Venus Arming a Warrior, possibly Johan Maurits at the Forge of Vulcan

? Commissioned and paid for by stadholder Frederik Hendrik, Prince of Orange (‘aen Thomas Willeboorts, schilder tot Antwerpen, de somme van twaelff hondert Carolus guldens, over twee stucken schilderÿ bij hem gemaeckt ende aen Sijne Hoocht gelevert, wesende d’eene het subjet van Mars ende Venus’), 20 February 1645;¹¹Ordonnantieboeken, 1637-50, 736 fol. 290; C. Vosmaer, ‘De Ordonnantie-boeken van Prins Frederik Hendrik over de jaren 1637-1650’, Kunstkronijk 22/NS 2 (1861), pp. 37-40, esp. p. 37. Van Gelder believed that this referred to the picture that was to be engraved by Gebhard, see below, as he had identified the sitters in the present work as Friedrich Wilhelm, the Elector of Brandenburg and Louisa Henrietta, Countess of Nassau-Oranje who were not married until 1647. See J.G. van Gelder, ‘De opdrachten van de Oranje’s aan Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert en Gonzales Coques’, Oud Holland 114 (1949), pp. 179-85, esp. p. 42 and p. 43 no. 1. ? still in the Orange-Nassau collection when recorded in the ‘groot sael’, Huis in het Noordeinde (Oude Hof), The Hague, (‘Een groot stuck schilderij voor de schoorsteen representerende Mars en Venus’), 1702;²²S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, I, pp. 488, 544; this space was occupied in 1707 by ‘Een stuck van Willeboort […] sÿnde Dido en Eneas int hol’.…; ? the dealer Quirijn van Biesum, Rotterdam; his sale, Rotterdam (auction house not known), 18 October 1719, no. 173 (‘Een fraei Stuk van Willeborts, zynde een naekt Vrouwenbeelt’), fl. 30, possibly to Allard de la Court van der Voort (1688-1755);³³G. 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, I, p. 235; as kindly suggested by Jonathan Bikker. For the Rotterdam dealer Quirijn van Biesum (active 1711-20), see K. Jonckheere, The Auction of King William’s Paintings 1713: Elite International Art Trade at the End of the Dutch Golden Age, Amsterdam 2008, passim, esp. pp. 98-101, 116-19. The identification is not certain, as De La Court (see Provenance) was to give his purchase price as fl. 140; so he may have bought it from Van Biesum during his lifetime. T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C.W. Fock and A.J. van Dissel (eds.), Het Rapenburg. Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, 6 vols., Leiden 1986-92, II, pp. 364, 371, fig. 31 (the ex-Sanssouci picture) and p. 444; reference kindly supplied by Jonathan Bikker. The work was listed ‘in de groot kamer’, no. 6 Het Rapenberg, Leiden, December 1749 (‘33 1 Venus en Achilles wel geschildert door Willebort sijnde een discipel geweest van A van Dijck door mij gekofft van A. van Biesum tot Rotterdam voor f 140 7 v. 21 [sic] ½ d. 8 v. 6 d. f 100’). The initial A proceeding van Biesum's name was either a mistake or it could have referred to Quirijn’s son Adriaen about whom nothing is known other than that he was living in Persia in 1719, see Jonckheere 2008, p. 98, 149. his widow, Catharina de la Court van der Voort-Backer (1689-1766), Leiden; their sale, Leiden (S. and J. Luchtmans), 8 September 1766 sqq., no. 5 (‘THOMAS WILLEBORDS. Venus en Achilles, levens groote, verzelt van Minne-Godjes die met waapenen speelen; op de tweede grond ziet men Vulcaan met de Cyclopen aan het smeeden, en in ’t verschiet een Veldslag […] 7 voet 2½ duim hoog, 8 voet 6 duim breet [226.4 x 266.9 cm]’), fl. 95, to the dealer Pieter Fouquet;⁴⁴Copy RKD.…; the Town Hall of the City of Amsterdam (in the ‘Rariteits-Kamer/Voor den Schoorsteen/Eene zinnebeeldige Vorstelling, zijnde een Krijgsman, in Wapenrusting, aanwien, als Mars door Venus het Harnas wordt aangegespt, twee geniën brengen den Helm aan en andere het Schild. in den trant van Ferdinand Bol’), before 1841;⁵⁵De Vries ([J. de Vries], Beschrijving der schilderijen, beelden en zeldzaamheden op het stadhuis der stad Amsterdam aanwezig, Amsterdam 1843 [first ed. 1841], no. 76) attributed the picture to the style of Rubens; Scheltema (P. Scheltema, Historische beschrijving der schilderijen van het stadhuis te Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1879, no. 114) described the painting, 211 x 221 cm, as signed ‘F. Willeborts Ft’ and made reference to C. Vosmaer, ‘De Ordonnantie-boeken van Prins Frederik Hendrik over de jaren 1637-1650’, Kunstkronijk 22/NS 2 (1861), pp. 37-40, esp. p. 37. It is not listed in the Town Hall by J. van Dijk, Kunst- en Historie-Kundige Beschryving van alle de Schilderyen op het Stadhuis van Amsteldam, Amsterdam 1790 or by J. Fokke, Beschrijving van het vermaarde Stadhuis van Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1808. on loan to the museum from the City of Amsterdam, since October 1885⁶⁶See Excursus on the Provenance at the end of the entry.

