YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

RUBENS

RUBENS By
EDWARD DILLON, M.A.
'it J

WITH 484 PLATES

METHUEN AND CO.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON

First Published in igog

YALE

^y

m\\t
"K8£2>

WJ

List of Plates, .
Bibliography,Introductory.

CONTENTS

PAGE ix
xxiii 1-3

PART I
CHAPTER I
Jan Rubens at Antwerp and Cologne — The Intrigue with Anna of Saxony -
Antwerp under Spanish Rule — The Masters of Rubens,

4,-13

CHAPTER II
The Italian Wanderjahre — Vincenzo, Duke of Mantua — Journey to the Spanish
Court — Studies in Rome — Return to Antwerp, .... 14-27
CHAPTER III
Antwerp in the Seventeenth Century — Rubens and the Archdukes — His
Marriage to Isabella Brant — The New House — Organisation of the Studio
—Daily Life of Rubens, ....... 28-37

CHAPTER IV
Designs for Engravers — The Plantin-Moretus Press — The Bargain with Sir
Dudley Carleton — Interest in Science and Archaeology — The Corre
spondence of Rubens — Rubens at Paris, ..... 38-47

CHAPTER V
Renewal of the war with Holland — Diplomatic Journeys — Rubens and Spinola —
Rubens and Gerbier in Holland — Rubens at Madrid — In England — Marie
de M&licis at Antwerp — Rubens insulted by the Duke D'Aerschot, . 48-60
V

RUBENS

CHAPTER VI

The Fourment Family — Rubens's Second Marriage — He buys the Ch&teau of
Steen— The '¦ Joyous Entry' of Ferdinand— Death of Rubens— The
Division of the Estate, ....... 61-69

PART II
CHAPTER VII
Aesthetic Analysis— The Task of the Critic — The Predecessors of Rubens— The
Romanists — The Home-stayers — The Landscape-painters, . . 70-80
CHAPTER VIII
The Earliest Works of Rubens — Pictures and Drawings made in Italy, . . 81-95
CHAPTER IX
Portraits of Isabella Brant — The ' Elevation ' and ' Deposition ' — The Principal
Pupils and Assistants — Treatment of the Nude in the Earlier Antwerp
Period — Religious and Profane Pictures ofthe Earlier Years, . . 96-114
CHAPTER X
The First Twelve Years at Antwerp (continued) — Battle Scenes and Hunting
Pieces — The 'Natural History* Series — Landscapes — Breughel and
Elsheimer — Imitation of Earlier Masters — Garlanded Madonnas — The
Apocalyptic Series, . .... 115-126
CHAPTER XI
The First Twelve Years at Antwerp (continued) — Portraits — Pictures for the
Jesuit Church — Decius Mus Series — The Earlier ' Assumptions ' and
' Adorations '—The ' March of Silenus,' ..... 127-139
CHAPTER XII
The Four Main Periods — The Luxembourg Pictures — Religious Pictures of the
Third .Decade — Profane Subjects — Pictures painted in Madrid — In
England, ......... 140-159
vi

CONTENTS
CHAPTER XIII
PAGE
Portraits of the Fourment Family — Susanna — Helen — The Final Triumph of
Rubens's Art — The Kermesse — The Later Martyrdoms — Designs for the
' Happy Entry ' — Later Portraits — Later Mythological Pieces, . . 160-177
CHAPTER XIV
Last Pictures for the Spanish King — The Landscapes of Rubens, . 178-187
Lists of Pictures, ... .... 189-237
Index, .... . . . 239-250

LIST OF PLATES

Helen Fourment with her Son ....

Frontispiece

IN THE TEXT OF THE BOOK

FACING PAGE

Rubens's House and Garden ....

33

Courtyard of Rubens's House ....

34

Bust of the ' Pseudo-Seneca ' . . . .

91
Study for the ' Elevation of the Cross ' . .
100
Horses and Men in a Stable (Study for ' The Prodigal Son ')
120
Portrait Study ......
127
Interior of the Jesuits' Church, Antwerp
134
Marie de Medicis ......
142
Studies for the Flemish Kermesse ....
167
Study of Trees ......
183
Study of Cows ......
185
AT THE END OF THE BOOK
VIII.
i. The Annunciation.
n. St. Helena and the True Cross.
/The Crowning with Thorns.
'(.The Elevation of the Cross.
iv. The Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine.
v. Equestrian Portrait (Duca del Infantado ?).
/Democritus, the Laughing Philosopher.
'iHeraclitus, the Weeping Philosopher.
vii. Archimedes.
St. John.
St. Thomas.
St. James the Elder.
.St. Andrew.
St. Philip.
St. Matthew.
St. Bartholomew.
St. Thaddeus.
St. Simon.
St. Paul.
St. Matthias.
St. Peter.
J~S
4s
XI
IS
is
ix
RUBENS
(The Trinity (Upper Part of Picture).
xivJDuke Vincenzo Gonzaga of Mantua and his Family adoring the Trinity
I (Lower Part of Picture).
xv. The Baptism of Christ.
xvi. The Transfiguration.
xvii. The Death of Seneca.
/Portrait of Woverius.
\Tiberius and Agrippina.
xix. The Entombment.
xx. Lipsius and his Pupils (The Four Philosophers).
xxi. The Palatine Hill.
xxn. The Triumph of Julius Caesar.
xxiii. The Cock and the Diamond.
xxiv. The Visitation.
xxv. The Circumcision.
xxvi. St. George and the Dragon.
xxvii. Madonna adored by Saints.
xxvm. Madonna and Child with Angels.
/Saints Gregory, Maurus and Papianus.
\Saints Domitilla, Nereus and Achilles.
/The Three Graces (Uffizi).
XXX"lThe Toilet of Venus.
/Faun with Basket of Fruit.' f
XXXI"\Two Satyrs.
{Heads of Apostles.
Portrait of a Young Genoese.
/St. Francis Praying.
\St. Jerome.
xxxiv. The Drunken Hercules.
xxxv. Hero Crowned by Victory, or The Triumph of Virtue.
xxxvi. Romulus and Remus.
xxxvu. Rubens and Isabella Brant.
xxxvm. Landscape with a Rainbow (St. Petersburg).
xxxix. Landscape with a Rainbow (Paris).
xl. Susanna and the Elders (Madrid).
xli. The Drunkenness of Lot.
xlii. The Elevation of the Cross.
xliii. The Adoration of the Kings (Madrid).
xliv. The Apocalyptic Woman (Munich).
xlv. The Apocalyptic Woman (Hamburg).
xlvi. The Dead Saviour with Mary and John (Pieta).
xlvii. Christ on the Cross (Antwerp).
/St. Francis at the Cross.
\Christ on the Cross (Munich).
xux. Portrait of Pieter Pecquius.

LIST OF PLATES

PLATE

l. Isabella Brant (Berlin).
li. Erichthonius and the Daughters of Cccrops.
lu. Juno and Argus.
liii. Diogenes Seeking for a Man.
liv. The Woman taken in Adultery.
lv. The Dismissal of Hagar.
lvi. The Conversion of St. Bavon (Finished Sketch).
lvii. St. Sebastian.
lviii. Deposition from the Cross (St. Petersburg).
lix. Deposition from the Cross (Antwerp).
lx. Deposition from the Cross (Centre Panel, Antwerp).
lxi. Deposition from the Cross (Lille).
lxii. Crucifixion.
lxiii. Christ giving the Keys to St. Peter.
lxiv. St. Christopher and the Hermit.
/King David with the Harp.
'(.Man in Fur Coat.
lxvi. The Doubting Thomas.
{Nicolas Rockox.
Adriana Perez, Wife of Nicolas Rockox.
lxviii. Susanna and the Elders (Stockholm).
lxix. The Statue of Ceres.
lxx. Jupiter and Callisto.
lxxi. Prometheus and the Eagle. X
lxxii. Venus Frigida.
lxxiii. Arion Saved by Dolphins.
lxxiv. The Dead Saviour — Pieta (Antwerp).
lxxv. The Dead Saviour — Pieta (Vienna).
lxxvi. The Flight into Egypt.
lxxvii. The Holy Family with the Parrot.
lxxviii. The Prodigal Son.
lxxix. Winter.
lxxx. The Conversion of St. Paul (Munich).
lxxxi. The Overthrow of Sennacherib.
lxxxii /Portrait °f a Young Man (Cassel).
'(.Portrait of a Lady (St. Petersburg).
lxxxiii. Portrait of Rubens (Uffizi).
lxxxiv /Portrait of a Man (Munich).
(.Portrait of an Old Woman (Munich).
lxxxv /Portrait of a Man (Vienna).
(Portrait of a Man (St. Petersburg).
/A Franciscan Monk (St. Petersburg).
'(.Portrait of an Old Lady (St. Petersburg).
{St. Francis (St. Petersburg).
St. Francis with the Crucifix (St. Petersburg). xi

RUBENS
PLATS
lxxxviii. Christ on the Cross (Paris).
lxxxix. Christ and the Repentant Sinners.
xc. Lamentation over the Dead Saviour.
xci. Christ Descending to the Earth.
/Nymphs Crowning the Goddess of Plenty.
'(The Alliance of Earth and Water (Neptune and Cybele).
xcm. Perseus and Andromeda.
xciv. Venus and Adonis.
xcv. Nymphs and Satyrs.
/The Death of Cleopatra.
'(.Meleager and Atalanta.
xcvii. Achilles with the Daughters of Lycomedes.
xcviii. Diana returning from the Chase (Dresden).
xcix. Diana returning from the Chase (Dresden).
c. The Assumption of the Righteous.
ci. The Little Last Judgment.
cu. The Fall of the Damned.
cm. Madonna with the Holy Innocents.
civ. The Battle of the Amazons.
cv. The Birth of Venus.
/Madonna and Child (Liechtenstein).
CVI'\Head of a Child (Munich).
{Portrait of a Young Man.
Portrait of a Man in Armour.
cvm. Wild-Boar Hunt (Dresden).
crx. Wild-Boar Hunt (Marseilles).
ex. Lion Hunt.
cxi. Lion Hunt (Sketch).
cxii. The Conversion of St. Paul (Berlin).
cxin. Crocodile and Hippopotamus Hunt.
cxiv. Wolf and Fox Hunt.
cxv. Ajax and Cassandra.
cxvi. Lot leaving Sodom.
cxvii. The Garlanded Madonna with Boy Angels.
cxviii. The Trinity with Saints.
cxix. The Flagellation.
cxx. Portrait of a Man (Richmond).
cxxi. Portrait of Jan Vermoelen.
cxxn. Portrait of Corneille de Lantschott.
cxxiii. Portrait of a Man (Copenhagen).
cxxiv. Portrait of Jean Charles de Cordes.
cxxv. Portrait of Jacqueline van Caestre.
/Portrait of a Man (Dresden).
' (.Portrait of a Man (Prof. Knaus).
cxxvn /Boy playing with Bird (probably Rubens's son Nicolas).
'(.Head of a Child (Harrach Collection).
xii

LIST OF PLATES
PLATE
cxxviii. Portrait of the Archduke Albert.
cxxix. Portrait of the Infanta Isabella.
cxxx. Madonna and Child with St. Francis.
cxxxi. St. Augustine between Christ and the Virgin.
cxxxn. Holy Family with a Basket.
cxxxm. Holy Family (Wallace Gallery).
cxxxiv. St. Francis receiving the Stigmata.
cxxxv. Paracelsus.
cxxxvi. Saints Peter and Paul (Brussels).
cxxxvii. Saints Peter and Paul (Munich).
/Study for Head of St. Peter.
'(.The Entombment (Munich).
cxxxix. Jesus at the House of Simon the Pharisee.
cxl. Portrait of Charles de Longueval.
cxli. Nature attired by the Graces.
cxlh. Children with Garlands.
cxliii. The Infant Christ with St. John and Angels.
cxliv. Nymphs and Cupids Plucking Fruit.
cxlv. Adam and Eve in Paradise.
cxlvi. Diana Asleep after the Chase. X
cxlvii. Philemon and Baucis Entertaining Jupiter and Mercury.
cxlviii. Philopoemen.
cxlix. Falconer Returning from Hunting.
The History of Decius Mus —
cl. I. Decius relates his Dream.
cli. II. Decius consults the Haruspices.
clii. III. Decius devotes himself to the Infernal Deities.
cliii. IV. Decius sends back the Lictors.
cliv. V. The Death of Decius.
clv. VI. The Funeral of Decius.
clvi. The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau.
clvii. Judas Maccabaeus Praying for the Dead.
clviii. A Hero Crowned by Victory (Cassel).
clix. A Hero Crowned by Victory (Vienna).
clx. Perseus and Andromeda (St. Petersburg).
clxi. The Reconciliation of the Romans and Sabines.
clxii. Summer.
clxiii. The Capture of Tunis by the Emperor Charles v.
clxiv. ' Le Christ a la Paille.'

CLXV

/Madonna and Child U f ^ Altar_piece < Christ a la Paille').
(.St. John the Evangelist] v & r

clxvi. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes.
{Jonah thrown into the Sea.
Christ Walking on the Water.
clxviii. Studies of a Negro's Head.

xiu

RUBENS

PLATE

clxix. The Adoration of the Kings.
clxx. The Great Last Judgment.
clxxi. The Last Judgment (Dresden).
clxxii. St. Ambrosius and the Emperor Theodosius.
clxxiiI. The Fall of the Rebel Angels.
clxxiv. The Last Communion of St. Francis.
clxxv. The Adoration of the Shepherds (Munich).
clxxvi. The Descent of the Holy Spirit.
clxxvii. Crucifixion (' Le Coup de Lance ').
clxxviii. The Assumption of the Virgin (Brussels).
clxxix. The Assumption of the Virgin (Dusseldorf).
clxxx. The Assumption of the Virgin (Vienna).
clxxxi. Martyrdom of St. Ursula and her Companions.
clxxxii. The Virgin and Saints Interceding for the World.
clxxxiii. The Brazen Serpent.
clxxxiv. The Miracles of St. Francis Xavier (Vienna).
clxxxv. The Miracles of St. Francis Xavier — Sketch (Vienna).
clxxxvi. The Miracles of St. Ignatius Loyola (Vienna).
clxxxvii. The Miracles of St. Ignatius Loyola — Sketch (Vienna).
clxxxviii. The Coronation of the Virgin (Paris).
clxxxix. The Miracles of St. Ignatius Loyola (Genoa).
Sketches for the Jesuit Church —
Abraham and Melchizedek.

¦{ I

Abraham's Sacrifice.
f III. Esther before Ahasuerus.
cxci.-j

/ V.
cxcn.j VL

CXCIV.-J

IV. The Ascension of Elijah.
The Annunciation.
The Adoration of the Shepherds (Vienna).
cxcm | VIL The Elevation of the Cross-
\ VIII. The Ascension.
IX. St. Basil.
X. The Fall of the Rebel Angels.
cxcv -f ^' ^ ^reg°ry °f Nazianzen.
I XII. St. Athanasius.
cxcvii™- ft Barbara.
I XIV. St. Cecilia.
cxcvui^ St-JAer°me-
I XVI. St. Augustine.
cxcviii. Madonna and Child (Worms).
cxcix. Holy Family (Pitti).
cc /Virgin and Child (Brussels).
1 Virgin and Child (Berlin).
ccj /The Trinity (Munich).
'(The Martyrdom of St. Laurence.
ecu. The Trinity (Antwerp).
xiv

LIST OF PLATES
PLATE /The Adoration of the Shepherds (Marseilles).
(The Resurrection of Christ.
cciv. The Penitent Magdalen.
ccv. The Judgment of Solomon.
ccvi. The Holy Women at the Sepulchre.
ccvii. Mucius Scaevola before Porsenna.
ccvm. The Earl and Countess of Arundel.
ccix. Susanna Fourment — 'Le Chapeau de Paille.' (London.)
ccx. Peter Van Hecke.
ccxi. Clara Fourment.
ccxii. Portrait of Dr. Van Thulden.
{Portrait of a Man (Vienna).
Isabella Brant (The Hague).
f The Emperor Augustus.
CCXIV.-{ ' (.Study for Head of St. George.
{Portrait of a Man (Vienna).
St. Francis with a Rosary.
ccxvi. The Garlanded Madonna.
ccxvii. The Three Graces (Vienna).
ccxviii. Pan and Syrinx.
ccxix. The March of Silenus (Munich).
ccxx. The March of Silenus (St. Petersburg).
ccxxi. The March of Silenus (Berlin).
ccxxn. The Car of Apollo.
ccxxm. Boreas and Oreithyia.
ccxxiv. Castor and Pollux seizing the Daughters of Leucippus.
ccxxv. Atalanta and the Calydonian Boar.
ccxxvi. Neptune and Amphitrite.
ccxxvii. The Four Quarters of the Globe (The Four Rivers).
ccxxviii. Tigress Suckling her Young.
ccxxix. The Head of Medusa.
ccxxx. The Shipwreck of Aeneas.
ccxxxi. The Watering Place.
ccxxxii. The Vision of the Monogram of Christ.
ccxxxm. The Baptism of Constantine.
ccxxxiv. Venus at the Forge of Vulcan.
f Old Woman with Brazier.
CCX XXV \
'\Portrait of Nicolas Respaigne in Oriental Dress.
ccxxxvi. The Conversion of S. Bavon.
ccxxxvii. Martyrdom of St. Catherine.
ccxxxvm. Adoration of the Kings (Antwerp).
ccxxxix. Holy Family Adored by Saints.
ccxl. The Raising of Lazarus.
ccxli. Susanna Fourment (Paris).
ccxlii. Portrait of Rubens (Windsor).
XV

RUBENS
PLATE
ccxliii. Isabella Brant (St. Petersburg).
( Isabella Brant (Florence).
CCXLIV -t
'\ Young Woman with Mirror.
/Portrait of Francesco de' Medici, Grand-Duke of Tuscany.
CCXLV" (Portrait of Joanna of Austria, Grand-Duchess of Tuscany.
Marie de Medicis (Madrid).
Marie de Medicis Quitting Paris. Sketch.
History of Marie de Medicis —
I. The Fates Spinning her Destiny.
II. Her Birth.
III. Her Education.
IV. Henry iv. Receiving her Portrait.
V. Her Marriage by Proxy to Henry iv.
VI. Her Landing at Marseilles.
VII. Her Marriage with Henry iv.
VIII. The Birth of Louis xm.
IX. Henry iv. Leaves for the War.
X. Her Coronation.
XL The Apotheosis of Henry iv.
XII. The Scene in Olympus.
XIII. Journey to Pont-de-Ce.
XIV. The Exchange of the Princesses.
XV. The Prosperous Regency.
XVI. The Majority of Louis xm.
XVII. The Flight from Blois.
XVIII. The Reconciliation with her Son.
XIX. The Conclusion of Peace.
XX. The Interview with her Son.
XXI. The Triumph of Truth.
, Lady-in- Waiting to the Archduchess Isabella.
{The Duke of Buckingham.
Anne of Austria (Paris).
Anne of Austria (Madrid).
Ambrogio Spinola (Berlin).
Ambrogio Spinola (Paris).
/Baron Henri de Vicq.
(Portrait of an Elderly Man (Vienna).
Portrait of a Lady — ' Virgo Brabantina.1
Portrait of a Man (Antwerp).
St. Pepin and St. Bega.
The Education of the Virgin.
Landscape — the Watering-Place.
The Dairy Farm at Laeken.
Landscape with Cows and Milkmaid.
I Samson and the Lion.
(Caritas Romana (Amsterdam).
xvi

CCXLVI.
CCXLVII.
CCXLVIII. CCXLIX. CCL.
CCLI.
CCLII.
CCLIII. CCLIV. CCLV.
CCLVI.
CCLVII.
cclvui. CCLIX. CCLX.
CCLXI.
CCLXII.
CCLXIII. CCLXIV. CCLXV.
CCLXVI.
CCLXVII.
CCLXVIII. CCLXIX

CCLXXI,
CCLXXII,
CCLXXIII CCLXXIV. CCLXXV.
CCLXXVI.
CCLXXVII.
CCLXXVIII. CCLXXIX. CCLXXX.
CCLXXXI.
CCLXXXII.

