, convincing enough to attribute this type, which also occurs in a variant with a rider, to Van Bolten. It is most likely of Italian origin and should probably be considered as a potential source of inspiration for Van Bolten’s imaginary beasts.¹⁵¹⁵A. Radcliffe and N. Penny, Art of the Renaissance Bronze 1500-1650: The Robert H. Smith Collection, coll. cat. Washington 2004, no. 8. A bronze Allegorical Deity with Grotesques, now with an absurd attribution to Adriaen de Vries (1556-1626), could have been part of a large oil lamp or perfume burner that can be connected to Van Bolten or his circle because of the distinctly grotesque animals.¹⁶¹⁶M. Leithe-Jasper and P. Wengraf, European Bronzes from the Quentin Collection, New York/Milan 2004, no. 16.

With its smooth, organic shapes the Amsterdam fantasy animal is closely akin to the auricular style, many examples of which are found in Van Bolten’s drawn designs. This stylistic aspect also connects the artist to the Utrecht silversmiths Adam (1568/69-1627) and Paul (1570-1614) van Vianen, who were the most important exponents of the early auricular style in the Netherlands. Van Bolten’s relationship with them and his precise role in the development of the auricular style is far from clear, however, because there is no known work in silver by Van Bolten in this organic style. Adam van Vianen incorporated a typical Van Bolten monster into a silver tazza in 1618 (BK-NM-12539).¹⁷¹⁷G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, no. 113.

It is certain that a stay in Italy played a great part in Van Bolten’s artistic education: as Fuhring points out, he was in Rome in 1596 and 1602, and he probably visited Florence and Venice as well.¹⁸¹⁸G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, pp. 301-02. Here he could have become acquainted with the grotesque style of Bernardo Buontalenti (1531-1608) and he may even have mastered working in bronze. Once back in the Netherlands he would have been on the artistic cutting edge and, in spite of being in the provincial city of Zwolle, he must have maintained close contacts with confreres elsewhere. Indications of this are the fact that Jacob Matham (whom he probably met in Rome) engraved his portrait in Haarlem in 1607, and that his own prints had already been engraved and published by Firens in Paris before 1616.¹⁹¹⁹G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, no. 66. The presence of Een kleyn Harkeles van Arent van Bolten van was (a small Hercules in wax by Arent van Bolten) among bronze statues and moulds by Michelangelo, Giambologna, Willem van Tetrode and Hendrick de Keyser in the collection of the Delft silversmith Thomas Cruse in 1624 is a further indication of his fame and reputation.²⁰²⁰A. Bredius, Künstler-inventare, Urkunden zur geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts, vol. 4, The Hague 1917, p. 1457, no. 10. Thomas Cornelis Cruse was born in Lübeck in 1586 and married in Amsterdam in December 1612. He is documented in the circle of the Amsterdam sculptor Hendrick de Keyser in 1616, when buying tools from the latter’s friend, the goldsmith Andries Frerixsz or Frederiks Valckenaer (1566-1627), whose daughter Machtelt married Hendrick de Keyser’s son, Thomas, in 1626. See Amsterdam City Archives, DTB, archive no. 5001, inv. no. 416, fol. 162, Notarial Archives (archive no. 5075), inv. no. 433, fols. 148v-149r (dated 28 March 1616) and inv. no. 440, fols. 94v-95v (dated 1 June 1626). In view of his style, his stay in Italy and his reputation it is obvious that Van Bolten was also well acquainted with the mannerist artists in Amsterdam and Haarlem, who in their turn also maintained close relationships with the artistic circle of Emperor Rudolph II in Prague. In the light of this, it seems more likely that his bronze monsters were originally cast not in his hometown of Zwolle but in Amsterdam.

Frits Scholten, 2024
An earlier version of this entry was 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. 40

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 220, with earlier literature; G. Luijten et al., Dawn of the Golden Age: Northern Netherlandish Art 1580-1620, exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum) 1993-94, no. 67; 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. 40

F. Scholten, 2024, 'possibly copy after Arent van Bolten and possibly copy after Arent van Bolten, Grotesque Animal, Oil Lamp, Rome, c. 1780 - c. 1900', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.24510