ObjectNumber: SK-C-400

Credit line: On loan from the City of Amsterdam

Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert seems never to have signed with initials, and thus those noted above, which seem integral, are viewed with circumspection. A pre-1940 photograph¹⁰¹⁰Negative number 1970, probably dating from the 1930s. gives a good impression of the work’s innate qualities. Indeed its authenticity has never been doubted, and Heinrich has recently accepted it. He dates it to early 1645.

Another version, destroyed in World War II, was in the Bildergalerie, Sanssouci, Potsdam. Judging from a reproduction, this version would appear to have been not so fluently painted, and Heinrich believes it to have been a replica of the Amsterdam picture.¹¹¹¹A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, no. 18a. Recorded by the dealer Gilliam Forchondt, another copy retouched by Willeboirts Bosschaert was sold to the Johann Seyfried, Prince of Eggenberg (1644-1713), in 1673; it was published as still in situ at Krummau (Czech Republic) by Slavícek in 1993.¹²¹²L. Slavícek, ‘Antwerpen, Wien und die Böhmischen Länder’, in E. Mai, K. Schütz and H. Vlieghe (eds.), Die Malerei Antwerpens: Gattungen, Meister, Wirkungen: Studien zur flämischen Kunst des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts: Internationales Kolloquium Wien 1993, Cologne 1994, pp. 145-54, esp. p. 146 and fig. 2 (caption transposed from fig. 1); A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, no. AP18Ka. Both these pictures show much more to the left of the composition and slightly more at the top and to the right. It seems likely that the Amsterdam formulation was originally the same and that therefore the support has been reduced. Thus missing to the left is the barrel and wheel of a cannon, a ramrod and shovel (partially visible), with a cavalry charge in the background.

The scene in the right background is the god Vulcan’s forge. Willeboirts Bosschaert may have seen Peter Paul Rubens’s sketch of Vulcan Forging Jupiter’s Thunderbolt¹³¹³S. Alpers, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, IX: The Decoration of the Torre de la Parada, Brussels/London/New York 1971, no. 60a. for the Torre de la Parada series or Rubens working on the picture itself.¹⁴¹⁴S. Alpers, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, IX: The Decoration of the Torre de la Parada, Brussels/London/New York 1971, no. 60. Seated in front of the forge is Vulcan’s wife, the goddess Venus, accompanied by five putti. The one closest to her, who pulls away the drapery more fully to reveal her thigh, and has the larger wings, may be intended as her son the god Cupid. Beside her is an imposing figure in classical-style armour; the paludamentum (a general’s cloak) shows that he is a commander as does the staff on which his right hand rests. Venus fixes his sword to the baldric, as three putti proffer his helmet, which would be followed by his shield held by the putto bottom right.