LIST OF PLATES
PLATE ( A Franciscan Monk.
cclxxx --^Coronation 0f ^he Virgin (Brussels).
cclxxxiv. Lot Departing from Sodom.
cclxxxv. The Hermit and the Sleeping Angelica.
cclxxxvi. Apollo Expelling Diana.
cclxxxvii. Cimon and Ifigenia.
cclxxxviii. The Judgment of Paris (Dresden).
ceLxxxix. Three Nymphs with Cornucopia.
ccxc. The Assumption of the Virgin (Antwerp).
ccxci. The Assumption of the Virgin (Augsburg).
ccxcn. The March of Silenus (London).
ccxcm. Caspar Gevartius.
f Portrait of a Lady (Vienna).
CCXCIV -\
' (Portrait of a Lady (Rothschild family, Paris).
ccxcv. Albert and Nicolas Rubens.
ccxcvi. Portrait of a Man (Brunswick).
ccxcvn. Portrait of a Lady — Elizabeth or Helen Fourment (?).
ccxcvin. Holy Family (Madrid).
ccxcix. The Betrayal of Samson.
ccc. Thomyris and Cyrus (Cobham Hall).
ccci. The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek.
cccu. The Four Evangelists.
cccni. The Fathers of the Church.
ccciv. The Triumph of the Eucharist over Heresy.
cccv. The Triumph of the Eucharist over Ignorance.
cccvi. The Triumph of Divine Love.
cccvn. The Triumph of the Eucharist over Paganism.
cccvm. The Virgin Enthroned with St. Catherine and other Saints (Antwerp).
'The Virgin Enthroned with St. Catherine and other Saints — Sketch
(Berlin).
The Virgin Enthroned with St. Catherine and other Saints — Sketch
(Frankfort-on-the-Maine).
cccx. Judith with the Head of Holofernes.
cccxi. The Adoration of the Kings (Paris).
cccxn.-fPhiliP IV' (Munich)'
(The Infante Don Ferdinand in Cardinal's Robes.
/Elizabeth of Bourbon, wife of Philip iv. (Munich).
(Elizabeth of Bourbon, wife of Philip iv. (Vienna).
cccxiv. Philip n. of Spain on horseback.
cccxv. The Earl of Arundel.
cccxvi. Adam and Eve (Copy of Titian's Picture).
cccxvn. Europa (Copy of Titian's Picture).
/Venus, Mars, and Cupid (Dulwich, London).
(Mars, Venus, and Cupid (Berlin).
cccxix. A Daughter of Balthazar Gerbier. xvii

CCCIXX

CCCXVIII.

RUBENS

PLATE

cccxx. War and Peace (London).
cccxxi. War and Peace (Munich).
cccxxn. Landscape with St. George.
cccxxm. The Birth of Venus (London).
cccxxiv. The Apotheosis of Buckingham.
cccxxv. Susanna Fourment and her Daughter Catherine.
cccxxvi. Frederic de Marselaer.
cccxxvu. Matthaus Yrsselius.
/Michel Ophovius.
(The Coronation of the Virgin (Berlin).
cccxxix. The Choice of Hercules.
cccxxx. Holy Family with St. Francis (Windsor Castle).
cccxxxi. Holy Family with St. Francis (New York).
cccxxxn. The Death of Achilles.
cccxxxm. Diana Hunting a Stag.
cccxxxiv. Entry of Henry iv. into Paris after the Battle of Ivry.
cccxxxv. Henry iv. at the Battle of Ivry.
cccxxxvi. Capture of Paris by Henry iv.
cccxxxvn. The Battle of Coutras.
cccxxxviii. Henry iv. seizing Opportunity.
cccxxxix. Holy Family under the Apple Tree.
cccxl. The Miracle of St. Ildefonso (Vienna).
cccxli. The Miracle of St. Ildefonso (St. Petersburg).
cccxlii. Thomyris and Cyrus (Paris).
cccxliii. The Last Supper.
cccxuv. Helen Fourment (Munich).
cccxlv. Helen Fourment in a Fur Cloak.
cccxlvi. Rubens and Helen Walking in the Garden (the Morning Walk).
/Helen Fourment (Hamburg).
(Portrait of Rubens (Duke of Arenberg).
/Helen Fourment (Munich).
(Helen Fourment (Amsterdam).
cccxlix. Rubens and Helen in Garden with Child in Leading Strings.
cccl. Helen Fourment (St. Petersburg).
cccli. Helen Fourment with her Children.
f Helen Fourment (The Hague).
ccclii.-!tt _, ./,,., f
I Helen Fourment (Munich).
cccliii. Helen Fourment (Paris).
/Portrait of a Monk (Duke of Arenberg).
(Portrait of a Man (Brussels).
f Portrait of a Man.
CCCLV -{ ¦
' (Head of an Old Man (St. Petersburg).
ccclvi. Diana and Nymphs surprised by Satyrs*(Cassel).
ccclvii. The Death of Dido.
ccclviii. The Miracle of St. Francis de Paul.
xviii

CCCXLVIII.

LIST OF PLATES
PLATE ccclix. The Sacrifice to Venus.
ccclx. Conversation a la Mode — ' The Garden of Love.' (Paris.)
ccclxi. Conversation a la Mode — ' The Garden of Love.' (Madrid.)
ccclxii. Psyche carried to Heaven.
ccclxiii. Three Girls Gathering Fruit (L'Abondance).
ccclxiv. Nessus and Deianira.
ccclxv. Park of the Castle of Steen.
ccclxvi. The Abduction of the Sabine Women (Mr. A. de Rothschild).
ccclxvii. The Reconciliation of the Romans and Sabines (Mr. A. de Rothschild).
ccclxviii. The Happy Reign and Apotheosis of James i.
ccclxix. The Apotheosis of James i.
ccclxx. The Good Deeds of the Government of James i.
ccclxxi. James i. Designating his Son as King of Scotland.
ccclxxii. The Wise Government of James i. taming Rebellion.
ccclxxiii. Design for ' Arch of Hercules.' The Victories of Ferdinand.
ccclxxiv. Design for Triumphal Arch. The Victories of Ferdinand.
ccclxxv. Design for Triumphal Arch. The Apotheosis of the Archduchess
Isabella.
ccclxxvi. Design for Triumphal Arch. The Triumph of Ferdinand.
ccclxxvii. The Temple of Janus.
ccclxxviii. Triumphal Arch of the Mint (Front).
ccclxxix. Triumphal Arch of the Mint (Back).
ccclxxx. Mercury Quitting Antwerp.
ccclxxxi. Design for Five Statues of Habsburg Princes.
ccclxxxh. Sketch for Statues of Albert n. and Ferdinand i.
ccclxxxiii. Ferdinand Leaving Spain (' Quos Ego ').
ccclxxxiv. The Two Ferdinands at the Battle of Nordlingen.
fThe Archduke Albert of Austria (Brussels).
CCCLXXXV -{ (The Archduchess Isabella of Spain (Brussels).
fThe Emperor Maximilian i. (Vienna).
ccclxxxvi.-^ ? v '
(.Ihe Emperor Charles v. (Vienna).
cccLxxxvn.{Ferdinand' KinS of HunSay-
(The Infante Ferdinand of Spain (Vienna).
f Charles the Bold.
ccclxxxviii.-? .
(The Emperor Maximilian i. (Vienna).
ccclxxxix. Bust of an Aged Bishop.
cccxc. The Infante Ferdinand of Spain (Mr. P. Morgan).
cccxci. The Infante Ferdinand at the Battle of Nordlingen.
/Jan Brant.
(Portrait of a Young Woman (Dresden).
{Portrait of a Man (Vienna).
Portrait of an Old Man (Vienna).
cccxciv. St. Theresa Praying for the Souls in Purgatory.
cccxcv. Portrait of Prince Frederick Henry (?).
cccxcvi. The Holy Family (Cologne). xix

RUBENS
PLATE cccxcvn. Susanna and the Elders (Munich).
cccxcvm. Bathsheba at the Fountain.
cccxcix. The Marriage of Peleus and Thetis.
cccc. The Penitent Magdalen (New York).
/The Penitent Magdalen (Berlin).
' (Orpheus and Eurydice (Potsdam).
ccccn. Meleager and Atalanta.
ccccm. The Abduction of the Sabine Women (London).
cccciv. The Massacre of the Innocents.
ccccv. Count Rudolf of Habsburg and the Priest.
ccccvi. The Loves of the Centaurs.
ccccvn. St. Justus carrying his Head in his Hands.
ccccvm. Christ Bearing the Cross (Amsterdam).
ccccix. Christ Bearing the Cross (Brussels).
ccccx. The Dead Christ in the Lap of the Virgin.
ccccxi. The Beheading of St. Paul.
ccccxn. The Brazen Serpent.
ccccxm. The Martyrdom of St. Andrew.
ccccxiv. The Holy Family with Saints — Repose in Egypt (Madrid).
ccccxv. Nymphs and Satyrs Plucking Fruit.
ccccxvi. The Horrors of War (Florence).
. ccccxvn. The Horrors of War (London).
/Hippodamia and the Centaurs.
(The Fall of the Titans.
ccccxix. The Judgment of Paris (London).
ccccxx. Diana and Callisto.
ccccxxi. Shepherd and Shepherdess. ' Le Croc en Jambe.'
ccccxxn. Perseus and Andromeda (Madrid).
ccccxxm. Andromeda.
ccccxxiv. Girls Bathing.
ccccxxv. Diana Bathing, surprised by Satyrs (Berlin).
ccccxxvi. The Bath of Diana.
ccccxxvn.(!;ortune (Madrid).
(.Fortune (Berlin).
ccccxxviii.(<ranymede- (.Saturn.
ccccxxix. Perseus and Andromeda (Messrs. Colnaghi).
ccccxxx. Flora.
ccccxxxi. Diana and Endymion.
ccccxxxn. The Milky Way.
ccccxxxm. Orpheus and Eurydice (Madrid).
ccccxxxiv.{The Timber Waggon.
(Mercury and Argus (Brussels).
ccccxxxv. Mercury.
ccccxxxvi. Mercury and Argus (Madrid).
XX

' (St. Andrew.

LIST OF PLATES
PLATE
ccccxxxvn. Mercury and Argus (Dresden).
ccccxxxvm. The Judgment of Paris (Madrid).
ccccxxxix. The Rape of Proserpine.
ccccxl. The Banquet of Tereus.
ccccxli. Diana and her Nymphs Pursued by Satyrs.
ccccxlii. Bacchus Seated on a Wine-Cask.
ccccxliii. The Three Graces (Madrid).
f An Old Priest.
•|g {St. Jerome as Cardinal.
Head of an Old Man (Vienna).
ccccxlvi. St. Augustine.
ccccxl vii. The Martyrdom of St. Thomas.
ccccxlviii. The Crucifixion of St. Peter.
""ccccxlix. The Assumption of the Virgin (Vienna). -
ccccl. Portrait of Rubens (Vienna).
ccccli. Design for a Triumphal Car.
cccclii. The Supper at Emmaus.
ccccliii. St. Cecilia.
ccccliv. The Flemish Kermesse.
cccclv. Dance of Italian Peasants (the Rondo).
cccclvi. Landscape with Carrier's Cart on Stony Road (La Charette
Embourbee).
cccclvii. Landscape with Ulysses and Nausicaa.
cccclviii. Harvest Landscape with Rainbow (Munich).
cccclix. Harvest Landscape with Rainbow (London).
cccclx. Landscape with the Chateau de Steen, Autumn.
cccclxi. The Return from the Fields.
cccclxii. Autumn Sunset.
cccclxiii. Landscape by Moonlight.
cccclxiv. Tournament by the Moat of a Castle (Steen).
cccclxv. Landscape with a Tower (Steen).
cccclxvi. Wooded Landscape with the Calydonian Boar.
cccclxvii. Stormy Landscape with Philemon and Baucis.
cccclxviii. The Holy Family.
cccclxix. The Three Graces (Stockholm).
cccclxx. The Martyrdom of St. Lievin.
cccclxxi. Virgin with Saints (Antwerp).
cccclxxii. Landscape — Autumn Morning.
*
Owing to an unavoidable delay the last four plates do not appear in their
proper chronological order.
The Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart, has supplied the greater number of
the blocks. xxi

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldinucci, F. 'Notizie dei Professori del Disegno.' Florence, 1681-1728.
Bellori. ' Vite de' Pittori.' Rome, 1672.
Bode, W. 'Pictures in Prussian Royal Palaces.' Berlin, 1906.
Buckingham, Villiers, Duke of. ' Catalogue of Pictures in Collection.' London, 1758.
' Codex Diplomaticus Rubenianus.' See Rooses, Max.
Cruzada-Villaamil, G. 'Rubens Diplomatico Espariol, etc' Madrid, 1874.
Fromentin, Eugene. ' Les Maitres d' Autrefois.' Paris, 1 876.
Gachard, L. P. 'Histoire Politique et Diplomatique de P. P. Rubens.' Brussels, 1877.
Gachet, E. 'Lettres inedites de P. P. Rubens.' Brussels, 1840.
Gevartius, J. C. 'Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi, etc' Antwerp, 1641.
Hymans, H. 'Histoire de la Gravure dans l'Ecole de Rubens.' Brussels, 1879.
Knackfuss, H. ' Kiinstler Monographien — II. Rubens.' 1896. English translation,
1904.
Michel, J. F. M. ' Histoire de la Vie de P. P. Rubens.' Brussels, 1771.
Michel, E. ' Rubens, sa Vie, son CEuyre et son Temps.' Paris, 1 900. English translation,
1899-
Michiels, J. A. X. 'Rubens et l'Ecole d'Anvers,' 1854.
Mol, J. B. van. ' P. P. Rubens.'
Piles, R. de. ' Abrege de la Vie des Peintres.' Paris, 1699-
Piles, R. de. 'Dissertation sur les Ouvrages des plus fameux Peintres.' Paris, 1681.
Reynolds, Sir Joshua. ' Discourses ' and ' Voyage to Flanders.'
Rooses, Max. 'Geschichte der Malerschule Antwerpens.' Munich, 1880-81. Translated
from the Dutch by Dr. F. Reber.
Rooses, Max. 'L'CEuvre de P. P. Rubens.' 5 Vols. Antwerp, 1886-92.
Rooses, Max. 'Rubens, sa Vie et ses CEuvres.' Antwerp, 1903. English translation
by H. Child. London, 1904.
Rooses, Max, and Ruelens. 'Codex Diplomaticus Rubenianus.' Antwerp, 1887- . . .
Five volumes published (to 1631). xxiii

RUBENS
Rosenberg, C. A. ' Rubensbriefe.' Leipsic, 1881.
Rosenberg, C. A. P. P. Rubens. Des Meisters Gemalde. Stuttgart, 1905.
Rubens, P. P. ' Palazzi di Genova.' 2 Vols. 1622.
Rubens-Bulletun. 'Annales de la Commission pour la publication des Documents relatifs
a P. P. Rubens.' Antwerp, 1883- . . .
Sainsbury, W. R. 'Original unpublished papers concerning P. P. Rubens in the State
Paper Office.' London, 1859-
Sandrart, J. ' Der Teutschen Academie.' Niirnberg, 1675.
Smith, John. 'Catalogue Raisonne.' Part ix. 1842.
Stevenson, R. A. M. 'P.P.Rubens.' ' Portfolio ' Monographs. 1898.
Thulden, van. ' Pompa Introitus.' See Gevartius.
Turner, Dawson. ' Catalogue of Works of Art in the possession of Sir P. P. Rubens at
the time of his decease.' Privately printed. Second Edition. Yarmouth, 1839.
Waagen, G. F. 'Rubens-Album mit Text.' Berlin, 1864.
Waagen, G. F. 'P. P. Rubens, his Life and Genius.' Translated by R. Noel. London,
1840.
Waagen, G. F. 'Art Treasures of Great Britain.' 4 Vols. London, 1854-57.
Walpole, Horace. • Anecdotes of Painting.' London, 1762.
Woermann, Carl. ' Geschichte der Malerei.' Vol. iii. Leipsic, 1888.

xxiv

RUBENS
INTRODUCTORY
HORACE WALPOLE, in his Anecdotes of Painting, com
plains that one cannot write a life of Rubens without
transcribing twenty authors. If this was the case in the
eighteenth century, how vastly more overwhelming is the material
at the present day ! Just as Rubens was himself the most prolific
of all painters, so around him there has gathered a mass of
material greater probably than in the case of any other artist. For
three generations and more the archivists of his native land have
been accumulating document upon document, each of which contains
some reference — very slight indeed and trivial at times — to the
great artist, or at least to his family and surroundings. In this
search the archives, not only of his native country, but of Spain,
England, France, and of many Italian towns have been ransacked.
Nor is the material even yet all before the public. It is now many
years since the late M. Ruelens, with the assistance of a grant from the
Belgian Government, began in the Codex Diplomaticus Rubenianus the
systematic reproduction of every surviving letter written by or to
Rubens, or in which his name is mentioned. But Ruelens at his death
had only advanced to the year 1 608. The task was then taken up by
M. Max Rooses, and with the fifth, the last of the great volumes so
far published, we are taken down to the year 1631.
I intend in the first part of this work to confine myself to a rapid
narrative of Rubens's life. I shall here only be concerned incidentally
with his artistic production. This course will be all the easier, seeing
that amid the vast documentary material which, as I have said, is now
at hand, a comparatively small amount is concerned with Rubens's
pictures. The ground once cleared, and the reader in some degree
familiar with the life-history and surroundings of the great artist, it
will be easier to follow, in more or less chronological order, the pro
digious outturn of nearly fifty years of almost uninterrupted work.

