Hollow, direct cast with careful retouching, especially on the back of the throne and parts of Minerva’s armour. Remnants of core material are still present inside the bronze. Contrary to earlier findings,¹¹R. 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. 17 on pp. 160-61. recent XRF analysis shows the main part of the statuette with Minerva and the separately cast Cupid were in fact cast from exactly the same alloy.²²A. Pappot, RMA, 2014. Cupid was attached to the base with a modern iron screw and soldered to Minerva’s left calf with another modern screw through the tip of his left wing. Whether these modern screws are from a later repair, or the whole group should be considered as a later cast, has to be discussed.³³Noteworthy is a pair of bronzes in the Skulpturensammlung in Dresden representing Meleager and Diana (inv. nos. H4 156/053 and H4 155/049). These are believed to be from two different sculptors too (Meleager by Francavilla, Diana by Jacquio Ponce), but are both cast in an alloy that matches exactly with the Minerva group. The Diana and Meleager were acquired simultaneously for the Elector at auction in Paris in 1726. With thanks to Arie Pappot for this finding. GCMS analysis shows that the dark brown lacquer patina is a drying oil, possibly linseed oil.
Alloy main statuette tin bronze; copper with some impurities (Cu 89.52%; Zn 0.29%; Sn 8.31%; Pb 0.77%; Sb 0.18%; As 0.12%; Fe 0.30%; Ni 0.27%; Ag 0.07%).
Alloy Cupid tin bronze; copper with some impurities (Cu 90.24%; Zn 0.26%; Sn 7.88%; Pb 0.69%; Sb 0.17%; As 0.12%; Fe 0.22%; Ni 0.26%; Ag 0.07%).

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. 17 on pp. 160-61

The lacquer patina has sustained wear and abrasion. The back of Minerva’s throne and parts of her armour have been extensively cleaned. It is possible that this occurred in 1958, when the sculpture was in the possession of the art dealers Cramer and Heilbronner. In a letter to the latter, dated 19 August 1958, Cramer writes that the bronzes had been verwarlost, schlechtestens… verpackt und lieblos behandelt (neglected, badly… packed and treated unkindly) by their previous owners, and that they were in a deplorable condition. Elsewhere in the letter Cramer mentioned that die Pallas auch nicht wiederzuerkennen ist (the Pallas is also unrecognizable).

…; collection Karl Henschel (1873-1924), Kassel; by inheritance to the Henschelsche Familien-Verwaltung, Kassel (‘Herrn Dr. Robert’ Henschel), 1924; from which, with 11 other bronzes (among which BK-1959-3), DM 1,200 for all, to the dealers G. Cramer, The Hague and H. Heilbronner, Luzerne, August 1958; from whom, with BK-1959-3, fl. 18,000 for both, to the museum, October 1958

Object number: BK-1959-2

This sculpture – the only known example – has a varied attribution history. At the time of the purchase the bronze was considered to be by Johan Gregor van der Schardt (1530-1581), or by Hubert Gerhard (c. 1540/50-1620). In 1992 Larsson cautiously attributed the statuette to the sculptor Tiziano Aspetti (c. 1559-1606), who was active in Venice and worked in bronze in the 1590s. Larsson compared the piece to a small variant in Stockholm, which he also attributed to Aspetti.⁴⁴L.O. Larsson, European Bronzes 1450-1700, coll. cat. Stockholm (Swedish National Art Museums) 1992, no. 3. The two bronzes show the seated goddess in an elaborately decorated battledress with a putto standing beside her, and so in general terms they are quite similar. They differ considerably, however, in finish and details. Although the differences can of course be attributed in part to the difference in dimensions, both sculptures do not necessarily have to be by the same hand. The light-heartedness and attention to decorative details that characterize both sculptures are also found in a set of five statuettes of Mars that may have come from Aspetti’s circle.⁵⁵D. Banzato and F. Pellegrini, Bronzi e placchette dei Musei Civici di Padova, coll. cat. Padua 1989, nos. 171-75.