In the belief that these actions were depicted in reverse – that the armour was being removed – Van Gelder following tradition proposed that the god be identified as Mars succumbing to Venus.¹⁵¹⁵J.G. van Gelder, ‘De opdrachten van de Oranje’s aan Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert en Gonzales Coques’, Oud Holland 114 (1949), pp. 179-85, esp. p. 43, note 1; see also M.H. van Eikema Hommes, Art and Allegiance in the Dutch Golden Age: The Ambitions of a Wealthy Widow in a Painted Chamber by Ferdinand Bol, Amsterdam 2012, p. 203, no. 55, and p. 129, fig. 123. But the composition is in contrast to those of this subject depicted by Rubens¹⁶¹⁶The State Hermitage Museum, see See N. Büttner, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XII: Allegories and Subjects from Literature, 2 vols., London 2018, I, no. 18, II, fig. 101. and possibly by Van Dyck¹⁷¹⁷Vey in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. III.A12; Heinrich believed the picture to be a copy by Willeboirts Bosschaert after a lost Van Dyck and executed before 1645, in A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, no. B1. in which the attitude of Mars is quite different. Indeed here the commander is made to strike a martial pose; this and the cavalry charge in the background of the ex-Sanssouci picture, indicate rather that he is about to engage in his military duties. On this basis, Heinrich, following Baumstark,¹⁸¹⁸R. Baumstark, ‘Ikonographische Studien zu Rubens Kriegs- und Friedensallegorien’, Aachener Kunstblätter 45 (1974), pp. 125-234, esp. p. 229, note 431. identified the commander as the hero Aeneas whose armour, forged by Vulcan, was provided by his mother, Venus, as Virgil relates. But to this may be objected that the soldier is depicted as older than Venus, and could not have been intended by Willeboirts Bosschaert to be taken for her son. Further Venus, in Virgil’s Aeneid (VIII: 616), did not dress Aeneas in his armour, but ‘set up the arms all radiant under an oak before him’ (arma sub adversa posuit radiantia quercu). Thus it would appear that the artist has here simply alluded to the story of Venus providing arms for Aeneas and adapted the visual formula of Venus disarming Mars (to which there is no reference in classical literature).

Van Gelde, in fact making more specific a description of the replica made by Oesterreich in 1770 (see below), suggested that the Rijksmuseum picture is a portrait historié. He proposed that depicted as Mars is Friedrich Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, Elector of Brandenburg (1620-1688), and as Venus, Louisa Henrietta, Countess of Nassau (1627-1667), an identification followed in the 1976 museum catalogue.¹⁹¹⁹J.G. van Gelder, ‘De opdrachten van de Oranje’s aan Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert en Gonzales Coques’, Oud Holland 114 (1949), pp. 179-85, esp. p. 43, note 1. The couple was married on 6 December 1646. Against this, it has to be observed that while the great elector had a low brow with a conspicuous mass of hair – as clearly shown in Honthorst’s double portrait of the married couple of 1647 (SK-A-873) – the soldier depicted by Willeboirts Bosschaert has receding hair. Further, while courtly hyperbole would have permitted a depiction of his bride as Venus, it would have been considered lacking in decorum to have had her displayed almost naked even if a low décolletage might have been acceptable.

Venus’s face may be deemed generically beautiful; but the features of the commander do indeed appear specific. Oesterreich described the Sanssouci replica as an allegorical depiction of a ‘prince of Nassau’,²⁰²⁰M. Oesterreich, Beschreibung der Königlichen Bildergallerie und des Kabinets in Sans-Souci, Potsdam 1770, no. 20. and it is here suggested that the sitter could well have been Johan Maurits, Count (later Prince) of Nassau-Siegen (1604-1679). After his return from Brazil in 1644, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the cavalry of the United Provinces and Governor of Wesel by his cousin, Frederik Hendrik. He held these posts until he was appointed in 1647 by Friedrich Wilhelm, Stadholder of Cleves, Mark and Ravensberg. The features delineated by Willeboirts Bosschaert accord with those of Cornelis Visscher II’s (1628/29-1658) engraving of 1647 after a lost portrait by Gerrit van Honthorst (1592-1656), although in the print the sitter’s hair, though clearly thinning, is brushed forward to conceal his incipient baldness.²¹²¹J.R. Judson and R.E.O. Ekkart, Gerrit van Honthorst 1592-1656, Doornspijk 1999, no. 439, pl. 331; F.W.H. Hollstein et al., Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450-1700, Amsterdam/Roosendaal 1948-, XL, p. 135, no. 127. A sculpted bust by F. Dieusart of 1645 shows the count completely bald; it is illustrated in G. de Werd, Soweit der Erdkreis reicht: Johann Moritz von Nassau-Siegen 1604-1679, Cleves (Städtisches Museum Haus Koekkoek) 1979, p. 89, figs. 8-9. This portrayal of him being readied for military action, as a cavalry charge is enacted beyond, would seem fitting for the recently appointed commander of the Dutch cavalry.