RUBENS
Now, in the case of Rubens, as in that of other successful painters,
the choice of subject — including both what was demanded of the
artist, and what of his own free will he himself selected — was in the
main determined by the milieu, political, religious, jiritl socialjjir^hich
he passed his life. To understand, then, the direction given to Rubens's
brushTbne cannot know too much of the political and religious history
of the day, not only in the Low Countries, but in Spain, in France, and
in a less degree in England and in Italy. But far otherwise is it when
the purely artistic side of a great painter's career has to be considered.
The first duty of the critical biographer is now on the one hand, to ,
eliminate all that is merely the outcome of local or temporary circum
stances — what is, in fact, from this point of view, incidental— and on
the other hand, to dwell upon those individual and exceptional gifts
that distinguish the artist in question, as a great handler of the brush,
from all his contemporaries. In the case of Rubens, when addressing
an English audience, this course is all the more necessary, seeing that
with us in England there has always been a tendency to ignore the
fundamental artistic capacity and the creative gifts of a painter, and to
dwell rather upon the incidents treated by him, — above all, upon the
moral and religious bearings of his work. How many are repelled
from Rubens's pictures by a want of interest in the subject, by an
intuitive antipathy to the rhetorical spirit that so often informs them,
forgetting that all this is but a reflection of the world in which Rubens
lived his busy life ; such considerations may indeed throw much light
upon the character of the man, but they are only indirectly connected
with his art. It is with the painter whose brush we can follow in the
expression of life and movement, the creator of a world of colour
and light subtly rendered with an air of easy mastery, that we are
above all concerned; what he selected to paint is of secondary
consequence. This it is indeed— so at least it seems to me— that makes the study
of Rubens's life-work of more than usual importance to us. There
should be in his case the less danger of our confusing the purely
artistic with the literary or emotional elements of the artist's works,
for the very reason that the latter elements make so little appeal to
our sympathies. There is then the less excuse for us if we are led
astray in our judgment by either the pathetic or the literary fallacy.
It is on this ground that I have determined in these preliminary
chapters to keep my account of Rubens's life as far as possible clear
of all criticism of his pictures. This course has no doubt its dis-
2

INTRODUCTORY
advantages ; it involves a certain amount of repetition. At the same
time, not only does the narrative proceed more briskly, but there is less
danger of confusing what, to my mind, are two quite different things
— on the one hand the material facts of an artistic life, and on the
other the artistic spirit, genius, inspiration— call it what you will —
the presence of which is ultimately the ground of his life's history being
of interest to us.

PART I

CHAPTER I
Jan Rubens at Antwerp and Cologne — The Intrigue with Anna of Saxony —
Antwerp under Spanish Rule — The Masters of Rubens.
THERE is every reason to believe that Peter Paul Rubens
was born on the 28th of June 1577. His Christian names
he doubtless owed to the fact that his birthday fell on the
eve of the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. Equally certain is it that
he came into the world at the little town of Siegen in Nassau.
That Rubens should have been born far away from the city with
which his name is so closely bound up — what other instance can we
find of great painter and famous town so intimately associated ? — has
for years been a sad thorn in the flesh of all patriotic citizens of
Antwerp. Many have been the expedients suggested, and ingenious
the chronological combinations expounded, that would allow of the
possibility of his mother having paid a flying visit to her old home at
the time of the birth of her son. I am not sure that even now the
hope may not be treasured up of some new discovery that may turn
the tables again, and allow the citizens of Antwerp to claim the great
artist as a citizen of their town in the strictest acceptation of the
term. For both the father and the mother of Rubens were born and bred
in the old imperial city on the Scheldt. His father, Jan Rubens, was
a learned man of the law, who had taken his degree utriusque juris in
Rome as far back as 1554. He had become a member of the city
council, and in the early sixties of the sixteenth century was doubtless
regarded as a rising man, with every prospect of a distinguished career.
But the ensuing years of Jan Rubens's life were destined to bring with
them exile and disgrace — long periods of imprisonment, with the fear,
of sudden death more than once renewed.
Jan Rubens, in spite of his ability as a lawyer, was indeed a man of
weak character, totally unfit to take a firm stand in the stern times
that had now set in. When in 1566 the ' Gueux ' gained the upper
4

HIS FATHER AND MOTHER
hand in Antwerp, and when the extreme iconoclastic party proceeded
to strip bare the churches of the city of their accumulated wealth of
pictures, statues, and silver plate, the town council, who in the main
were in sympathy with the reformers, offered but a nominal resistance.
The next year the reaction came with Alva, and a reign of terror set
in. Quietly and steadily the net was drawn round those who had in
any way shown their sympathy with the late excesses. There is a
tradition that one poor painter, when summoned to take the portrait
of the Duke, was so impressed by what he heard and saw while tracing
the features of the stern Spaniard that he went home, took to his bed,
and died straightway — this at least is the story told of Willem Key, a
man with leanings towards the new religion. It was the policy of
Alva to hold the town council responsible for the excesses of the
previous year. In September 1568 the burgomaster of Antwerp was
decapitated. A few weeks later Jan Rubens with his wife and young
children fled from their house.
The family found a new home in Cologne. But here too they
were in a strongly Catholic centre, and the town council, who were
indeed not a little embarrassed by the many refugees from the Spanish
terror, on the plea that Dr. Rubens ' did not go to church,' requested
him to leave the city. The learned ex-councillor, however, thanks, no
doubt, to his abilities as a lawyer, had by this time found an influential
protector, no other than Anna, wife of William of Orange, and daughter
of that Maurice of Saxony who had played so important a part in the
days of Charles v. Jan Rubens, then, was allowed to remain ; his
lapses from orthodoxy were overlooked. He devoted himself to prose
cuting the claims of the Princess of Orange to part of her husband's
property in the Netherlands that had been confiscated by Alva. Anna,
who was already practically separated from her husband, was in person
ill-favoured, and she was, it is said, given to drink. But before long a
guilty intimacy sprung up between this abandoned woman and the
weak, vain lawyer. The scandal came to the ears of Anna's brother-
in-law John, the reigning Count of Nassau. Jan Rubens was seized,
carried to Dillenburg, the old Stammschloss of the Nassau family, and
here, probably under torture, an abject confession was extracted from
the wretched man. It was some time before his wife, Maria Pypelincx,
(in whose charge the two children of the Princess had been placed, and
still remained), learnt the desperate position of her husband. Putting
aside all resentment at his conduct, she set to work by prayers, by
offers of money, and even by veiled threats of exposure, to obtain the
5

RUBENS
release of Jan Rubens, or, failing that, the repeal of the death sentence
that hung over him.
It was the discovery, some years since, of the papers concerning
this case among the archives of the house of Orange that for the first
time threw light upon this previously obscure history, and fixed once
for all the birthplace of Peter Paul Rubens. Among these papers were
found the letters of Maria Pypelincx to her husband, and here^we may
discover the one bright point in this wretched and sordid story. We
see in her not only a loving and forgiving wife, but a woman of ability,
eminently practical by nature, one who, while leaving not a stone
unturned in pleading for the pardon of her husband, was able amid all
these troubles to keep together a home for her children.
Meantime the secret was well kept on both sides, and Maria \
maintained in public a tranquil air. ' It is a constant strain,' she
confessed, ' to appear gay with death in my heart, but I do what is
possible.' For two years every appeal made by the wife fell upon deaf
ears, and Dr. Rubens was kept in strict confinement at Dillenburg. !
Then at length, in May 1573, the prison doors were opened, and he
was permitted to take up his abode at Siegen with his wife ; but even
now he was little better than a prisoner in his house. Here, in this
little German hill-town, were born to him two sons— first, in 1574, the
learned but short-lived Philip ; and then, in 1577, on the eve of the
feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, the great artist whose life we have to
trace. William of Orange had before this married again, not waiting for
the death of Anna. The wretched woman was now treated as insane,
and confined in an asylum, where she ended her life early in 1578.
After her death permission was given to the Rubens family to return
to Cologne. A tight hand was, however, kept on the caution money,
and in September Dr. Rubens received a summons to return to Siegen.
No reason can be assigned for this renewal of severity — perhaps it was
merely a device to extract further payment from the unhappy family.
There has been preserved an eloquent letter from Maria Pypelincx
— it is significant that she and not her husband still appears as the
protagonist in this correspondence — in which she joins protests to
entreaties in her appeal to the Nassau brothers. Finally, in 1583, but
only on abandoning to them part of the money that they had held
by way of bail, a formal release was granted to Jan Rubens. Four
years later he died. On his tomb — the inscription was doubtless
dictated by his widow — he is described as having inhabited Cologne
6

RETURN TO ANTWERP
for nineteen years : a pardonable mystification, upon which, however,
the claim for that city as the birthplace of the great painter has mainly
rested. It was for the church of St. Peter, where his father was buried,
that Rubens, half a century later, painted the picture of the ' Cruci
fixion of St. Peter' that still hangs there over the high altar.
I have passed rapidly over this long, sad story of the life of Rubens's
parents. For us the essential question is how far these events may
have influenced the artist's opinions and character ; they can have had
no direct influence on his work. It is generally said that Rubens con
tinued till his death in ignorance of the scandal concerning his father,
but this, I think, is hardly possible. Every effort was doubtless made
at the time — and this on both sides — to bury the whole history in
oblivion, and to destroy all evidence that bore upon it. But the letters
were, as we have seen, preserved, and various versions of the scandal
seem to have been bruited about in Holland. Thus Constantin
Huygens, a great name in the literary world of the time, mentions
incidentally in a letter that the painter Rubens was the son of Anna of
Saxony. Some of these reports can hardly have failed to reach the
painter's ear. The very absence of all allusion by him to his early
life 1 rather points to some desire on his part to pass a sponge over this
German episode. What were the feelings of Maria Pypelincx with
regard to the Nassau brothers may well be imagined. Both Philip and
Peter Paul were baptized as Lutherans ; but once freed from the hate
ful bondage, their mother lost no time in reconciling herself to the old
religion. The stain of the unorthodox christening of her two sons —
associated as it was with hateful memories of the past — had to be wiped
out, together with all that had any bearing upon their birth beyond the
Rhine. Rubens then, after his sixth year, was carefully educated as
a Catholic, and henceforward all the influence of his home must have
tended to estrange him from the faith in which he had been baptized.
There was now no reason for Maria Pypelincx remaining longer at
Cologne. Reconciled not only nominally but now in all truth to the
Catholic Church, she obtained at once from the authorities a document
certifying to the entire propriety of her conduct during the years that,
with her husband, she had been domiciled in the city. Whether the
actual migration took place before the beginning of the year 1589 is,
however, a point upon which there is conflicting evidence.
It was a time of storm and stress that the rich city of Antwerp had
1 A passing mention in a letter of the fact that he spent the first ten years of his life in Cologne
is the only exception to this of which 1 know. 7

RUBENS
passed through during the twenty years that had elapsed since the
flight of Rubens's father. To the reign of terror of Alva had succeeded
a period during which the party of the reformers maintained on the
whole the upper hand, and this predominance was strengthened by
the reaction that set in after the excesses committed by the foreign
garrison of occupation during what is known as the Spanish Fury of
1576. Catholics and Protestants were now united against the hated
foreigner, and the influence of the Prince of Orange was for a time
supreme. In 1583 came that strange and futile attempt made by the
Due d'Alencon, the brother of the French king, to suppress the
municipal government of the city, of which he was nominally the head,
and there was again fighting in the streets. But meantime Alexander
Farnese had been gradually drawing closer the net round Antwerp.
After a skilful defence the city, in November 1585, surrendered to the
great captain. With the surrender the period of strife and bloodshed,
as far as Antwerp itself was concerned, came to an end. It is indeed
remarkable that, although from this time for a further period of
seventy-five years, there was, apart from the twelve years' truce,
fighting in the Spanish Netherlands, first with the Dutch and then
with the French, the tide of war barely reached the walls of the city.
In the earlier period it had been far otherwise, and the Antwerp
painters of the generation that preceded Rubens had had to bear the
brunt of storms and sieges. Some of them, Martin de Vos for instance,
had played an important part in the strife of parties. In the galleries!
at Antwerp and at Brussels the changing fortunes of this earlier time
may be followed in many a crowded canvas.
What is most striking during the ensuing years — the years that
followed the capture of the city by Farnese — is the general absence of
strong political feeling in Antwerp. It was a period of languor and of
moderate Catholic reaction. There was a gradual elimination of the
Protestants — the more pronounced ones at least — they passed over to
the United Provinces. But even amid the extreme Catholic party the
spirit was a different one from that which prevailed at the time of Alva.
Little is now heard of religious persecution. The town as a whole,
however, was strongly Catholic, and one after the other the religious
orders — Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, and Carmelites — established
themselves in new and spacious convents, and re-occupied the churches
that had been stripped bare at the time of the iconoclastic fury. This,
as we shall see, was a movement that had an important bearing on the
arts of the time — on the art of Rubens above all.
8

RULE OF THE ARCHDUKES
But if the Protestant party was finally broken up in Antwerp,
there was for all that no love of the Spaniard. The garrison in the
citadel was now intrenched as a little world apart. After the Spanish
Fury the walls and the ramparts that divided the town from the
citadel had been thrown down amid popular rejoicing — the work of
demolition provided a favourite theme for the painters of the day.
But after the siege and capture by Farnese, the citadel was again
strongly fortified on the side of the city, from which it was divided
by a wide, open space. In the course of Rubens's lifetime there were
constant alarms of outbreaks — of renewals in fact of the Spanish Fury
— on the part of the generally ill-paid Spanish soldiery.
During the first half of the seventeenth century, the burning
questions ever present in the minds of the citizens of Antwerp were
the prospects of peace, and with the peace the removal of the tight
hand with which the Dutch held the mouth of the Scheldt, whereby
the commerce of Antwerp was throttled. We shall see that Rubens
himself was deeply interested in these questions, and that it was the
problem of ensuring peace that led him, during the last twenty years
of his life, to engage himself in those diplomatic toils that brought
him more than one rebuff and so many bitter disappointments. The
point to remember is, that while there was no Dutch party in the
Belgic provinces at this time, there was little enthusiasm for the
Spanish rule. As for those who sought at Brussels the favour of the
Archdukes — of Albert and of Isabella — they were regarded by the
members of the old aristocracy with some contempt. Rubens in this
way exposed himself to the charge of subserviency to the Spaniards.
It is important to understand the position of these Archdukes,
as they were called, who ruled in the Spanish Netherlands during the
greater part of Rubens's lifetime. Philip n., shortly before his death,
determined upon a change of policy in regard to what remained to
him of his possessions in the Low Countries. He handed over the
government to his favourite daughter, Isabella Clara Eugenia, as
a nominally independent state, an independence, however, that the
presence of the Spanish garrison rendered in a measure illusory.
Isabella, before her departure from Spain, was married to her cousin
Albert, ex-Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo, by birth a Habsburg, and
brother in fact to Rudolph the Emperor. Of both, it may be said that
they compare favourably with their kin, the Habsburgs who ruled in
Spain and Germany. They identified themselves, as far as they were
able, with the wants of the people they governed ; they were liberal
9

RUBENS
patrons of the arts, and in them Rubens, up to the times of their deaths,
found ever kind and appreciative supporters. Albert died in 1621 and
after that time Isabella became more than ever devote. Like Rubens,
her heart was set on the peace that neither of them lived to see, and
this common aim was an additional bond of union between the two.
The life of Rubens during these early years at Antwerp— from say
1588 to his departure for Italy in 1600— must be pieced together as
best we can from various sources, from the early biographies and from
casual notices— all of them scanty and often contradictory ; not a single
letter of his survives from this time. The family, one account says,
were in good circumstances, and his mother took a house m the Place
de Meir, and this was Rubens's home up to his twenty-third year.1
That he went to a school kept by one Rumoldus Verdonck, a learned
Latinist (not a priest and a Jesuit as is sometimes said), we know from
a chance reference in a letter written in afterdays by Balthazar Moretus
to Philip Rubens, the elder brother. It was there, says the Vita}
< that he completed the course of his studies.' The boy had doubt
less already had a grounding in Latin grammar— everything was then
taught through the medium of Latin— from his father while still at
Cologne. He was both quick at learning languages and industrious,
and made the most of this short interval of regular tuition. Much, too,
he doubtless learned from the elder brother, the studious Philip ; at this
time they were both, it would seem, studying in view of a legal career
—so at least Sandrart tells us. When in 1606 Maria Pypelincx made
her will, she mentions in it that in 1590, on the occasion of the marriage
of her daughter Blandina, her sons were both providing for themselves
away from the house. We are told in the Vita that the younger had
by this time ' been placed by his mother in the family of the Lady
Marguerite de Ligne, widow of Philip, Count of Lalaing, where as a
page he served for a space of time among the honorary attendants—
1 Maria Pypelincx must have been originally possessed of considerable means of her own ; as
far back as the Siegen days her husband acknowledged a debt in her favour of 8000 dollars ; there
is evidence that at Antwerp, after her return, she parted with several parcels of land to provide for
her family.
2 This is the brief Latin life of Rubens that was drawn up in 1676 by his nephew Philip,
at the request of the French painter Roger de Piles. The sketch, the author tells us, was based
on the memoirs of Albert, the eldest son of the painter. Along with some further material from
the same source, it was incorporated by De Piles in certain little essays on art that he wrote
a propos of the gallery of the Due de Richelieu, especially of the pictures by Rubens in that
gallery. The Vita itself was found some years ago in three manuscript copies among a mass of
papers relating to Rubens that had been accumulated by Jean Francois Mols (d. 1791), the earliest
of the long line of Flemish writers who have devoted themselves to the study of Rubens. It was
not published till 1837.
10

VERHAEGHT AND VAN NOORT
inter honorarios pueros, paigios vocamus, meruit.' Here, no doubt,
Rubens learned to converse in French — a language, however, that he
confesses that he never wrote with complete ease. But before long,
continues his nephew, ' weary of court life, and compelled by his native
genius to the study of painting, he begged earnestly of his mother — the
resources of the family had by this time been reduced by the war — that
he might enter as an apprentice the studio of the Antwerp painter,
Adam van Noort.'
Philip in the Vita evidently thinks it necessary to offer something
in the way of an apology for this procedure. Such a tone is indeed
characteristic of the biography throughout. It is not so much the
great painter as the scholar and the diplomatist that is dwelt upon.
This is a point of view that has been adopted in other cases by the
descendants of great artists, who have themselves, they hold, attained
to a social level incompatible with the handling of a brush.
We are now arrived at the year 1591. Three brief years had inter
vened since the arrival of the family at Antwerp. It was during the
nine years that followed that Rubens learnt his craft. He began,
indeed, comparatively late, for he was already fourteen. There was,
perhaps, at first some hesitation, some aim at a higher social position
on the part of his mother. There is some vague evidence that an elder
brother, Jean Baptiste, born as far back as 1562, had taken to painting
and wandered off to Italy. Perhaps he had not done well ; in any
case we hear no more of him, and he probably died early.
I cannot here discuss at length the artistic relations or the merits
of the three artists under whom in succession Rubens studied. The
first selection was not perhaps a judicious one. Tobias Verhaeght was
chosen probably by Rubens's mother. His wife was her cousin. Ver
haeght was in 1591 quite a young man ; he afterwards made some name
as a landscape painter. He is not mentioned in the Vita, and Rubens
cannot have remained long in his studio. Doubtless the fame of the
atelier of Adam van Noort and the success of the pupils turned out by
him made the young student, as he began to see his way in the world
of art, eager to find a place in his studio. ' Under that master, during
a term of four years, he laid the first foundation of his art.' Van
Noort, by the old biographers of Rubens, but not by his actual con
temporaries — van Mander and De Bie, for instance — has been depicted
as the typical harsh, rough-mannered master, given to drink, and in
every way difficult to get on with. The few pictures by him that are
known to us belong to a later time ; he indeed survived his great pupil,
11