The bronze Minerva has also been attributed to Aspetti’s contemporary and colleague Girolamo Campagna (1549-1621).⁶⁶The date of Campagna’s death, long thought to have been in or around 1625, was discovered by Victoria Avery, see P. Motture, ‘The Production of Firedogs in Renaissance Venice’, in P. Motture (ed.), Large Bronzes in the Renaissance (Studies in the History of Art 64), Washington 2003, pp. 277-307, esp. p. 282, note 23. This attribution was based specifically on similarities to his large bronze group of statues for the high altar of the San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice, which was completed in the years 1592-93.⁷⁷W. Timofiewitsch, Girolamo Campagna: Studien zur venezianischen Plastik um das Jahr 1600, Munich 1972, no. 15, pp. 257-62. The most important things in common were similarities between the plumage of the eagle of St John and the gryphons that surround the back of Minerva’s throne. The putto at St Matthew’s feet was also seen as related to the cupid standing next to Minerva. However, the physical proportions of the Amsterdam cupid bear no resemblance to those of Campagna’s putti, and the treatment of the wings and the curls also differs. Kryza-Gersch observed that the cupid probably did belong to the Amsterdam Minerva, but that it is coarser in style and execution.⁸⁸Remark by Claudia Kryza-Gersch on a visit to the Rijksmuseum, 1 March 1999. Recent technical observations and analyses confirm that the cupid was an addition by another (probably also Venetian) hand and consequently did not form part of the original model. Minerva’s delicate face with the small mouth and straight nose is comparable to Campagna’s female figures, such as the bronze St Agnes in the Venetian church of Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari.⁹⁹A. Bacchi, L. Camerlengo, M. Leithe-Jasper (eds.), ‘La bellissima maniera’: Alessandro Vittoria e la scultura veneta del Cinquecento, exh. cat. Trento (Castello del Buonconsiglio) 1999, p. 414, no. 94.

Perhaps even more important for the purposes of comparison is the marble Allegory of War that Campagna made in 1585-86 for the Venetian Palazzo Ducale.¹⁰¹⁰W. Timofiewitsch, Girolamo Campagna: Studien zur venezianischen Plastik um das Jahr 1600, Munich 1972, no. 8, pp. 248-49. Minerva’s pose, type of helmet and physique are very similar. In the marble version, the engaging, refined impression made by the bronze statue has given way to more austere, chillier feel. This difference is partly due to the contrast between a marble statue that is viewed from a particular distance (the piece stands above a door in the Sala delle Quattro Porte) and a smaller, bronze statuette that can be handled and scrutinized from all sides. However no parallel to the pronounced love of decorative surface details that is evident in the bronze work can be found in the documented works of Campagna.

Even though a relationship exists between documented works by Campagna and the Amsterdam Minerva, the sculpture also displays a similarity to works by one of Campagna’s contemporaries. Two bronze sculptures which, like Campagna’s group of statues for the high altar, are also in the San Giorgio Maggiore in Venice are particularly interesting as material for comparison. They are St Stephen and St George (fig. a) by the Genoese sculptor Niccolò Roccatagliata (1560-1629). Both these sculptures are somewhat larger than the Minerva in the Rijksmuseum and were intended for the balustrade of the choir of the San Giorgio Maggiore.¹¹¹¹C. Kryza-Gersch, ‘New Light on Nicolò Roccatagliata and His Son Sebastian Nicolini’, Nuovi Studi 3 (1998) 5, pp. 111-26, esp. pp. 111-12; C. Kryza-Gersch, ‘Nicolò Roccatagliata (Genova 1560 ca.-1636 ca.) e suo figlio Sebastiano Nicolini (notizie dal 1614)’, in A. Bacchi, L. Camerlengo and M. Leithe-Jasper (eds.), ‘La bellissima maniera’: Alessandro Vittoria e la scultura veneta del Cinquecento, exh. cat. Trento (Castello del Buonconsiglio) 1999, pp. 440-57, esp. pp. 441-43. For a second version of St George, see C. Kryza-Gersch, ‘A Second Saint George by Nicolò Roccatagliata’, in Benjamin Proust Fine Art Limited: Tefaf 2016 Showcase Maastricht, sale cat. London 2016, no. 13, pp. 58-67. Roccatagliata received the commission for these two bronzes in 1595. In the following years he made various other bronze decorations for the same church. The composition of the seated St George with his upper body turned is similar to that of Minerva. The fondness for decorative surface details that we see, for example, in Stephen’s chasuble, is also found in the lavishly decorated, fanciful armour of the warrior goddess. Furthermore, the treatment of the gryphons’ feathers is comparable to that of the feathers of the eagle at the feet of a St John the Evangelist in Verona, a statue which was recently attributed to Niccolò Roccatagliata or his son Sebastian Niccolini.¹²¹²C. Kryza-Gersch, ‘New Light on Nicolò Roccatagliata and His Son Sebastian Nicolini’, Nuovi Studi 3 (1998) 5, pp. 111-26, esp. pp. 119-20, fig. 219. In style Minerva is similar to these sculptures, which moreover evoke the same refined elegant feeling as the seated goddess.