Another closely related, but lost treatment of the theme by Willeboirts Bosschaert is recorded in a print (presumably in reverse) by Franz Xaver Gebhard (born 1775), published in Dessau in 1797 and exhibited at the Berlin Academy the following year.²²²²A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, no. A20a. The prototype measured 65 x 80 cm. The main differences in the composition are chiefly that only one putto – probably Cupid – is present and that the arrangement of the warrior and Venus is happier: he stands before her, in profile, with his hand resting comfortably on her shoulder. Because he is shown in profile, it seems unlikely that intended was a portrait historié (but of course the possibility cannot be excluded for this reason). Heinrich believes that the prototype may have been executed before the Amsterdam picture. Indeed its size suggests that it may have been a modello sent by Willeboirts Bosschaert to his patron for his approval. The artist might then have been required to alter the pose of the warrior so that his full face could be seen.

The pose of Venus was repeated in the Amsterdam picture. It had been used with slight variation in Willeboirts Bosschaert’s Venus and Adonis (present whereabouts unknown), which Heinrich believes was executed in 1644/45.²³²³A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, no. A19. It derives from Rubens’s Venus in his Venus and Adonis (Metropolitan Museum of Art),²⁴²⁴W.A. Liedtke, Flemish Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2 vols., New York 1984, I, pp. 151-55, II, pl. 61, where dated slightly earlier than 1637/38. which could have been available for the young artist to study when he was working for Rubens on the Torre de la Parada commission. However for the rendering of her drapery, he preferred the more decorous covering he had provided for Venus in his own Venus and Adonis. The model for Venus appears to be the same as in the Toilet of Venus (whereabouts unknown) of 1644.²⁵²⁵A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, I, no. A11, II, pl. 22. The putto carrying the helmet appears in the Van Dyckian Venus Disarming Mars.²⁶²⁶Vey in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. III.A12; Heinrich believed the picture to be a copy by Willeboirts Bosschaert after a lost Van Dyck and executed before 1645, in A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, no. B1. But in the Amsterdam picture the putto is being propelled forward by his energetic companion behind him. The latter’s pose may have been a Rubens formulation.²⁷²⁷Cf. the angel, top right, in the Munich Alte Pinakothek, Virgin and Child in a Garland of Flowers, see M. Jaffé, Rubens. Catalogo Completo, Milan 1989, no. 548 and that in the bottom right of the group of Innocents in the Louvre Virgin and Child with the Holy Innocents, Ibid., no. 495; J. Foucart, Catalogue des peintures flamands et hollandaises du musée du Louvre, Paris 2009, p. 229, inv. no. 1763. The idea of the putto with his arms raised derives ultimately from Titian (c. 1488-1576), whose Worship of Venus Rubens had copied.²⁸²⁸M. Jaffé, Rubens. Catalogo Completo, Milan 1989, no. 1339. The cannon features prominently and from the same angle in Willeboirts Bosschaert’s Amor Triumphans (present whereabouts unknown), which Heinrich dates a little earlier than the Toilet of Venus of 1644,²⁹²⁹A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, I, no. A6, II, pl. 16. and may also have been inspired by a Rubens motif.³⁰³⁰In the Portrait of Marie de Médicis as Victory(?), see M. Jaffé, Rubens. Catalogo Completo, Milan 1989, no. 1339.

Excursus on the Provenance
The provenance until 1841 involves a series of uncertainties, unresolvable in our present state of knowledge.

First, Van Gelder believed that the entry in the Ordonnantieboeken for 20 February 1645 referred to the lost painting of Mars and Venus [sic, should be Aeneas] engraved by Gebhard.³¹³¹J.G. van Gelder, ‘De opdrachten van de Oranje’s aan Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert en Gonzales Coques’, Oud Holland 114 (1949), pp. 179-85, esp. p. 42. However Heinrich upheld the identification, arguing that the mistaken subject (long accepted by the museum) would not have been unusual, for instance the Rinaldo and Armida by Van Dyck was also described in the Orange inventory of 1632 as ‘Mars and Venus’.³²³²A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, under no. AP18. Further, Forchondt in 1673 gave the same title to a copy of SK-C-400. However, if the identification of the warrior advanced here – as Count Johan Maurits – is correct, it might be asked why the work should have been (?) commissioned and paid for by his cousin Frederik Hendrik. Be that as it may, an unattributed (contrary to Heinrich) Mars and Venus was listed as a chimney piece in the Huis in het Noordeinde in 1702. This was either replaced or re-described as a Dido and Aeneas by Willeboirts Bosschaert in 1707; if the former, the period 1702-07 could have been when the Mars and Venus was acquired by Van Biesum.