RUBENS
dying in 1641, at the age of eighty-four. He represented, it would
seem, the home-bred Flemish tradition in art, as opposed to the
Italianisers, but even of this we cannot speak with certainty, so little
do we know of his work. At any rate, from his studio came many
distinguished painters — Van Balen, Sebastian Vranckx, and above all,
Jacob Jordaens, who married his daughter.
For whatever cause, at the end of four years — this would probably
be in 1596 — Rubens migrated to the studio of Vaenius (Otto van Veen,
1558-1629), ' the first Belgian painter of that time,' says Philip in the
Vita. Now this Otto van Veen was a man of gentle blood — his father
had come as a Catholic refugee from Leiden. Vaenius, though now
nearly forty years old, had only lately settled in Antwerp. In Italy
he had been the pupil of Federigo Zuccaro, and had absorbed only too
much of that artist's style. Essentially an Italianiser or Romanist (to
use the term of the day), Vaenius's pictures are founded on the prin
ciple of selecting from the various schools of Italy what was then
regarded as the most meritorious quality of each. The result in his
case, in spite of some charm of colour, is deplorable ; the point is
of interest, as we must remember that the same course was for many
subsequent years followed by Rubens. There are several of Vaenius's
pictures in private collections in England, but he may be best studied
in a series of huge, insipid compositions in the Antwerp gallery. More
interesting than any of these is the ill-arranged earlier work in the
Louvre, with portraits of his parents and other relations. Vaenius was
a poet, a Latinist, and the author of a treatise on painting that has been
lost. As early as 1594 he had been charged with the decoration ofthe
town, on the occasion of the entry of the Archduke Ernest, and again
in 1599 a similar task was allotted to him when, after the death of that
worthless, drunken prince, his brother Albert, of whom I have already
spoken, began his more successful rule. On this last occasion we can
well believe that Rubens had a share in the work. Thirty-six years
later, on the ' Happy Entry ' of the Cardinal Infant Ferdinand, Rubens
superintended, and in part designed, a still more magnificent pageant.
In the year 1598 Adam van Noort was one ofthe two deans ofthe
artists' guild (the confraternity of St. Luke), and twelfth on the list of
those that were registered that year as masters of the guild we find
the name of Peter Rubens ; this is the earliest record we have of him
as a painter.
We are, however, singularly in the dark as to the years that pre
ceded the Italian journey. An airy phrase in the Vita tells us ' how,
12

OTTO VAN VEEN
seeing that already it was reputed the master might have to yield to
the pupil the palm of superiority, a strong impulse seized the latter to
visit Italy that he might there behold the most famous works of the
great artists of ancient arid modern times, and direct his pencil by their
guidance.' It is pleasant to know that there is no evidence of any
jealousy of Rubens on the part of his master unless indeed something
of the sort be hinted at in the above vague statement. Vaenius was
a courtly gentleman ; he already held the position of engineer-in-chief
as well as that of court painter to the Archdukes ; in later life he
accepted the post of master to the Brussels mint. He was doubtless
in a position to give his pupil invaluable advice as to his intended
journey and probably the best of introductions. Rubens, it would seem,
was already known to the new rulers ; at any rate, a few years later,
while the young painter was still in Italy, we find the Archduke Albert
interesting himself in his progress. But beyond this there is no word
of evidence as to Rubens's position at the time, nor any contemporary
notice of the pictures painted by him.

13

CHAPTER II
The Italian Wanderjahre— Vincenzo, Duke of Mantua— Journey to the Spanish
Court— Studies in Rome— Return to Antwerp.
PROVIDED with the indispensable passports from the Antwerp
town council testifying that the city was free from plague
and other diseases, Rubens set out on his Italian journey on
the 11th of May 1600. Along with him travelled Deodato del Monte,
a lad of eighteen, already described as his pupil, and of whom we are
told that he was his master's constant companion in Italy and other
parts of the world ; we hear, however, nothing more of Deodato during
Rubens's residence in Italy. Of the journey we have absolutely no
record. Probablythe pair took the well-trodden route that led by the
Rhine to Mainz, then through Southern Germany to Augsburg and
Innsbruck, and finally over the Brenner to Verona. I now turn again
to the Vita— 'Rubens, when he arrived at Venice, chanced to lodge in
the same house with a noble Mantuan, one of the household of Vincenzo
Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Montferrat. To him he showed certain
pictures that he had painted. The Duke who was much interested in
pictures and in works of art of every kind, took him straightway into
his service, and attached him to his family ; in this service Rubens
remained for seven years.' This is a statement which, for want of any
definite evidence to the contrary, we must accept. At the same time
it must not be forgotten that the year before the departure of Rubens
from Antwerp, the Duke Vincenzo had passed some days in that city
(August 21 to 26, 1599), that he was a near relation of the Archdukes-*
they were indeed his cousins — and that Rubens had posted straightway
to Venice,, where he may have heard that Vincenzo was making a brief
stay. The Duke, we know, arrived there on the 15th of July, and had
left before the end of the month. Rubens then before the latter date
must have already reached Venice.
The Duke Vincenzo, who was a Habsburg through his mother,
after divorcing his first wife had married, in 1584, Eleonora, daughter
of Francesco, Grand-Duke of Tuscany. Like his father-in-law, like
too, his cousin, the Emperor Rudolph, Vincenzo was reckoned as a
14

IN ITALY
patron of the arts and sciences. That is to say, on the one hand, he
dabbled in alchemy and astrology; on the other, he carried on the family
tradition as a collector of pictures. His special taste, it is stated, lay
in the way of portraits of the most beautiful women of Italy, Spain,
and France, and again of miraculous pictures of the Virgin. We
remember Goethe's saying concerning wunderthatige Bilder, and may
doubt whether the additions that the Duke made to the ancestral
gallery were all of a very high artistic standard. At the same time
Vincenzo was a genuine lover of music, and, what has brought him
some meed of forgiveness for his many weaknesses, he had come
forward at an early age as a protector of the unhappy Tasso. His
most pronounced passion, however, was for the dice-box. He was, in
late life, above all, a reckless and determined gambler — as a consequence,
always out of pocket. From time to time he was seized with a desire
for martial glory, and in 1601 went to fight against the Turks.
At Mantua Rubens found himself in a little art world. The
famous pictures in the ducal gallery — rich above all in works of Titian
— were destined not long after this to pass over to England ; in 1629
the bulk of the collection was sold to Charles i. for £30,000. A few
years later these pictures were dispersed to the four winds.
It is to be noted that apart from two unimportant pictures
now at Dresden, there is no record of any work by Rubens among
these paintings. Indeed, although, as we are told in the Vita, he
passed the time of his residence in Italy nominally in the service
of the Mantuan Duke, it is remarkable how little actual work Rubens
completed for his master. He would appear to have steadily kept
in mind the principle that during these Wanderjahre his first duty was
the study of the works of the great Italian masters of the previous
century. How vast was the number and how varied the sources of
the copies and studies of these masters made at this time, we may
judge from the catalogue of the pictures in his house at the time of his
death, and from such a collection of drawings as that now in the
Louvre. Rubens, it is true, painted many important works for various
patrons while in Italy. This we shall see when we come to consider
his artistic outturn ; but we only have definite evidence of one com
mission from Vincenzo, the large picture, namely, of the ' Trinity,' and
the two companion canvases, painted for the Jesuit Church at Mantua.
He was in receipt from the Duke of a salary which, we know, was very
irregularly paid. Any additional payment for work executed had
probably to be indefinitely waited for. 15

RUBENS
Two names, as we now think of very unequal value in the world
of art, are especially connected with the town of Mantua. In the
latter half of the fifteenth century Mantegna had spent nearly fifty
years of his long life in the service of the Gonzaga family (1459-1506).
On the walls and ceilings of the huge palace of the Marquesses, his
frescoes were then doubtless as fresh as when painted. What use
Rubens (at a later time possibly) made of his sketches from the famous
' Triumph ' we can see in the little picture now in the National Gallery
(cf. pp. 94-95). A generation later, from 1525 to his death in 1546,
Giulio Romano had ruled supreme at Mantua as engineer, architect,
and painter. His spirit was everywhere in evidence in the city ; at its
best perhaps in the gigantic and somewhat exuberant frescoes in the
Palazzo del Te. It was a spirit that was only too congenial to the
Flemish artist.
Both Mantegna and Giulio had been enthusiastic collectors of
antique marbles. Through them — Mantegna 's collection had been
sold by his son to the Gonzagas — and from other sources, a varied
collection of Roman busts and reliefs, few probably of any great merit
from our more critical point of view, had been brought together in the
Ducal palace. No doubt the collection excited the admiration of
Rubens, and added new zest to the eager desire to push on to Rome.
Following in the steps of his learned brother Philip, he had already
fallen under the spell of that phase of classical culture of which the
chief exponent at that time was Lipsius, and whose greatest hero was
the stoic Seneca.
I must now attempt to piece together, and to arrange in proper
chronological order the principal events of Rubens's life during the eight
years that he spent in the South. The materials are more abundant
than in the previous period, but they are derived from the most various
sources. We have strong light thrown here and there, but there are
still many obscure and uncertain passages.
Let us, then, take as our text the paragraph in the Vita that follows
that last quoted :— ' Meantime Rubens made an excursion to Rome,
where, in the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, he painted two
pictures at the command of His Serene Highness Prince Albert of
Austria, who had in past days been Cardinal of the Holy Roman
Church under that title.' But before this Rubens (as we know from
an allusion in the later correspondence with Peiresc) had visited
Florence, in the suite, no doubt, of his master the Duke Vincenzo.
This was in October 1600, and the occasion was the marriage (by

IN ITALY
procuration) of Henry iv. of France with Maria de' Medici, daughter
of the Grand-duke Francesco, and sister to Eleonora, Duchess of
Mantua. Frans Pourbus, the younger, was also of the suite of the
Gonzaga — he was indeed in Vincenzo's service during the same years
as Rubens — but there is little evidence to show that there was any
intimacy between the two Flemish painters.1 It fell to Rubens, nearly
a quarter of a century later, to make this marriage the subject of a
huge canvas. Among the pictures of the famous series that records
the troubled life of the French Queen, this is indeed the only example
where the incident represented had been witnessed by the painter.
It was not until July 1601 that Rubens was able to make that
visit to Rome to which he had so long looked forward. The restless
Vincenzo was about to start on an expedition against the Turks.
Before leaving he provided Rubens with a letter to the Cardinal
Montalto : — ' The bearer of the present is Pietro Paulo, the Fleming,
my painter, whom I dispatch to your parts that he may copy and carry
out certain pictures, as Your Excellency will learn in greater detail
from the painter himself. . . . This very evening I am about to set
out for the city of Gorz, on my way to the wars in Croatia.' (Dated
Mantua, July 8, 1601.) To this letter the Cardinal straightway replied
that he was prepared to help the ' Fiammingo ' in whatever matters he
was in need of in the service of the Duke. Note in these letters the
expressions 'mio pittore,' 'per servitio di V. Altza' — they are important
evidence of the position of Rubens. A little later Lelio Arigoni, the
Duke's agent in Rome, writes that he has paid to ' the Flemish painter
in the Duke's service ' fifty scudi of the hundred due to him. This
Arigoni, I may add, had many strange commissions to execute for tbe
Duke — he had to find excuses when the Pope grumbled at the Duke's
protection of the Jews in Mantua (he was already, no doubt, deeply in
their debt), to report that the Cardinal Montalto was prepared to buy
the secrets of an alchemist who was on the brink of the ' great projec
tion,' or again, to notify the Duke of any important picture by Raphael
or another that was in the market in Rome. In all probability Rubens
on his departure had been charged with commissions connected with
one or more of these matters.
Rubens, in any case, had plenty to occupy him on his arrival in the
Holy City. There is a passage in the Abrege of De Piles2 which
1 Philip, however, in a letter to his brother, dated Padua, December 1601, says : — 'What has
become of Pourbus, is he still living ? '
2 In this work the French artist supplemented the brief narrative of the Vita with further
information derived from the younger Philip. (See note, p. 10.) 17

RUBENS
bears on this point. Rubens, we are told, was ever eager to gain
experience from the many things that interested him : — ' At times he
copied them, at others he noted down his reflections, accompanying
them with a rapid pen-sketch in a note-book that he always carried
with him with this object.' What would one not give for a sight of
one of these note-books !
At Rome the days passed rapidly away. His entry into the house
of Cardinal Montalto would have brought him among the best artistic
society in the city. The brilliant young Fleming doubtless made many
friends, he may even at this early date have formed the acquaintance
with Paul Bril and with the German Elsheimer that is alluded to by
Sandrart. I now come to the commission for the Archduke Albert mentioned
in my last quotation from the Vita. On the 12th of January 1602,
Arigoni writes to Chieppio, the principal minister of Vincenzo, to the
effect that the agent of the Archduke in Rome had asked as a favour
of the Duke of Mantua, that ' his Flemish painter ' might be allowed
to execute a picture destined for the church of Santa Croce. This, he
says, would not delay his departure from Rome more than fifteen or
twenty days. It was a commission that had some time previously
been given to Rubens through the mediation of Jean Richardot, the
agent in Rome of the Archdukes. Jean's father was President of the
Council at Brussels, and Philip Rubens was at this time tutor to his
younger brother. A few days later Richardot writes himself to Duke
Vincenzo with the same object : — ' This short delay,' he urges, ' cannot
in any way prejudice the great and magnificent works, that, as I am
informed, your Highness has commenced in Mantua.' This last
passage would seem to point to some ambitious scheme of the Duke,
in which Rubens was to take an important part — a scheme, at any
rate, never carried out.
We know, too, that at this time Duke Vincenzo was maintaining
an army of young copyists at Rome ; they received from 15 to 18
florins for each work copied. Arigoni had instructions to take the
opinion of the Fleming, the Duke's painter, ' that he might point out
the most beautiful and precious works ' worthy of reproduction.
Of the three pictures that Rubens executed for the church of Santa
Croce I shall have to speak later. They are important as the earliest
extant works by his hand that can be definitely dated. These pictures
have finally found a home in a hospital at Grasse.
Even before the Roman journey, Rubens had probably travelled
18

IN ITALY
in the service of the Duke. His brother Phihp writes to him : — ' I
should be glad to hear what you think of Venice and of the other
Italian towns, all of which you have visited.'
Meantime the elder brother had arrived in Italy with his young
pupil GuiUaume Richardot. If we are to judge of Philip from his
letters, he was a narrow-minded pedant — I had almost said a prig-
wedded to the old-fashioned learning of his master, the bigoted
professor at the Louvain University. He speaks lightly of the learning
of Italy : — ' When one has tasted nectar with Justus Lipsius, the
common wine of Padua has little attraction for one.' This of the
university where Galileo was teaching at the time ! Many of the letters
that Philip wrote from Italy to his learned friends have been preserved,
but the name of his brother the painter is not once mentioned in them.
There is, however, a letter to Peter Paul, dated July 1602, in which he
plays the part of Mentor and urges him not to continue in the service
of the Duke. The letter is written in Latin, in the crabbed, enigmatic
style so much admired at the time. He knows, he says, the easy
temper of his brother, and how difficult it is to refuse the humours of
a prince. There can be no doubt of the influence of the quasi-classical,
quasi-devotional teaching that Philip brought back from the Louvain
University upon the mind of the younger brother, and although this
pedantic spirit could make no lasting impression upon the healthy
and exuberant nature of the young artist, we must recognise the part
that this teaching played, if not in the management of Rubens's brush,
at least in the choice of his subjects. We ought indeed to know some
thing of the teaching of Lipsius, and of his devoted scholars — Philip
Rubens, Woverius, and Balthazar Moretus — to understand the direc
tion taken by Rubens's talent during these early years. In a small group
of pictures to be attributed to this time, the connecting link may be
found in the exaltation of the philosopher Seneca and of his interpreter,
the solemn professor at Louvain. Indeed, the cult of that now dis
credited tragedian and Stoic was closely connected with the memory
of Justus Lipsius, one of whose last literary tasks had been to edit his
works. A bust that then passed as Seneca appears in more than one of
Rubens's compositions. He painted, too, at this time, a picture of the
dying philosopher, founded on a statue (in truth that of an old fisher
man) which is now in the Louvre. It was Philip probably who inspired
these works. (See p. 91.)
We can well imagine that Philip Rubens had no true understand
ing of his brother's character. He no doubt really feared the influence
19

RUBENS
upon him of the low moral atmosphere of the Mantuan Court. But,
apart from the commanding genius that now began to assert itself, the
nature of Rubens was no weak one. Under an affable bearing and an
easy, engaging manner, there lurked a strong will, a power of organisa
tion, and a love of enterprise. And now an occasion presented itself
for giving a fuller play to the practical energies of the man.
To return to our text — the authoritative Vita — ' Soon after this
{i.e. after the completion of the pictures for Santa Croce], Rubens was
dispatched to Spain by the Mantuan Duke, that he might present to
the Catholic King, Philip iv. [sic — it was the third Philip of course] a
most exquisite carriage and seven horses of the best breed.'
I have no space to dwell upon the political aspects of this mission
— upon Vincenzo's relations to his more powerful contemporaries.
M. Ruelens, in his annotation to the Codex, has taken much pains to
unravel the tangled politics of the time. Suffice to say, there was a
new King in Spain, and, what was still more important, a new minister,
all-powerful and grasping, who had to be propitiated. Rubens's part
was indeed but a humble one ; but, beside the responsibility for the
safe delivery of the gifts, he had artistic commissions similar to those
that he had lately carried out for the Duke in Rome and in other
Italian towns.
On the 5th of March 1603, the strange cavalcade left Mantua under
the charge of the young Fleming. A few days later Rubens writes to
Chieppio ' a long and troublesome letter ' — so he himself calls it — full
of complaints of muleteers and of heavy tolls. It is signed ' Pietro
Paulo Ruebens,' and is the earliest letter ofthe master that has come
down to us.
There were among the presents under the charge of Rubens, besides
the carriage and horses mentioned in the Vita, crystal vases, richly
decorated, and a number of copies of the most famous pictures of
Raphael and Titian — these for the new minister, the Duke of Lerma,
who had pretensions to be a connoisseur in art matters, as well as for
other influential favourites. But it was the ' carrozzino,' borne over the
hills on a sledge by oxen, that gave the most trouble. At Livorno,
after many delays, Rubens found passage for Alicante, whence there
was a long journey, with many a mountain-pass to climb and many a
river to cross, before the much harassed and travel-stained young painter
reached Valladolid, where the court was then staying. It was now the
duty of Iberti, Vincenzo's agent at the Spanish court, to look after the
delivery of the presents, and meantime to provide ' the Fleming ' with
20