Aspetti, Campagna and Roccatagliata are considered to belong to the last generation of Venetian sculptors of the Renaissance. With their dynamic poses, their work at times anticipates the baroque style that was to come. Campagna and Roccatagliata in particular made bronzes which, in their refined elegance, often owed much to the work of their trend-setting contemporary Alessandro Vittoria, and were very similar in style. A comparison of the finials of two bronze firedogs in Edinburgh and London is illuminating in this respect. One is considered as possibly by Niccolò Roccatagliata, the other as ‘in the style of’ Girolamo Campagna.¹³¹³P. Motture, ‘The Production of Firedogs in Renaissance Venice’, in P. Motture (ed.), Large Bronzes in the Renaissance (Studies in the History of Art 64), Washington 2003, pp. 277-307, eps. pp. 279, 282, 296, figs. 4, 5 and 8. The eagle at Jupiter’s feet on the firedog in Scotland is similar to the gryphons in the Minerva.

The bronze Minerva must in any case be placed in Venice around the end of the sixteenth century. In view of the similarities to various bronze sculptures by Roccatagliata and Campagna in the San Giorgio Maggiore dating from the period 1592-94 it is obvious that the model of Minerva is by one of these sculptors. The standing putto, possibly one of the stock models common in Venetian foundries, was not in the original model. Its addition may have been inspired by similar compositions such as the Stockholm Minerva and Cupid. Might one of the assistants or casters involved with the bronze decorations in the San Giorgio have adapted the model to create this engaging little group? A standing Mars and Minerva in Vienna with a similar lavish foliate decoration on their armour may have originated from this same Venetian foundry.¹⁴¹⁴Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. nos. 7568 and 7569, see R. Feuchtmüller (ed.), Italienische Kleinplastiken, Zeichnungen und Musik der Renaissance, Waffen des 16. u. 17. Jahrhunderts, exh. cat. Vienna (Schloss Schallaburg) 1976, nos. 173 and 174. With thanks to Claudia Kryza-Gersch for the reference. Other useful material for comparison is a 58 cm-tall standing Minerva in Padua, which in the past has been attributed both to Aspetti and to Campagna.¹⁵¹⁵G. Mariacher, Bronzetti veneti del Rinascimento, Vicenza 1971, no. 168.

The statue, in common with the Italian She-Wolf with Romulus and Remus (BK-1958-39), and Willem van Tetrode's Striding Warrior (BK-1959-3), comes from the collection of the German steam locomotive builder Karl Henschel. After his death the bronzes in his collection ended up in different branches of the family. In 1958 a number of Henschel’s heirs decided to sell the bronzes to the same art dealer who had helped their father with the creation of his collection.¹⁶¹⁶For the purposes of purchasing this part of the collection, the art dealer G. Cramer, who had been doing business in The Hague since 1938, teamed up with the Swiss art dealer Henri Heilbronner for the occasion. The Rijksmuseum seems to have been unaware of the fact that there was a second art dealer involved besides Cramer, the name of Heilbronner is not mentioned anywhere in the museum’s documents. In any case the two appear to have done good business: they paid DM 1,200 for a group of twelve bronzes among which was the present Minerva and Cupid and the Striding Warrior by Van Tetrode. The asking price for the total number must then have been between fl. 33,300 and fl. 39,000. Fl. 12,000 to fl. 13,500 was asked for the Minerva and Cupid; they wanted between fl. 4,000 and fl. 5,000 for the Striding Warrior. The Rijksmuseum finally paid fl. 18,000 for the two bronzes together.

Monique Verber, 2005 (updated by Bieke van der Mark in 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. 17

J. Leeuwenberg with the assistance of W. Halsema-Kubes, Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, coll. cat. Amsterdam 1973, no. 202, with earlier literature; L.O. Larsson, European Bronzes 1450-1700, coll. cat. Stockholm (Swedish National Art Museums) 1992, under no. 3, p. 24; Verber 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. 17; coll. cat. New York 2011, p. 56; Scholten/Van der Mark in coll. cat. Amsterdam 2015, no. 104

M. Verber, 2024, 'Gerolamo Campagna or Niccolò Roccatagliata, Minerva and Cupid, Venice, c. 1600', in F. Scholten and B. van der Mark (eds.), European Sculpture in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: https://data.rijksmuseum.nl/200115882