Second, the next likely record of SK-C-400 is in the ‘groote kamer’ of no. 6, Het Rapenburg, Leiden, when listed in 1749 as no. 33, and in the possession of Allard de la Court van der Voort. The title and dimensions are the same as in the sale (8-9 September 1766, no. 173) of the estates of Allard de la Court van der Voort and of Catherine Backer, his widow. The size is close to that of the lost replica and the copy at Krummau (Czech Republic) by Slavícek (see above), which, as is here argued, could well have been the approximate original measurements of SK-C-400. Both the 1749 inventory and the catalogue entry (based, according to the catalogue, on a French, manuscript catalogue of the collection found in the papers of Catherine Backer) confused and amalgamated the two similar subjects of ‘Thetis giving the arms of Hephaestus to Achilles’ and ‘Venus arming Aeneas’. Heinrich, following (but not referring to) Lunsingh Scheurleer et al., identifies this with the picture at Sanssouci.³³³³A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein Flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, under no. AP18a; T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, C.W. Fock and A.J. van Dissel (eds.), Het Rapenburg. Geschiedenis van een Leidse gracht, 6 vols., Leiden 1986-92, II, p. 444 note 249. The picture referred to is in E. Henschel-Simon, Die Gemälde und Skulpturen in der Bildergalerie von Sanssouci, Potsdam (Schloss Sanssouci) 1930, no. 159. The description in Oesterreich’s 1770 catalogue of the pictures in the Bilder-Galerie, no. 20 reads: ‘Van Dyck/Eine allegorische Vorstellung auf einem Prinzen von Nassau auf Leinwand gemalt 7 fuss 8 zoll hoch, und 8 fuss 11 zoll breit [240.6 x 279.8 cm]/Van Dyck hat diesen Prinzen stehend Vorgestellet und zu seiner Rechten ein sitzendes fast nackendes Frauenzimmer die im Begriffist, ihm die Waffen anzulegen … besonders das Frauenzimmer, wodurch er die Venus hat andeuten wollen […] es ist völlig in dem Geschmack des Willebordts gemalt’. Reasons against this identification are: a) the picture was acquired as by Van Dyck, Oesterreich’s recognition of affinities with Willeboirts Bosschaert’s style notwithstanding; b) no reference is made to the recent Leiden sale, while other recent sales were referred to by Oesterreich elsewhere in the catalogue; c) the description differs fundamentally from that in the Van der Voort-Backer sale catalogue, as do the measurements but not greatly, and d) the picture appears to have had an association with the House of Orange-Nassau, suggesting that it may have been acquired from one of its members.

Third, it is remarkable, but inexplicable that by the time the catalogue of the Amsterdam Town Hall was compiled in 1841 no provenance then attached to the Rijksmuseum picture.

Gregory Martin, 2022

A. Heinrich, Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert (1613/14-1654): Ein flämische Nachfolger Van Dycks, 2 vols., Turnhout 2003, I, no. AP18; N.E. Middelkoop et al., De oude meesters van de stad Amsterdam: schilderijen tot 1800, coll. cat. Amsterdam (Amsterdams Historisch Museum) 2008, p. 256

1887, p. 191, no. 1633 (as_ Mars's Sword Buckled on by Venus_, signed 'T. Willeborts', 211 x 221 cm); 1903, p. 300, no. 2686 (as Mars’s Sword Buckled on by Venus, signed ‘T. WILL’ with signature T. Willebrord, 218.5 x 225 cm); 1934, p. 320, no. 2686 (as an Allegory of War, signed ‘T. Will’); 1976, p. 606, no. C 400 (as Allegorical depiction of Mars (Friedrich Wilhelm, Elector of Brandenburg ?), receiving the weapons of Venus (Louisa Henrietta, Countess of Nassau ?, and Vulcan, signed ‘T. Will’)

G. Martin, 2022, 'Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert, Venus Arming a Warrior, possibly Johan Maurits at the Forge of Vulcan, c. 1644', in Flemish Paintings in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.6573