IN ITALY
some money that he might be suitably clothed when he presented him
self before the King and the great minister.
The first task that fell to Rubens was to repair the damage done to
the Italian pictures during the long, rough journey. Of the Spanish
artists at first engaged for this work he had but a poor opinion ; they
were vain and idle, he declares, and their method of work lagged behind
the Italian fashion of the day — it was, above all, different from his own.
A ' St. Jerome ' — a copy after Quentin Massys — and a portrait of the
Duke by Pourbus, alone remained undamaged. Rubens, under cover
of polite phrases, adopts a very independent tone in writing to
Chieppio ; he will not have his work confused with that of others.
He sets to work at once and paints two life-sized figures of the philo
sophers Heraclitus and Democritus to replace those of the Italian
pictures that were irreparably damaged. These letters that Rubens
wrote from Spain to the Duke and to his chief secretary are perhaps
the most remarkable that have survived. There is in them less of
that wearisome, seventeenth-century phrasing and conventionality that
detract from the interest of so much of his subsequent correspondence.
To Chieppio he complains that Iberti, the Mantuan Resident, had not
introduced him to the King. It is evident that Iberti did his best to
keep the young Fleming in the background.
We have, in a letter written home by the Resident, a description
of the inspection of the pictures by the Duke of Lerma that recalls a
scene from Gil Bias. The Duke regarded them, he says, as originals
by Raphael and Titian, and this belief called forth no disclaimer.
Perhaps, after all, the appreciation was only a piece of courtly pretence
on the part of the Duke — the laugh may not have been all on one
side. Rubens on his way out had found time for a passing glance at the
Titians and Raphaels, both in the palace at Madrid 1 and in the Escorial,
and during the weary months of waiting at Valladolid he painted
several pictures, some of them for the Duke of Lerma. Vincenzo's plan
was that he should pass on to the French Court, to add to the series of
contemporary beauties, no doubt. But this did not fall in with the
plans of Rubens, for he had not yet completed his study of the Italian
masters. Among the reasons that he urged against the proposal was
one that gives proof of considerable aplomb on the part of the young
painter. In a letter to Chieppio, that was meant no doubt to be seen
1 At Madrid at that very time was Cervantes, with the manuscript of his Bon Quixote in his
pocket, searching in vain for a publisher. 21

RUBENS
by the Duke, he says : ' The French, your Excellency can take my
word, are not behind hand in curiosita to any others— they have, above
all, a king and a queen no strangers to that art. Proof of this may be
seen in the many great works that remain incomplete, inopid operari-
orum.' The French, he knew for certain, had been in search of capable
men, not only in Flanders and at Florence, but even (on false informa
tion) in Savoy and in Spain.1 Let the Duke get his portraits from
some painter at the French court. . . . Rubens hints that his time is
too valuable and his aims too high for him to waste his days on such
tasks. Let him be given some work more appropriate to his talents
(Codex i. 225). The whole letter, indeed, is well worth careful perusal.
It throws abundant light on the character of the young artist as well
as on his position at this time.
We are quite in the dark as to the date of Rubens's return from
Spain, but a copy of elegiac verses addressed by his brother Philip,
Ad Petrum Paulum Bubensium navigantem, was, we know, printed
some time in the winter of 1603-4. This is a tiresome rhapsody, full
to repletion of the stalest classical allusions, and from it practically
nothing is to be gleaned.
For a period of nearly two years there is now, as far as documentary
evidence is concerned, a blank in the life of Rubens. At best one brief
Commissione Ducale, dated 2nd June 1604, informs us that ' Sr Pietro
Paulo Rubens, pittore Fiammingo ' was to receive a quarterly payment
of 100 ducats from the Duke's treasury. In August of the same year,
rEleonora of Austria, the mother of Vincenzo, died. The modest chapel
of the Trinity, in the Jesuit church at Mantua, that she had chosen as
her burial-place, was magnificently restored by her son, and Rubens
received a commission to paint three large pictures to be placed above
her tomb. It is noteworthy — and this is a point I have already dwelt
upon — that we have in these pictures the only important commission
for original work that, as far as we know, Rubens executed for his
master during the eight long years of nominal servitude. Rubens, we
have seen, objected to be employed in-painting portraits : this com
mission, then, may be regarded as a compromise. The Gonzaga family
— three generations in fact — are all there, but they form part of a grand
theological mise-en-scene that gave full scope to the ambitious brush of
the painter. About the same time the Duke employed ' his Fleming'
in copying two important pictures by Correggio that were in his
1 The implication is, no doubt, that if he went to the French Court he might find it difficult to
get away again.
22

IN ITALY
gallery. This latter task may have had some influence on the execution
of the Gonzaga canvases. The copies were sent as presents to the
Emperor Rudolph.
The end of the year 1605 found Rubens again in Rome, this time
in company with his elder brother. They lodged together in the Via
della Croce, below the Pincian Hill, then as now the favourite quarter
of foreign artists. Justus Lipsius was on his death-bed (he died in
May 1606). It had been his wish that Philip should succeed him in
the chair at Louvain. But for some reason, not now clear, the favourite
pupil preferred to find a post as librarian in the service of the Colonna
family. A large correspondence addressed to him at this time by his
learned friends in the north has been preserved ; many of the letters
are directed under cover to ' Pietro Paulo ' — this, it appears, for
' political ' reasons — but no single mention of the rising artist is to be
found in any of them.
As for Peter Paul himself, we may look upon this second visit to
Rome as above all a time of classical study and of drawing from the
antique. It was then probably that he collected the examples of
Roman sculpture that he carried back with him to Antwerp. Rubens's
rendering of the antique is essentially baroque in character. He helped
to form that seicento style that a few years later found its fullest
expression in the work of Bernini. At Rome many famous examples
of antique sculpture were turning up from time to time, but Rubens
seems to have been chiefly interested in the minor reliefs, above all, in
the iconography of the Emperors. Some of the plates in a learned
work (Electrorum Libri iv.) that Philip published on his return to
Antwerp were prepared from drawings by his brother. These studies
from the antique — for the most part singularly uninteresting — remained
in the artist's possession till his death ; the bulk of them are now in
the Louvre.
Everything, even the Catholic religion, was seen through classical
spectacles. Lipsius, a Catholic of the extreme party, who had lately
published a work on the Miracles of our Lady of Hal, is the typical
representative of this strange phase of devotion which now, through
Philip, had filtered down toPeter Paul. "But the devotional aspect.
was less prominent in the case of the painter. In the main he accepted .
his religion as part of his social surrounding — the classical framework, \
on the other hand, is everywhere prominent. When Rubens had to
make an honorary gift to the doctor who attended him when ill at
Rome with the pleurisy, it took the form of ' an offering of a cock to
23

RUBENS
Aesculapius ' — a picture of a cock to wit (now at Aix-la-Chapelle) was
presented, together with his portrait, to the German physician (see
p. 93). I think that there is evidence that Rubens was, during his residence
in Rome, pursuing some definite course of study. Writing in July
1606 to Chieppio, whom he addresses as ' patrone mio,' he pleads for
the prompt payment of his salary ' so that I may continue my studies
without procuring the means of living from other sources, which I
should have no difficulty in finding in Rome.' He means by this, no
doubt, that he had been offered commissions for pictures. In the end,
as the next letter to the ' primo secretario ' of the Duke proves— this
is dated six months later — Rubens undertook an important commis
sion for the Chiesa Nuova. This task he pleads ' after being occupied
all the summer with my art studies (net study delVArti) I have been
forced to accept of sheer necessity, not being able to maintain a house
with two servants for a year in Rome with the 140 ducats that I have
received from Mantua since my departure.' The point to note is that
Rubens, who was now summoned back to Mantua, had so far concealed
that he was working for others. Although there is nothing said of
any work for the Duke, this was apparently in contravention of his
agreement. But why should the Duke pay this handsome salary merely to
allow a painter, no novice in his craft, to pursue his studies in Rome ?
These ' studij dell' Arti ' must, I think, have been directed to some
definite object, and the Duke was to be in some way a gainer by them.
In this letter of cajolery — for that is the general tone of it — Rubens
promises that, if the matter is really pressing, he will go back at once,
provided that the Duke will give him his word as a prince that he
shall be allowed to return to Rome in the spring, to carry out the
commission for the Chiesa Nuova. Both these letters, M. Ruelens
thinks, are in the handwriting of Philip, the signature only, ' Pietro
Paulo Rubenio,' being by the artist. The appeal was successful ; ' let
Pietro Paulo,' so the Duke writes a few days later, 'remain three
months longer in Rome. Let him know that we are not unwilling to
fall in with his desires '—(December 1606).
The great church founded by San Filippo Neri, the Chiesa Nuova
as it was commonly called, was only recently completed. It was
among the most magnificent and most fashionable in Rome. The old
church had already obtained possession of a miracle-working picture
that had been removed to it from a neighbouring street corner. This
24

IN ITALY
picture — a tondo of the Virgin — was now to form the centre of an
ambitious canvas with many saints by the hand of Rubens. Six
months had elapsed instead of the three granted, when in June 1607,
Rubens received a further summons, this time to accompany the Duke
on a contemplated visit to Spa, the oldest of northern watering-
places. The picture was already finished, but the ceremony of
placing the miraculous tondo in its new position could not yet be
arranged. On this occasion, however, Rubens had to comply, but
instead of the distant watering-place, the wayward Duke contented
himself with a simple villeggiatura on the Genoese coast. The change
was probably a disappointment to Rubens. Already in April news
had arrived of the serious illness of his mother, and Philip had hurried
back to Antwerp. The younger brother, in spite of his engagements
in Rome, would naturally rejoice at an opportunity for visiting
his home.
During the two summer months spent in Genoa,1 Rubens lost no
time in forming a circle of acquaintances among the art -loving
nobility of the town — it was a clientele that brought him many
important commissions both at this time and in the ensuing years.
He was able also to collect materials for a work on the Palaces of
Genoa, published many years later (1622). Of Rubens as an architect
I have left myself no space to say anything. I may mention, however,
that his main object in this work was to introduce at Antwerp a type
of building, half palace, half town-house, suitable for the streets of a
large city. He notes especially that in the palaces of Genoa the
central court of the typical Roman palace is replaced by an entrance
hall leading to a stately staircase.
It was at this time, or a little later, that the Archduke Albert wrote
to Vincenzo, requesting leave of absence on behalf of his ' vassal,' ' that
he might arrange certain personal affairs.' This request met with a
polite but firm refusal. ' Rubens,' says the Duke, ' has served me for
several years to our mutual satisfaction — he has no desire to leave
Italy.' No explanation has been forthcoming for this move on the
part of Albert, but I think that it was probably instigated by Philip,
who, as we have seen, regarded with some anxiety the long-continued
connection of his brother with the Mantuan court.
Meantime the presence of Rubens at Rome was claimed by the
1 It is not unlikely that he may have visited the town at an earlier date. Bellori speaks of
his spending much time there. In a letter to Dupuy, Rubens mentions that he had been several
times to Genoa
25

RUBENS
Cardinal Borghese. This was his third and last visit to the Holy
City. There was a hitch with regard to the picture that he had
painted for the Chiesa Nuova. The lighting was so deplorable that
all its superlative beauties were lost. He must make a replica on
stone or some other material that absorbs the colour. So at least says
Rubens in a dispatch that he sent off to Chieppio (2nd February 1608).
This is essentially what I may call a wheedling letter— Could not his
master take the original picture at a greatly reduced price? The
work, he declares, is remarkable for the size and variety of the figures
—old men, youths and ladies, all richly robed, and these figures have
no attributes that would not be suitable to any other saints of the
same rank ! One is almost glad to hear that this time Rubens did not
gain his point. The Chiesa Nuova canvas had to be carried back with
him to Antwerp to find ultimately a place over his mother's tomb
in the old Abbey of St. Michel.
The next letter of Rubens to Chieppio (23rd February 1608) is
written in an almost openly sarcastic tone. He contrasts the reckless
extravagance of the Duke's manner of life with the delay in discharging
the comparatively small sums due to him for pension and artistic com
missions, and this letter brings the correspondence to an end. Apart,
at least, from the brief note quoted below, nothing further relating to
' the Fleming ' has been found among the Mantuan archives. Rubens
was discontented and was becoming restive. The Duke was occupied
with other matters ; in the course of the summer he set out without
his Flemish painter, on the long postponed visit to Spa, whence he
proceeded to Brussels and Antwerp.1
And now we come to Rubens's last letter from Rome. On the 28th
of October he addressed to Chieppio a hastily-written note, endorsed,
by the side of the signature with the words Salendo a cavallo — ' with
foot in stirrup.' He had received, he says, information that his mother
was dying, there is no time to obtain leave from the Duke, at the best
he may intercept him on his journey north. He leaves his picture in
the Chiesa Nuova finished, but not yet exposed to public view. ' Make

1 Of Duke Vincenzo's life when in the Low Countries we have full details, especially of his
gambling transactions. At Antwerp he lost 7000 philippics in play with the Spanish governor of
the citadel. A curious story of the pawning of a jewelled sword and of some diamonds is given by
M. Ruelens in the Codejc (I. p. 133 seq.). But among all these documents there is no word of the
Rubens family. This rather confirms my theory that it was Philip who was the main instigator of
his brother's breach with Vincenzo. His action in this matter may perhaps have reached the ear
ofthe Duke.
26

IN ITALY
my excuse to the Duchess that I cannot pass through Mantua, I take
the direct road with every diligence.'
But of the homeward route taken by Rubens we know as little as
of that of the journey out. He flew, says the Vita, ' citatis equis,' and
we know that he covered the distance — about a thousand miles — in little
over five weeks.

27

CHAPTER III
Antwerp in the Seventeenth Century — Rubens and the Archdukes — His
Marriage to Isabella Brant — The New House— Organisation of the Studio — Daily
Life of Rubens.
WHEN Rubens, on the 11th of December 1608, reached Ant
werp, his mother was already dead. He had been absent
for eight years and seven months. He now settled down
with his brother in the house in the Rue St. Michel, where his mother
had for some years resided.
There was at this time a lull in the fighting in the Low Countries.
An armistice had been arranged, preparatory to the twelve years' truce
that was signed in 1609. Ambrogio Spinola, in later days the intimate
friend of Rubens, had upheld the Spanish arms with some success
during the years that the artist had spent in Italy. Thanks not only
to his military genius, but also to the huge private fortune (he came of
a family of rich Genoese merchants) that he had devoted to the cause,
the Dutch had been practically driven out of the Spanish Netherlands.
But the trade of Antwerp was gone. At the entry of the Scheldt all
imports had now to be transferred to Dutch boats, and by these carried
to the fleet stationed at Lillo, there to be examined by the enemy and
taxed ; the goods were finally carried to Antwerp in river barges.
Dudley Carleton, the English minister at the Hague, who visited
Antwerp at this time, was impressed by the decayed appearance of the
town ; the grass, he says, was growing in the streets. ' Oh wretched
Belgium,' cried Lipsius, shortly before his death, 'over whom there
broods an adverse fate, and where misfortune dogs the step of
misfortune ! '
But in spite of all this, and notwithstanding the growing rivalry of
Amsterdam, Antwerp remained for a time a great centre of exchange.
It was still the most important mart in Europe, not only for pictures
and for books — especially for books of devotion — but for all who wished
to raise money on diamonds or on plate. There is one direction in
which great activity was shown in the early years of the seventeenth
century. The town, soon after its capture by Farnese, rapidly became
28

LIFE AT ANTWERP
a Catholic centre. One after the other, the various Catholic orders —
of this I have already spoken— came flocking back, some to consecrate
again their deserted churches, swept bare during the ascendency of the
Calvinists, others to found new religious establishments. The painters
and sculptors now reaped a rich harvest. There was a constantly
recurring demand for pictures and for sculpture to decorate the altars
and walls of the churches, old and new.
Of the general aspect of Antwerp in the seventeenth century a very
fair idea may be formed, not from the canvases of Rubens indeed, but
from the many large panoramic views of his more topographically-
minded contemporaries. The growth and prosperity of the town in
the nineteenth century have led to the destruction of much that might
carry us back to the day of Rubens. The cathedral indeed remains
practically unchanged, but the two oldest of the city churches, those
most associated with the early history of the town, have completely
disappeared ; St. Walburga, I mean, close by the Steen and the state
landing-place, the church for which Rubens painted his ' Erection of
the Cross,' and, a little higher up the river, the old Abbey of St.
Michel, where his mother was buried, and close to which Rubens was
now living. This abbey was a place quite apart in the town — here
it was that royal guests were lodged and entertained. The site is
now occupied by bonded warehouses and shipping agencies. Of the
churches of the great religious orders, that of the Franciscans — the
Re'collets as they are locally termed — indeed still stands, though in
an altered form ; but the pictures by Rubens and Vandyke that Sir
Joshua saw there have long ago found other homes. Of the great
Jesuit church, built in Rubens's day, little but the apse and the facade
remained after the fire of 1718. Only the church of St. Jacques, that
great treasure-house of Flemish art, and St. Paul's, the church of the
Dominican convent, still retain their seventeenth century aspect.
The years that followed Rubens's return to Antwerp were essentially
a period of steady and continuous work. On the biographical side,
apart from his marriage and the building of his house, there is little to
say. Thanks, no doubt, to the position attained by his brother Philip,
who was now one of the town secretaries, Rubens was received with
open arms by the families that constituted what we may call the haute
bourgeoisie of the city. To this society a certain distinction was given
by the literary and scholarly tastes of not a few of its constituents.
It was these tastes, or in a few cases the possession of exceptional
artistic talent, that brought some of its members into contact with the
29

RUBENS
governing classes and with the aristocracy. But the line of demar
cation was strictly held. Rubens, when in later life he attempted to
cross it, exposed himself to more than one unpleasant rebuff.
'When, in the year 1609 [more accurately December 1608],
Rubens returned to Belgium, the fame of his skill was already widely
spread, and the rulers, Albert and Isabella, desired to be painted by
him. So that, lest he should take his way back to Italy (whither he
was enticed by the allurements of gigantic rewards) he was made a
member of the household, and bound by fetters of gold.' This turgid
passage from the Vita tells us a good deal. Rubens became at once
court painter to the Archdukes with a salary of five hundred florins.
These honours he shared with Otto Vaenius and Jan Breughel, both
his good friends. The special duty of Rubens was to paint official
portraits of their Highnesses ; for other commissions it would seem
that he received separate pay. The patent as ' peintre de l'hostel ' is
dated from September 1609, and a gold chain — are we to recognise in
this the ' golden fetters ' of the Vita ? — accompanied the diploma. This
position at court freed him from all ' imposts and assises,' and made
him free of the harassing regulations by which the members of the
Guild of St. Luke were bound. His pupils had no longer to be
entered in the liggeren (the books of the Guild), and he had no dues
to pay to that body. This exemption was no small advantage to the
artist, but his biographers are by it deprived of a valuable source of
information. ' Soon after this, Rubens was united in the bonds of matrimony
with the daughter of John Brant, senator of Antwerp, and of Clara de
Moy, whose sister had not long before been led to the altar by his
elder brother Philip, one of the secretaries of the town of Antwerp.'
Rubens was married in October 1609, immediately after the receipt of
the honours from the Archdukes. John Brant, his wife's father, was
a typical member of that cultured town aristocracy of which I have
already spoken. He had held high civic honours, and was besides
learned ' in both the tongues.' Isabella, his daughter, whom we know
so well from the numerous portraits of her by her husband — she takes
her place, too, in many a Holy Family, and again in more than one
Bacchanalian scene — was then a girl of eighteen. Her rather homely
look, with kindly eyes and archly-smiling mouth — the high cheek-bone
is a characteristic north-Teutonic feature — agrees well with what we
know of her character. She was a good wife to Rubens. E
Little more than a year after this Rubens lost his elder brother
30

LIFE AT ANTWERP
Philip ; he was buried by the side of his mother in the Abbey of St.
Michel. The portrait that Rubens painted for his tomb is now lost ;
it was perhaps the original of the head seen in the Pitti ' Philosophers ' ;
— this last has indeed a ' posthumous ' look (see p. 92). A few days
after his death his widow gave birth to a son, to whom the burgo
master, Nicolas Rockox, was godfather. This was the younger Philip,
in later years the compiler of the Vita. Rubens was now the sole
survivor of seven children.
It was a busy time with the artist. In spite of the eager demand
for his works during the latter years of his residence in Italy, he can
then have had little opportunity of collecting together a definite school
of followers. But once established in Antwerp, he rapidly gathered
around him the band of pupils and assistants that his organising power
soon converted into a disciplined army. What is perhaps the most
extensive manufactory of pictures that the world has ever seen was
now started on its prosperous career. From these years dates the
rebirth of art in the Spanish Netherlands.
There has been preserved a letter from Rubens to Jacques de Brie,
painter, picture-dealer, and spendthrift ; it is in Flemish, and dated
11th May 1611, that is to say, little more than two years after his
return from Italy. ' It is impossible,' says Rubens, ' for me to receive
[as a pupil] the young man that you recommend ; from all sides there
are similar aspirants ; there are some who remain for a year or more
with other painters, while waiting for a vacancy in my studio.' Even
a protege' of his ' friend and patron,' Nicolas Rockox, had to wait his
turn. ' I can say sincerely,' he continues, ' without any exaggeration,
that I have had to refuse more than a hundred, among them some
belonging to my own and to my wife's family.' Nicolas Rockox, a
man of Spanish descent, was a lifelong friend of Rubens. He held a
•prominent place among the mercantile aristocracy of Antwerp, and had
served several times as burgomaster.
We are told in the Vita that Rubens, after his marriage, took up
his abode in the residence of his father-in-law. This was in the same
street as the house that he had lately shared with his brother. He can
hardly have found room there for his constantly increasing establish
ment of pupils or for the huge works that he now undertook. Of the
great ' Erection of the Cross,' we know that the painting was carried
out in the church of Saint Walburga, for which the picture was
destined. There were his collections, too, the marbles brought home
from Italy and the pictures of many schools — he was constantly adding
31

RUBENS
to their number — that had to be housed. Early in 1611 Rubens
bought a piece of land with some buildings, situated to the south of
the Place de Meir, a district with many open spaces, orchards and
convent gardens, divided by canals, very different from the maze of
narrow streets with tall gabled houses in which he had hitherto lived.
It was here, says the Vita, that he built for himself a spacious home
' in the Roman style, and adapted to the needs of his art. He planted,
too, a wide-spreading garden with trees of every kind.' It was not till
several years later that this property took its final form, to become
the palatial dwelling that was so long one of the principal sights of
Antwerp. For the next seven or eight years Rubens was busy
scheming alterations and additions. He purchased the works of the
great Italian writers on architecture, Vitruvius and Serlio and Sca-
mozzi, and became to a great extent his own architect. For his army
of pupils and assistants a temporary atelier was, no doubt, meantime
fitted up.
For what we know of the final form taken hy this complex of
buildings we are indebted to two drawings by Jan van Croes that were
engraved by Harrewyn in 1684 and 1692. A modest dwelling-house
was already there ; as for the new buildings, we can only speak with
any certainty of the two facades to the north and east, facing the
courtyard and garden respectively. In the engravings we see a series
of tall, round-headed windows over a ' blind ' basement, in which there
were corresponding niches filled with busts of philosophers ; here we i
have evidence of a large and lofty apartment within, and this was in I
all probability the main studio of the artist. But there were doubtless
more than one of these studios. There would be first a large hall
where his pictures were on view, this would be open, if not to the
public, at least to all visitors of distinction ; then one or more working
ateliers, with panels and canvases in various stages of completion;
finally a ' Holy of Holies,' reserved for the artist himself, where the
pictures entirely by his own hand were carried forward.
There is a letter, written by Rubens in later days from his country
residence, the Castle of Steen ; it is addressed to the favourite pupil of
his old age, Lucas Faid'herbe, who had charge of the town house
during the master's absence. ' Take care,' he says, ' that before leaving
everything is locked up, and that no originals, whether paintings or
drawings, remain in the Atelier.' This is not much, and that this
should be, as I think it is, the only reference to his studio in all the
lengthy correspondence of Rubens, is in itself a significant fact.
32

RUBENS'S HOUSE AND GARDEN
(from the engraving; BY HAHREWYN, l6p2)

LIFE AT ANTWERP
' Remind William the gardener,' he goes on, 'that he ought to send on
from time to time the Rosalie pears and the figs as they are ripe, and
any other good things.' We see by this that some practical use was
made of the spacious town garden.
The new wing was approached by a handsome staircase open on
one side to the court. It was connected with the older buildings by
an open loggia, on the walls of which Rubens painted, probably in
some kind of distemper, the most important of the series of designs
with which the exterior of the new building was decorated. Here was
the ' Andromeda,' apparently identical in composition with the picture
now in Berlin. M. Rooses speaks of these paintings as true frescoes,
and even finds traces of the hatchwork handling of the fresco-painter
in the Berlin canvas. But this is surely open to doubt ; there is no
other record of Rubens having used that medium, one so unsuitable
to an outdoor position in a northern climate.
Between court and garden, we are told by De Piles, Rubens built
a ' rotunda,' a circular hall in imitation of the Pantheon, lit by an open
ing in the centre of the dome. This hall was constructed to hold the
marbles that he had brought back from the South. To this collection,
if we are to trust the Vita, Rubens was constantly adding, through his
agents in various parts of Italy. But the principal addition came when
he obtained by exchange the fine collection of Sir Dudley Carleton.
This was in 1618, and was perhaps the occasion of the building of the
lofty hall. His medals and gems were preserved, it would seem, in
cabinets placed round the wall between the niches. De Piles says of
the rotunda : ' Everything was arranged in order and symmetry ; and
this is why much that deserved to find a place there had to be relegated
to other appartments.' The rotunda was after Rubens's death converted
into a chapel. It was standing as late perhaps as 1840, but no trace of
it now remains, and its very position is a matter of dispute.
Subsequent alterations have completely altered the character of the
main building : the interior has been entirely remodelled, and in its
present state there is nothing to remind us of Rubens. The facade to
the right on entering the courtyard is indeed little changed ; the metal
ornaments and the girouette on the roof are still there, and in front of
the loft there may still be seen the pulley that served to hoist the panels
and canvases of Rubens's huge pictures. But what takes us back at
once to the early days of the seventeenth century is the handsome
portico with triple openings by which we pass to the garden, laid out
with formal beds and stone vases ; still more the little garden-house,
r.-3 33

RUBENS
designed in the purest Rubensian style, a building that is carefully
reproduced in the famous ' Morning Walk,' now at Munich. All this
remains unchanged. Over the side entrances of the portico may still
be read the lines from his favourite Juvenal, enforcing the doctrine
that happiness was to be found in ordering one's life in accordance
with the ruling of the gods, in preserving the calm supremacy of a
sound mind in a sound body, free from wrath and desires, and careless
of the terrors of death. The selection of this passage throws not a
little light upon the philosophy of life that found favour with Rubens
at this time. The ideal is a purely pagan one.
It was this pre-occupation of Rubens with his new house that more
than anything else linked once for all his life and his art with the town
of Antwerp. We are told in the Vita that it was the wish of the
Archdukes that the young artist should settle in Brussels that they
might profit by the charm of 'his acute intellect and his ingenious
spirit,' but that Rubens found that the recurring demands of a life
at Court would interfere with his ' Apellian studies.' Much of the
time of Velazquez was, as we know, wasted in the fulfilment of his
monotonous duties at the Court of Philip iv. Rubens in later life
found time among many distracting diplomatic negotiations to turn
out a continuous stream of paintings. Had he settled thus early in
Brussels the loss to Antwerp would have been great ; but with him
the impulse to artistic production was so commanding that no mere
change of surrounding could have had much influence upon his work.
From this time forth the home and garden of Rubens ranked along
with the printing establishment of Moretus (the Plantin Press) among
the principal sights of Antwerp. ' Happy above all is our town in its
two citizens Rubens and Moretus. Strangers gaze at their houses,
visitors to the town marvel at them.' So in 1620 writes Woverius,
the scholarly friend of Rubens, to Moretus, the printer.
Commissions were now pouring in upon Rubens from every side.
This is what the Vita says : ' In addition to the pictures that he carried
out to be dispatched in every direction— for the Emperor, for the
Catholic King [Philip m.J, for the King of England, the King of
Poland, for the Dukes of Bavaria and Neuburg, for the Bishop of
Wiirzburg, and for other princes, he enriched almost every church in
Belgium with examples of his art.'
And so for the next five-and-twenty years, as we shall see in later
chapters, from the manufactory behind the Place de Meir, the great
canvases and panels passed almost without interruption to all the
34

COURTYARD OF RUBENS'S HOUSE
(FKOM THE KNGRAVING UY HAUREUYN, 1684)

LIFE AT ANTWERP
Catholic lands of Europe. Nay, several found their way to England,
and more than one even into the hands of the heretic and hostile
Dutch. The composition was in every picture that of Rubens, but
the execution was in far the greater number of cases intrusted to one
or other of his assistants. Yet before leaving the studio the master
had added a few magic strokes that stamped his individuality upon the
work. The biographer of Rubens writing in the twentieth century has
little chance of lighting upon even the most trifling event connected
with the life of the artist that he can claim as a novelty. Not only
has every known letter of the artist been published, but every mention
of his name in the correspondence of contemporaries or in the litera
ture of the time has been carefully noted. It was not, however, the
fashion with the letter-writers of the seventeenth century to enter into
anything like domestic detail — to do so would doubtless have been
regarded as a sign of bad breeding. There is a chilly air of conven
tionality and an absence of ' intimacy ' in all this correspondence. Thus
it happens, that in spite of the long series of letters by or concerning
Rubens to be found in the volumes of the Codex, we know little of
his home life or of the direction of his studio. All the more precious
then are the few brief notices concerning these, to us, all-important
matters, that have been unearthed from the writings of contempor
aries. It was a happy inspiration that led the Danish physician, Otto
Sperling, to preserve a careful record of a visit that he paid to the
studio of Rubens in 1621. On entering the room, we found, says
Sperling, the renowned artist listening to a passage from Tacitus that
was read to him, and at the same time dictating a letter. ' While we
remained silent lest we should disturb him by our remarks, he began
himself to talk to us, at the same time continuing his work, listening
to the reading and dictating his letter, answering meantime our ques
tions, and thus showing his astounding faculties. After this we were
conducted by one of his assistants through every part of the splendid
mansion, where there were shown to us the Greek and Roman anti
quities of which he possessed so large a collection.' Sperling visited
among other apartments the rotunda, where he saw Rubens's pupils
drawing from the antique. He dwells on the methods of preparation
of the ' compound pictures ' of the master. ' Thus it is that this man
has collected an unprecedented fortune, and that princes and kings
have loaded him with presents and jewels.' 35

RUBENS
Were we to look upon the account of this interview of the Danish
doctor as formally exact, we could hardly avoid regarding Rubens as
a deliberate poseur. But this is fortunately not necessary. Dr.
Sperling, after the fashion of the time, has doubtless worked up his
recollections into what he regarded as literary form. A somewhat
similar story is indeed told of an earlier period. Duke Vincenzo,
paying a surprise visit to the studio of his Flemish painter, found him
reciting passages from Virgil while busily working with his brush.
More moderate is what we may call the family tradition on this
point, as given by De Piles on the authority of his nephew Philip.
' Rubens,' we are told, ' while painting spoke without effort and with
out interrupting his work ; he entered readily into conversation with
those that came to see him.' While working at Paris on the Medici
pictures, the Queen Mother ' was always behind him, as much charmed
in hearing him discourse as in seeing him paint.'
Indeed, what Roger de Piles has to say of the daily life of Rubens,
seeing that it is derived from the nephew of the artist, we may regard
as equal to the best contemporary evidence. But first let me take his
description of the man himself. It will supplement what we know
of Rubens from his own rendering of his face and figure. I will not
attempt to translate : — ' II avait la taille grande, le port majestueux,
le tour du visage regulterement forme", les joiies vermeilles, les cheveux
chatains, les yeux brillans, mais d'un feu tempore", l'air riant, doux et
honnete. Son abord estoit engageant, son humeur commode, sa con
versation ais£e, son esprit vif et penetrant, sa manure de parler pose'e
et le ton de sa voix fort agre'able ; et tout cela le rendait naturelle-
ment eloquent et persiiasif.' These are carefully chosen words and
give a living picture of the man.
De Piles in a subsequent passage gives a brief sketch of the artist's
daily regime : ' Though there seemed to be much distraction (dissipa
tion) in his way of life, yet his habits were for all that very regular.
He rose every morning at four, and made it a rule to begin his day by
hearing mass, except when he was hindered by the gout, that incom
moded him much. After that he fell to work, having always by him a
reader, who was in his pay and who read some good books ; Plutarch,
very often, or Livy or Seneca. As he was devoted to his profession,
he ordered his diet so as to be able to work with ease, and this is why
he ate very little at dinner for fear lest the vapours of the meat should
hinder the application to the work in hand or his application again
should hinder the digestion of the meat. He painted thus up to five
36

LIFE AT ANTWERP
in the evening, when he mounted his horse to take the air outside the
town or upon the ramparts. At other times he would seek other
relaxation for his mind. On his return from his promenade he would
as a rule find in his house one or more of his friends who had come
to sup with him, and who contributed to the pleasure of the table.
He nevertheless held in great aversion any excess in drink or good
cheer. His greatest pleasure was to mount some fair Spanish horse,
to read in some book, or to pass in review the medals, the agates,
cornelians and other engraved gems of which he had a fine collection
(now in the cabinet of the King of Spain). As Rubens painted every
thing from nature, and as he had often occasion to paint horses, he kept
in his stable some of the finest and the most suitable for the purpose.'
Here I may mention that during the earlier Antwerp period, there were,
as M. Rooses has pointed out, two beautiful animals — genets d'Espagne,
they would then be called — that served as models for numberless
pictures. These are a dappled grey with flowing white mane, and a
bay with a white patch on the forehead. The hand of the young
Vandyke may be recognised in more than one of the renderings of
these horses.
Rubens paid few visits himself. ' II avait ses raisons pour cela,'
says De Piles, who does not, however, tell us what these reasons were.
But he never failed to visit the studios of his painter friends when they
asked him to look at their pictures. He told them what he thought
of their work with the goodness of a father, often going to the trouble
of putting a touch on the canvas. He never blamed any work, and
found elements of beauty in every style.

37

CHAPTER IY
Designs for Engravers — The Plantin-Moretus Press — The Bargain with Sir
Dudley Carleton— Interest in Science and Archaeology— The Correspondence
of Rubens — Rubens at Paris.
BUT there was another side of Rubens's busy life of which, so far,
nothing has been said. I mean the work that he executed
with the special object of reproduction by engraving.
The great artist living in princely style, whose boast it was that he
was compelled by his native genius to undertake works of vast size
depicting the loftiest and most ambitious subjects, was willing all
through his life to execute, mostly for the engraver, endless little,
highly-finished drawings, generally in pen and ink and wash. Nothing
seemed to delight him more than the designing of elaborate allegorical
frontispieces, but he was ready also to undertake the illustration of
books treating on classical subjects, still more those of a devotional
character. Of the connection of Rubens with the engravers of his pictures
there would be much to say. Here I can only mention that these
engravings seem to have been in most cases made not directly from
his pictures but from drawings specially prepared for the purpose,
generally by his assistants, but in many cases by the master's own
hand. When we remember the number of these engravings, and call
to mind the fact that the proofs were in each case corrected and
touched by the artist himself, some idea can be formed of his pro
digious activity.1
As for the book illustrations, it was for the great printing and
publishing establishment, now conducted by Rubens's friend Balthazar
Moretus, that most of this work was executed. Balthazar, as we have
seen, was a schoolfellow of the artist. He was a learned man, one of
the ' set ' of Philip Rubens. In spite of a paralytic stroke that made
1 In Reynolds's Journey to Flanders and Holland are some judicious remarks — a propos of the
engraving of the ' Coup de Lance ' — upon the rendering of colour in black and white. He notes
' that the keeping of masses of light in the print differs much from the picture. . . . We have
here the authority of this great master . . . that a print requires more and larger masses of
light than a picture.'
38

LIFE AT ANTWERP
him a cripple in later days, his energy and industry threw fresh life
into the printing and publishing establishment. The house indeed
never rose again to the commanding position that it had held under
Christopher Plantin in the palmy days of the sixteenth century.
However, under the management of Balthazar Moretus, which lasted
from 1610 to his death in 1641, the firm became for a time the most
important publishers of devotional works in Europe. It had the
monopoly of all liturgical books published in the Spanish Netherlands,
and was besides the official printer to the town of Antwerp.
Every visitor to Antwerp is familiar with the old building — now
the Musee Plantin-Moretus — and with its varied contents. We have
seen that in Rubens's day it ranked along with his own dwelling as one
of the great sights of the city ; unlike what remains of the artist's
house, it is now freely accessible to the public. Here may be seen the
many portraits that Rubens painted for the Moretus family, as well as
a number of designs which he made for the illustrations of the books
that they published. Here, too, are preserved the detailed accounts of
the payments made to the great artist, from which we learn the sums
that he received for the numerous frontispieces and other designs,
executed at intervals during a period of nearly thirty years, for Rubens
was engaged in tasks of this kind up to the year of his death. This
kind of work was done in the evening, but above all on fete-days,
when, no doubt, his studio was closed. His charge depended upon the
time given to a drawing ; for a whole day's work it is as much as a
hundred florins, this being probably the rate at which he estimated the
value of pictures carried out by his own hand.
The reader can now form some idea of the busy life of Rubens
during the years that followed his return to Antwerp. Of the
pictures that he painted I say nothing here. All that concerns the
purely artistic life is reserved for treatment in another part of this work.
The literary and diplomatic correspondence of Rubens belongs, in
the main, to a later time ; but from our State Record Office has been
extracted a series of letters that passed between him and Sir Dudley
Carleton during the period that the latter was representing England
at the Hague. Carleton (1573-1632) was a man of some culture; he
had studied Greek under his father-in-law, Sir Henry Savile (of
Oxford fame). He had served at Venice from 1610 to 1615, and
when there had seized the opportunity to bring together an important
collection of Greek and Roman marbles. He was by nature a shrewd
diplomatist, but it was his fate to spend his life in carrying out the
39

RUBENS
insane and fatal foreign policy, first of James and then of Charles and
Buckingham. It was in 1616 that Carleton was appointed to the
Hague. He at once began to form a collection of pictures. We have
already quoted his pessimistic account of Antwerp, through which
city he passed on his way to his new post. But, as I have said,
Antwerp was for all that still the artistic centre of the North. To
that city, then, Carleton turned, and, through the agency of an English
man settled in the Spanish Netherlands, purchased pictures by
Breughel, Snyders, and Sebastian Vranckx. To obtain a picture by
Rubens was a more serious matter, but a ' Wolf and Fox-hunt ' was at
length acquired in exchange for a riviere of diamonds (the property
of his wife!). This was in 1616; soon after this Carleton's marbles
arrived from Italy — a fact which did not escape the keen scent of our
artist. Carleton was eager to possess more pictures by Rubens:
Rubens's heart was set upon the acquisition of the marbles ; they
were both practical men, with diplomatic aptitudes. So Francois de
Grebber is at once despatched to the Hague to negotiate the matter.
This De Grebber was a painter from Haarlem, and a dealer in works
of art — all the painters of the time seem to have been so when
occasion arose. He is described by our artist as a good worthy man,
in every way trustworthy. Rubens on his side had twelve pictures
ready or nearly ready, which he valued at 6,850 florins. Carleton asked
6000 florins for his marbles. A careful list, in Rubens's own hand, has
been preserved of these pictures — an invaluable document for the
biographer, and one to which I shall have to return. For the present
it will suffice to mention that a distinction is here made between the
pictures entirely by Rubens's hand, those in which he was assisted by
an artist of some distinction, and, finally, what we should call school-
pieces ; the prices varied accordingly. Carleton shrewdly declined to
accept any of the last class. He finally agreed to take nine pictures,
valued at 4000 florins, and to spend the outstanding 2000 florins in the
purchase of tapestry.
Of the marbles thus acquired by Rubens we have a bare list— so
many heads, so many full-lengths, etc. They had, as has been seen,
but recently arrived from Venice. A few years later, in 1625, the
bulk of them were sold by Rubens to Buckingham. Barely three
years after this the Duke was assassinated, and his widow at a later
date sent the greater part of his art collections to be disposed of at
Antwerp. I do not, however, find any mention of these marbles in
the list that has been preserved of the objects then sold.
40

LIFE AT ANTWERP
We may regard as supplementary to the Carleton negotiation a
correspondence reaching from 1619 to 1623, concerning a picture that
Rubens was to paint for Lord Danvers — this it was proposed to
present to the Prince of Wales. In exchange Rubens was to receive
a * Creation ' by Bassano. But when our artist's picture arrived — it
was a ' Lion Hunt ' — the English connoisseurs would have none of it.
It was but a school-piece, they declared. So the Bassano was sent
back, after being carefully restored by Rubens. The painters of those
days had no scruples in such matters, and of the many Italian pictures
that passed through the hands of Rubens not a few may have been
brought up to the desired key by a few deft touches from his hand.
There was indeed at this time in England a small but highly
cultured circle, well capable of recognising the value of a work of art.
It was of recent growth, and destined in a few years to extinction.
Rubens, perhaps, hardly recognised its existence, for on the Continent
at this time the English were not held in much esteem in questions of
connoisseurship. At the end of what is practically the last letter in this corre
spondence (Rubens to William Trumbull, 13th September 1621), there
is an allusion to the new Banqueting Hall. It is here that Rubens, in
an often-quoted passage, draws himself up with some dignity :
' Touchant la sale au nouveau palays, je confesse d'estre par un instinct
naturel plus propre a faire des choses bien grandes que des petites
curiositez. Chacun a sa grace ; mon talent est telle que jamais entre-
prise encore quelle fust desmesure'e en quantity et diversity de suggets
a surmonte" mon courage.'
The year 1621 was in many ways a critical one in the life of
Rubens. In April the truce with the United Provinces had expired ;
in the same month died Philip in. of Spain, and in the following July
the Archduke Albert. The Netherlands now came more directly
under Spanish control. We begin to see signs of friction between the
agents of the Spanish Government and what may almost be called the
national party in Belgium.1 Though both parties were vehemently
Catholic, and as such opposed to the Calvinists of the United Pro
vinces, their interests were not the same. There were, of course,
many shades of opinion among the Netherlanders. The old Belgian
1 The word ' Belgium ' was used officially at this time, especially in Latin documents, for the
Spanish Netherlands. The modern kingdom of Belgium includes a much wider country, for at
that time the Walloon districts to the east (the bishopric of Liege, etc.) formed part of the
Empire. 41

RUBENS
aristocracy were jealous of the Spanish officials ; the mercantile classes
in the big towns, in Antwerp above all, were weary of the incubus of
the endless strife ; they were prepared to make great sacrifices if
peace could only be ensured.
But there were two persons at this time in the Spanish Nether
lands whose minds were, above all, set on the termination of the war—
the regent Isabella at Brussels, and the great artist at Antwerp. This
was the strong bond of sympathy between the Infanta and Rubens.
From this time may be dated the diplomatic life of the great painter,
and amid the many crosses and disappointments to which the new
pursuit exposed him, he found in Isabella an unchanging and sym
pathetic supporter. These efforts for peace were to the end in vain.
The great war went on for many years after both were laid in their
graves. At the best, Rubens could pride himself ori having been a
factor in patching up a peace between the English and the Spanish
courts. This was, indeed, but a side issue ; but, as we shall see, the
artist took upon himself no little credit for the success, such as it was.
Rubens, both in his life-time and in later days, has been found
fault with for thrusting himself in among negotiations that did not
concern him. What call was there for this parvenu to leave his paint-
pots and the bourgeois circle in which he lived at Antwerp, and to
occupy himself with matters of haute politique ? But it seems to me
that these persistent efforts in the cause of peace are just what was want
ing to give dignity to the life of Rubens. The career of a successful
artist gradually accumulating wealth is a no more stimulating matter
to his biographer than that of a prosperous man of business. Rubens,
however, saw well that while he was himself thus prospering, his
country was being slowly impoverished — sacrificed, in fact to the
interests of the Spanish monarchy, or rather to what a set of selfish
ministers regarded as these interests.
Putting aside, then, for the present the artistic side of his career,
there are two aspects under which Rubens, for the last twenty years of
his life, will have to be considered. First, as a man of culture, alive to
all that was going on in the contemporary world of letters and art,
something of an archaeologist, and interested too in scientific questions,
and then as a diplomatist. In this latter capacity he was prepared to
take advantage of the cosmopolitan position that he had gained as the
most distinguished artist of the day, using that position as a lever in
the interests of peace, and prepared if necessary for personal sacrifices.
This year, 1621, so critical in the life of Rubens, we may regard as
42

LIFE AT ANTWERP
marking the end of the Antwerp period, using that term in the narrower
sense. Since his return from Italy it is doubtful "whether he had ever
passed the narrow limits of the Netherlands. There is, indeed, an
allusion to an excursion into Holland, but that at best can have been
only a flying visit.1 During the following decade, in addition to
another more important visit to Holland, we find him at Paris (three
times), in Spain, and finally in England.
It was in 1621, again, that Vandyke finally left the studio of Rubens.
Here for some years the young artist had held a position quite apart
from the other pupils and assistants ; we may indeed almost look upon
him as a partner in the business. Once more, it was in this year that
the negotiations were started that resulted in the commission for the
Luxembourg pictures.
The next years, say from 1622 to 1626, we may regard as the
central period of Rubens's career. They may well be introduced by
some account of the letters that he interchanged from this time forward
with his French correspondents, Peiresc, Valaves, and Dupuy.2
It is in these letters that we come to know Rubens as a collector,
an antiquary, and as a man generally interested in the new discoveries
of the day. All detailed account of the diplomatic negotiations that
occupied so much of Rubens's time and thought during these years is
scrupulously avoided in this correspondence, any allusion to them
only involved what was already known to the public ; Rubens appears
to have had a wholesome dread of the great Cardinal ; Richelieu on his
part, although he bought more than one of Rubens's pictures, regarded
the diplomatic activity of the Flemish artist with a mixture of contempt
and suspicion. Their political aims, we must remember, were diametri
cally opposed, seeing that it was part of Richelieu's policy to prolong
the war in the Low Countries.
Claude Fabri de Peiresc was a native of Provence and a Conseiller
du Roi in the Parliament of Aix. He corresponded with all the learned
men of Europe. Ten thousand letters, it is said, were found in his
house at his death, and these letters for long supplied his niece with
curl-papers and with fuel for the stove. His home at Aix he converted
into a museum, where stuffed animals and Roman antiquities were
1 According to the story told by Gerbier, Rubens when in company with Van Balen and Breughel,
was surprised at a village near Haarlem by a party of Dutch artists disguised as peasants. This
would have been in 1616.
1 There have been preserved seventeen letters of Rubens to Peiresc (1622-1628, and again 1630-
36 — in the interval there are also one or two letters), eleven letters to Valaves (1624-1626), and as
many as fifty-three to Dupuy, fifty-one of these between 1626 and 1628.
43

RUBENS
intermingled after the fashion of the day. It was through Gevartius,
his life-long friend and the guardian of his children during his absence *
in Spain and England, that Rubens came to know Peiresc.
The correspondence opens with a discussion about cameos. Rubens
had on hand a learned work on the subject ; this was never completed,
but eight plates of gems were engraved from his drawings by Vorster-
man. There is much about the two great cameos of the family of
Augustus, of which one is now in Vienna, the other in the Bibliotheque
Nationale.1 It was Peiresc who first identified the subject of the latter
(it had previously been known as ' Joseph before Pharaoh '). Rubens
when in Paris saw it in the Sainte Chapelle, and made a drawing of it.
Many were the subjects discussed by Rubens with his correspondents.
A few brief quotations may throw some light on the questions in which
he was interested. For instance, in 1622, writing to Peter van Veen,
after mentioning his recently published work on Genoese architecture,
and referring to certain new methods of etching (of which more later), he
winds up with the following request — ' I hear that your brother Signor
Ottavio Veen [the letter is in Italian] has printed a little anonymous
work on the Universal Theory, or something of the sort. This I most
strongly desire to see. You have doubtless a copy, and could you give
me an opportunity of looking at it, I would give you my word as a
man of honour to keep this favour a secret and to speak of it to no one
living.' Otto van Veen, Rubens's old master, was at that time waradin
of the Mint at Brussels. He was a man of culture, holding some
position in society ; but this passage is, I think, the only evidence we
have that he dabbled in such dangerous matters.
Somewhat later in the letters that passed between Rubens and
Peiresc, there is much talk of an instrument, made by Drebbel, an
ingenious Dutch experimenter and physicist, whom, indeed, Peiresc
at a later date confesses to be something of a quack. This machine is
referred to first as a little device ' for illustrating the flux and reflux of
the sea,' and again as a ring of glass containing two liquids illustrating
the perpetuum mobile. There was much mystery about this instrument,
and Rubens was to keep it in his private cabinet. A great zest was
given to such physical researches at this time by the secrecy with which
they were surrounded. It is, indeed, an easy passage from such in-
1 It is somewhat of a surprise to find the Cameo di Niccolo mentioned in another letter, referred
to in the notes to the Codex as the work of an Italian medallist of that name. The word ' Niccolo'
is of course merely an Italian diminutive of Onyx, now generally applied to stones of a certain
definite colour.
44

LIFE AT ANTWERP
quiries to the cryptic doctrines of the Basilidians and the Rosicrucians.
It was a propos of some gems of the abraxas class as well as of certain
ithyphallic intaglios, that Rubens is led into a discussion of these
dangerous subjects. At this time in France, in Germany, and in the
Low Countries there was a recrudescence of such superstitions ; the
Emperor Rudolph at Prague was, it is said, an ' adept ' ; the subject
caused great searching of heart to our King James. In Spain some
ten thousand of these alumbrados (illuminists) were imprisoned by the
Inquisition, and some of them burnt.
For Rubens, Peiresc was essentially his purveyor of news from the
French Court. When he went back to his native Provence, his place
was taken first by his brother Valaves, and then by Pierre Dupuy, the
publicist, the man, who, as the first defender of the Gallican church,
holds an important position in the history of Catholicism in France.
In the later correspondence politics take a more prominent place,
although all reference to the details of Rubens's diplomatic missions is
still avoided. These letters were indeed ' news sheets.' They were
passed round to friends, and took the place of the ' foreign correspond
ence ' of our daily press. I should add that it is but a very meagre
proportion of this correspondence that has survived.
Of Rubens's relations with Marie de' Medicis, and of his first visit to
Paris in 1622, I shall speak when, in a future chapter, I come to describe
the pictures painted for the Luxembourg Palace. In May 1623, Rubens
visited Paris for a second time, bringing with him several of the large
canvases, completed except for the final touches. On his way he visited
the Archduchess at Brussels, and was intrusted by her with a present
for her good friend the French Queen-Dowager. This was a little
spaniel, with a collar of twenty-five enamelled plates. The little
animal has been recognised in the foreground of more than one of the
Luxembourg canvases. But a very similar dog, it must be confessed,
occurs in many of Rubens's pictures, both earlier and later.
Rubens's third and (apart from a flying visit in 1627) last visit to
Paris, was in the spring of 1625. The work in the Luxembourg was
now finished, and the gallery was before long thrown open to all the
great personages that were now assembled in the capital for the
marriage (by proxy) of the new king of England with the sister of the
French king. It was a moment of triumph for Rubens. The great
cardinal expressed his satisfaction, and even the phlegmatic and reserved
Louis, when he was induced to visit the Luxembourg, found some
words of approval. It was to M. de St. Amboise, it appears, that it
45

RUBENS
fell to explain the subjects to him, ' en changeant et dissimulant le vrai
sens avec beaucoup d'artifice ' (Rubens to Peiresc, 13th May 1625). The
treatment of some of the incidents in his mother's life would hardly
have been pleasing to the King had he taken the trouble to unravel the
allegories in which the story was involved.
Rubens was present at the marriage ceremony. By his activity
and presence of mind, he escaped all hurt on the collapse of ,a temporary ,
structure on which he was standing. On the other hand, an injury to
his leg, caused, he says, by the clumsy zeal of his boot-maker (may we
perhaps surmise that a ' gouty tendency ' had aggravated the ill ?) had
prevented his being present when the King visited the Luxembourg.
Rubens must have had much to observe and much to report to his
mistress at Brussels during this visit to Paris. He was not likely to
overlook the occasions that now presented themselves for obtaining
fresh insight into the tangled politics of the time. The events of 1625
were scarcely less important than those of 1621 ; they will be best dealt
with when we come to consider the diplomatic career of Rubens. Let
us now finish with him as a collector and a connoisseur of art.
At Paris Rubens met for the first time the notorious Duke of
Buckingham.1 It is no reflection on the artist's character to say that
there was not a little in common between the two men. There is some
reason to believe that Rubens accompanied the Duke in his visits to
the royal galleries at Fontainebleau and to other palaces, and that they
inspected the pictures together. In the Duke's company was Sir
Balthazar Gerbier, a versatile man, not over scrupulous in his dealings,
with whom Rubens was destined to be much associated in subsequent
years. That the three discussed politics together we know ; this was
the case, no doubt, while Rubens was painting the Duke's portrait.
How far political considerations influenced on either side the great
bargain that in the ensuing year Rubens struck with Buckingham
it is difficult to say. For the price of 100,000 florins, a prodigious
sum in those days, the Duke obtained the whole of the artist's collections
— pictures, statues, and gems. ' Cimelia omnia emit,' says the Vita,
and connects the deal with the desire on the part of the Archduchess
Isabella to obtain the goodwill of Buckingham. In the end Rubens
obtained something under 90,000 florins ; the rest went in commissions.
1 'Ducem Buquingamiae,' says the Vita, 'flagrantissima regis Angliae principisque Walliae
gratia florentem.' Although the chronology is not quite exact— Charles was already king at the
time— the words are in this case happily chosen. There was a certain caprice in the spelling of
the name ofthe Duke at this time on the Continent.
46

LIFE AT ANTWERP
Apart from Gerbier, the negotiations were carried on by Michel le
Blond of Frankfort, goldsmith, engraver, and picture-dealer, at a later
time the agent for art matters of Queen Christina. Le Blond was a
cousin of Sandrart, who in relating the negotiations praises the practical
shrewdness of Rubens. The pictures, indeed, were not sent off till the
next year. Peiresc, when he heard of the sale, regretted that no cata
logue had been made, a regret that we may well share. Before the
transfer had been effected Rubens had lost his wife ; in a paper that he
handed to the guardians of his children there is some reference to the
terms of this sale. Within two years after the receipt of the collection
from Rubens, the reckless career of Buckingham was brought to a close
by the knife of Felton. His widow after a time sent the bulk of his
artistic treasures to Antwerp, to be sold there by public auction.1 This
may well have been on the advice of Rubens, who, when in London,
saw the collection in the late Duke's house. It is not unlikely that, keen
collector as he was, he may have then bought back some of the pictures
and other treasures that he had parted with.
Rubens in after years had many dealings in cameos and other gems.
Even in his diplomatic journeys he kept his eyes open for any oppor
tunity of purchase or sale. As late as 1634 he mentions that he had
exported a cabinet of carved agates and other stones to the Indies ; this
venture, however, resulted in a total loss, for the ship fell into the hands
: of the Dutch.
1 Some of the pictures had been already purchased by the King and various noblemen. At the
. sale in Antwerp several pictures were bought by the Archduke Leopold William ; these have found
their way into the Gallery at Vienna.

47

CHAPTER V
Renewal of the war with Holland — Diplomatic Journeys — Rubens and Spinola
— Rubens and Gerbier in Holland — Rubens at Madrid — In England — Marie de'
Medicis at Antwerp — Rubens insulted by the Duke d'Aerschot.
TO form any intelligent idea of the part played by Rubens in
the complicated politics of the twenties and thirties of the
seventeenth century, some knowledge of the general political
situation of the time is a sine qua non. Any such knowledge can, how
ever, hardly be taken for granted in the case of an Englishman, even of
one of ' average culture.' For the student of history who has taken
some interest in the War of Liberation, in the Thirty Years' War, or
in the policy of Richelieu, it is somewhat of a shock to find in Rubens
an active agent on the wrong side. Still more surprising is it to discover
that on the same side were many of the choicer spirits of the time and
the representatives of the best culture.
It was the renewal of the war in 1621 that first brought Rubens
into the world of politics. It was now that he obtained the ear of the
widowed Infanta. He was already a persona grata with Spinola, the t
great general who was again in command of the Spanish troops. It is
not, however, till two years later that we have any definite evidence of
the new direction given to Rubens's activities.
In September of 1623 a pension of ten crowns a month is granted
to Rubens for services rendered to the Spanish king. The money was
to be paid from the treasury of the citadel, that is to say that it was
distinctly a Spanish pension. The weight given by Isabella to the
counsels of Rubens did not escape the notice of the French resident.
On August 30, 1624, he reports — ' L'Infante preste tous les jours
I'oreille aux discours que lui fait sur ce sujet Rubens, peintre celebre
d'Anvers, qui est connu a Paris par ses ouvrages qui sont dans I'hostel
de la reine mere, lequel fait plusieurs allees et venues d'ici au camp du
Marquis de Spinola.'
If it had rested with the Infanta and with her adviser Spinola,
peace would probably before this haVe been made with the Dutch.
But, as it was, the diplomatic agents who were negotiating with this
48

RUBENS AS DIPLOMATIST
object in the United Provinces were invested with little authority, and
this was well known to the enemy. These agents indeed, whether
working in Holland, in Spain, or in England — for by this time England
had again declared war with the old enemy — were for the most part men
of not very lofty social or indeed moral character. It was a thankless
task for those that looked for any higher reward than their mere pay.
Anything that they might effect was liable to be repudiated at head
quarters ; at the best they could only pave the way for the envoys with
better credentials who succeeded them and who reaped all the honours.
In the country to which they were sent they were looked upon as little
better than spies.
Of this Rubens was to have bitter experience during the ensuing
years. He soon grasped the fact that until he was invested with
definite powers from the Spanish king his efforts would be nugatory.
Hut first it was necessary to obtain a recognised social position. With
this object doubtless, and with the support of Isabella, a petition for
letters of ennoblement was forwarded to the Spanish court. The
report on this occasion of the President of the Supreme Council of
Flanders at Madrid has been preserved. After full inquiry it is certified
that Rubens's parents had always been faithful vassals of the king. His
father had been councillor, his brother secretary, to the town of Ant
werp. ' The petitioner, Peter Paul Rubens, excels in his art and has for
long been much esteemed by the whole of Europe. It is certain that
many princes have attempted to withdraw him from Antwerp with
great promises of honours and money. To the excellence and supre
macy of his painting he adds a knowledge of history and languages, and
he has always lived with splendour, being possessed of great means.'
The petition is marked as approved by the King (January 29, 1624).
The actual patent of ennoblement is dated a few months later. This
carried with it the right to hold property by feudal tenure, and it was
accompanied by a grant of arms.
At the beginning Rubens was mixed up with certain negotiations
that were carried on between the Infanta and Prince Maurice ; these
had been going on ever since the termination of the truce in 1621. At
the Hague there lived one Jan Brant, a cousin, it would seem, of
Rubens's wife. There is much reference to him in the correspondence
of this time as ' El Catolico.' The negotiations were apparently carried
on, at first at least, without the knowledge of the Spanish king. They
came to nothing. Maurice was probably all through playing with the
agents of the Infanta. Of the part taken by Rubens at this time we
49

RUBENS
know little. He was, as we have seen, constantly going and coming
between the camp of Spinola and the court at Brussels.
Spinola, indeed, we may regard as, next to Isabella, the most im
portant of the supporters of Rubens at the commencement of his
diplomatic career. They were close friends to the end. Rubens, writing
to Dupuy at a later date (January 27, 1628) after some carefully
selected words of praise, says of the great general: — 'At first I mistrusted
him as an Italian and a Genoese, but I have come to know him as a
man, firm and trustworthy, who merits the most complete confidence.
As for what concerns my gallery [the Luxembourg ; Spinola had lately
passed through Paris] his Excellency did not take the trouble to go and
see it, having no taste for painting, a matter that he understands no
better than a navvy.'
While in Paris in 1625 Rubens was in the thick of the diplomatic
tangle of the time. James i. had died in April. The new king was
preparing for the expedition against Cadiz. Everything seemed to
depend upon the action of the French. A long and outspoken letter
that Rubens wrote from Paris to the Infanta (March 15) dwells on the
importance of the careful selection of negotiators. ' He is moved
solely,' so he ends his letter, ' by his great zeal in the service of the
King and of her Excellency, and by his desire for the good of his
country.' From 1625 to his death in 1628 the policy of England was directed
by Buckingham. By the end of 1626 the country was committed to a
war with France. Meantime Maurice, Prince of Orange, was dead, and
Breda, a town so closely connected with the Nassau family, had been
delivered to Spinola. The Spanish party was now more hopeful ; the
negotiations, however, in which Rubens took part were directed more
especially to the patching up of a peace with England. Now these
negotiations were conducted on the part of our country by Balthazar
Gerbier, and what we know of them is derived in the main from the
summary drawn up by Gerbier that has been preserved in the English
archives. This is a point that should be borne in mind.
Gerbier, like Rubens, was a Fleming — he was probably born in
Antwerp— and the two were able to correspond when desirable in their
own language. Clever, unscrupulous, and versatile, Gerbier had risen
to power along with Buckingham. As an artist he was something
more than an amateur ; he was accomplished above all as a miniature
painter. His importance as an architect has only lately been recog
nised. In later days he turned his active mind to social and economic
50

RUBENS AS DIPLOMATIST
questions. He visited Surinam as a mining engineer, and started a
college in London for the study of science and foreign languages.
Charles had to the end complete confidence in him, and his relations to
Rubens were uniformly friendly. The man was for all that something
of a charlatan, and there hangs about him an atmosphere of suspicion.
Rubens had corresponded with Gerbier since the meeting in Paris.
But meantime the bitter feeling of the Spanish court against England
had increased. Buckingham, however, who was drifting into a war
with France, was now ready to negotiate for peace with Spain.
In the summer of 1626 the plague was again raging in Antwerp.
We do not know if we are to attribute to it the death of Isabella Brant
(June 20). To judge by her later portraits she had been ailing for
some time. Rubens, writing to Dupuy, gives what appears to me a
rather stilted and conventional account of his grief for his wife.
M. Rooses, however, finds in this letter ' a touching and eloquent
funeral sermon.' More convincing is the testimony to her domestic
virtues given by Rubens in some earlier letters. Her death was the
occasion for several funeral feasts, one for the town councillors, one for
the guild of ' the Violet,' a third for that of St. Luke. This was an old
Flemish custom.
The spring of the year 1627 was spent by Rubens in negotiations
with Gerbier, first at Paris and then at Brussels. Here there comes
upon the scene another of those subsidiary diplomatic agents, a certain
Abbs' de Scaglia, an irrepressible intriguer, ostensibly representing the
interests of his master, the Duke of Savoy, but ever ready to proffer
his advice whether called for or not. Even more than Rubens or
Gerbier, he was the object of the contempt of the haughty Spanish
king. Philip writes to his aunt, the Infanta, urging her to have
nothing to say to this sorry schemer. The king then turns to Rubens
— ' I regret,' he says, ' that you have allowed a painter to be mixed up
in concerns of this importance.' He complains that the dignity of his
kingdom was thus compromised, and ' although England may see no
inconvenience in the choice, it is not one that is suitable to us.' To
this the Infanta replies that she is but following the example of
Buckingham, who has sent Gerbier, another painter, with directions to.
treat directly with Rubens. ' It is indifferent,' she urges, ' to whom
these affairs are entrusted at the commencement ; if they are followed
up, they can be handed over to people of higher rank.' Isabella was
probably in this only anxious to humour her nephew, but we may
wonder whether she showed this letter to her trusted servant. 51

RUBENS
It was now necessary for Rubens to proceed into the enemy's
country to hold parley with Gerbier. A veil of mystery had to be
woven over his meeting with the agent of Buckingham. The great
Flemish artist, it was reported, after his recent loss, sought relief in
travel (June 1627). Should the fact that he had met with Gerbier
become known, what more natural than that Rubens should be
desirous of discussing with him the terms of the sale of his collection
to the English duke. But, for all this secrecy, Carleton reports from
the Hague that the rumour of the proposed journey of Rubens ' was
advertised hither from ye first Inne that he came to in Roterdam.'
Nevertheless, Rubens with his fellow-connoisseur proceeded with his
art tour through the United Provinces — ' Here he now is,' says Carleton
in his home dispatch, ' and Gerbier in his company, walking from towne
to towne upon theyre pretence of pictures ; which may serve him for a
few dayes ; so he dispatch and begone ; but if he entertayne tyme long
here he will infallibly be laid hold of and sent with disgrace out of the
countrey.' We hear of Rubens at Utrecht as a guest of Honthorst. Here
he met the young Sandrart, who accompanied him during the rest of
his journey, — eager, he tells us, to profit by every word that fell from
the great artist's lips, and equally eager, no doubt, for a bit of self-
advertisement. Nothing whatever resulted from these negotiations, for the good
reason that what we may call the central Spanish policy was at that
moment directed towards the arrangement of a joint attack on England
by France and Spain. This was made clear on the arrival from Spain
of a special envoy, Don Diego de Messia, Marquis of Leganes— ' the
long-expected Messiah,' as Carleton calls him.
Rubens was now playing a very dangerous game. Some outspoken
criticism of the omnipotent Olivares and of the Spanish policy generally
that he had allowed himself to use in his letters to Gerbier must have
caused him no little nervousness when at a later date the correspond
ence was called for by Philip. Fortunately the most compromising of
these letters were in Flemish, and Rubens was able to pass them off as
private correspondence of no consequence.
After his arrival in Brussels at the end of August, Leganes had
pushed forward the preparations for the attack on England that was to
be made under the direction of Spinola ; but for all that the pourparlers
were continued. Gerbier got to know all about the designs of ' this
Messiah turned apostate.' If this was through Rubens, the latter was
52

RUBENS AS DIPLOMATIST
exposing himself to a charge of treason. But amid these cross-currents
of diplomacy Rubens had the support, not^ only of Isabella, but of
Spinola himself, with whom he continued in constant correspondence.
Spinola was now wanted in Spain — he was more or less in disgrace.
He left Brussels with Leganes early in 1628. Rubens now began to
talk of a projected Italian journey, to be combined with a visit to
Peiresc at Aix in the autumn. Spinola was pleading the cause of
peace at Madrid, as we know from a curious letter of Philip to the
Infanta (May 1). The King is now willing that the negotiations
should be continued, and orders that the whole of the Gerbier-Rubens
correspondence should be sent to him. To this the Infanta replies
that Rubens will forward the letters ; no one but he, however, could
interpret their full meaning ; many of them, too, were of a private
nature. In this answer she was no doubt inspired by the artist himself.
After some delay the summons came from Philip. Rubens was to
proceed to Madrid, bringing all his own papers relating to the negotia
tions, as well as those in the Brussels archives.
Having put his affairs in order, Rubens at the end of August started
by post. He arrived at Madrid in fifteen days. Within this time, it
is said, he even made a detour to La Rochelle to see something of
the siege operations, which were then drawing to a close. If this is
true, he must have travelled day and night. The canvases that he
was bringing for the Spanish king do not seem to have delayed his
progress. Rubens had his own ideas upon the methods of Spanish policy, and
these he at times expressed with some freedom. Breaking through his
usual reserve in a letter to his French friends, he complains bitterly of
the Spanish habit of systematic procrastination. Spinola, he said, was
wearily kept waiting, fed with false hopes. In letters to Gerbier he
had, as we have seen, more than once proclaimed openly his opinion of
Olivares. No doubt, before setting out for Spain, Rubens had obtained
from Spinola the assurance that he would be in no personal danger. I
think there was a party in Madrid that would have been willing to
make him the scapegoat of what I may term the Spinola-Isabella
policy. Perhaps the meditated Italian journey might after all have
come off had it seemed likely that this party would obtain the upper
hand — the artist had it in reserve.
But it was above all Rubens's position as the supreme painter of
Europe that, in spite of certain conventional depreciations of his social
position, ensured for him a welcome at the Spanish court. The arts
53

RUBENS
were in great favour not only with the King, but not less with the all-
powerful Conde-Duque Olivares, who was now in the position that the
Duke of Lerma had filled when Rubens was in the Peninsula twenty-
three years previously. The Spanish school of painting was by this
time on the eve of its great triumphs. Velazquez was twenty-nine
when Rubens arrived at Madrid. He was already the court painter,
but the extent of his relations with Rubens at this time has pro
bably been a good deal exaggerated. Pacheco, his father-in-law and
biographer, tells us that Rubens ' associated little with painters. Only
with my son-in-law (with whom he had previously exchanged letters)
he formed a friendship, and expressed himself very favourably on his
works because of his modesty. They visited the Escorial together.'
On the other hand, the name of Velazquez is not mentioned in the
extant correspondence of Rubens. The art of the young Spanish
painter shows little sign of direct reflection from the great Fleming.
Even in the ' Borrachos,' a picture that was begun about this time, it is
only in the general treatment of the subject that we can see any trace
of Flemish influence.
'The King,' says Rubens, writing from Madrid to Peiresc, 'evidently
takes great pleasure in my painting, and in my opinion the prince is
very well gifted. I know him by personal intercourse, for I have an
apartment in the palace, and he comes to see me nearly every day.' On
the other hand, in a letter to Gevartius, Rubens speaks of Philip's want
of self-reliance. ' He is the victim of his own credulity and of the
incapacity of others, and the object of a hatred that he has done nothing
to deserve.' This criticism is no doubt in the main directed against
Olivares. Rubens passed the whole winter (1628-29) at Madrid, and during
the eight months of his stay, he got through a prodigious amount of
work. He painted the King and the Royal Family, and copied the
Titians in the palace. ' I am here to paint — as everywhere else,' he
tells Peiresc, and this was in a measure the truth, but not the whole
truth. All through the winter there was diplomatic fencing with England.
Sir Francis Cottington was to come out to settle the terms of peace.
But now England hung back, and Cottington delayed his departure.
Finally, in the spring of 1629, it was determined to send Rubens to
London. He was to be on the same footing there as Endymion Porter
(who had remained in the Spanish capital in spite of the war) had been
in Madrid. This was a great triumph for Rubens. It is true he was
54

RUBENS AS DIPLOMATIST
not sent as an ambassador — he had no authority to conclude any
treaty — but at least he was now the direct representative of the
Spanish King. Before leaving, he obtained the honourable post of
Secretary to the Privy Council in the Netherlands, and he received
from the King a ring set with diamonds.1
Rubens was back in Paris by the 10th of May ; three days later
he was in Brussels. After an interview with the Infanta and a hur
ried visit to his home in Antwerp, he proceeded to Dunkirk. What
between contrary winds and Dutch cruisers, the passage of the Channel
was in those days a serious matter. One hears of important dispatches
being delayed for many weeks. But Rubens, on the 3rd of June
1629, found a passage to Dover in the Adventure, an English man-of-
war. On his arrival in London he went at once to the house of his
friend Gerbier.
As many as twenty-two dispatches that Rubens wrote from
London to Olivares have been found in the archives of Vienna and
Simancas. In them the progress of the negotiations (the earlier part
at least) may be traced. ' Here things begin with the King and finish
with the ministers,' he writes. ' The English,' so Rubens declared to
Charles, 'have every reason to fear the Dutch, whose power and
whose influence increase every day. With the aid of the English
Puritans, now discontented and ready to revolt, they could at any
day make themselves masters of the kingdom,' (Rubens to Olivares,
September 21). These remarks, says Rubens, made a great impres
sion on the King ; in his interviews with him all seemed on the point
of being settled, but when he came to deal with the ministers, with
Weston the treasurer, with Cottington the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer,
with Holland and Carlisle, difficulties arose on all sides.
There was no general agreement on a foreign policy ; but the
greatest obstacle to peace was the insistence of the English king upon
the rights of his brother-in-law, the Elector Palatine ; again, the French
party, supported by the Venetian ambassador, was definitely opposed
to an arrangement. Rubens was pitted against Richelieu, and he felt
bitterly the disadvantage in which he was placed by the dilatory
Spanish policy and the want of full powers. As it was, he was accused
by Olivares of overstepping the limits of the mission assigned to him,
but this charge Rubens vehemently repudiated. For the whole of
1 I may note that when at a later date Rubens petitioned that his position as cabaliero or
knight should be confirmed by the Spanish King, the precedent of Charles v. and Titian is
quoted.
55

RUBENS
the seven or eight months that he was detained in England the
negotiations went on with the Spanish court. In November he wrote
to the Infanta that the delay in sending from Madrid an ambassador
with full powers was likely to be fatal to the cause of peace. ' Maldijo
la hora en que vine a esto Reyno ' — ' May it please God that I depart
from it with success ' — so he ends his letter. This was after Cotting
ton had left for Spain (with a cargo of merchandise that he hoped
to sell at a profit) and after Rubens had received the formal thanks
of the Spanish Council.
Cottington, before leaving, had entertained Rubens at a magnificent
festival, and in October the great artist had visited Cambridge, when
the honorary degree of Magister in Artibus was conferred upon him.
It was not till the 7th of January 1630 that Coloma, the Spanish
ambassador, arrived, more than two months after the departure of
Cottington. Six weeks later Rubens was at length free to return
to his home, after an absence of eighteen months. King Charles,
before leaving, rewarded him, as was his wont, in right royal fashion.
On the 3rd of March, after creating him a knight, he presented
Rubens with the jewelled sword with which the accolade had been
performed, with a ring drawn from the royal finger and with a hat
band set with diamonds. These two jewels the King had bought
from Gerbier for £500. The diploma, which was not made out till
the following December, declared that the honour was granted to
Rubens as an acknowledgment of the ability that he made proof of
in the task of re-establishing a complete harmony between the crowns
of Spain and England.
There is nothing to show that Rubens had any great love for
England or the English. He was by nature entirely out of sympathy
with the puritan spirit; the reckless extravagance and consequent
venality of the English nobility is noted by him with strong expres
sions of disapproval. He protests more than once against the harsh
ness of the English maritime law, and the barbarities perpetrated by
English sailors. But, on the other hand, he was struck by the wealth
of the country and the widespread distribution of the amenities of
life. In the company of scholars and of connoisseurs of art he was
led to correct the previously formed impression that England was a
land of barbarians.
Rubens, during his stay in England, was probably regarded with
suspicion and dislike by the extreme Protestant party. At Dover his
departure was delayed by an order of the Secretary of State, Sir John
56

RUBENS AS DIPLOMATIST
Coke, on the information that some Catholic students were proposing
to seize the opportunity to make their way to Jesuit Colleges in France
and the Netherlands. We have no information as to how the matter
was settled.
It would have been well for Rubens's peace of mind had he at
this stage abandoned all connections with politics, and it would seem
that this was at first his intention. In the Spanish Council there was
some idea of sending him as resident to England, and this in spite
of the protest of some of the grandees against appointing one who
was 'persona de oficio que enfin es de manufactura y venal.' Philip
himself, at a later date, in a letter to his aunt, speaks of Rubens as
* a person well regarded at the English court, and very well fitted
by his prudence to negotiate all kinds of affairs' (April 1631).
To this Isabella replies that Rubens was not disposed to leave
Antwerp. Perhaps at this date his young wife had something to say
in the matter.
I will now briefly summarise the events of the last two years of
Rubens's diplomatic activity. Early in 1631 the court of Brussels was
thrown into consternation by the report of the escape from Compiegne,
where she had been kept in honorary confinement by Richelieu, of
the Queen-Dowager of France. On the arrival of Marie as a fugitive
at the Belgian frontier, it was Rubens who was deputed to negotiate
the terms of her reception. For him it was enough that the Queen
and her worthless son, Gaston d'Orleans, who was then in open war
fare with his brother the King, were the enemies of Richelieu. The
whole story is related by Rubens in a long dispatch to Olivares, in
which the violence and base ingratitude of the Cardinal is denounced.
The unnatural conduct of the French king and the reckless policy
of his minister are contrasted with the virtues and wisdom of the
Spanish statesman. When we remember the opinion previously
expressed by Rubens of Olivares and of his policy, this letter is not
pleasant reading.
Rubens, without doubt, genuinely sympathised with the afflictions
of his former patroness, the foolish and baffled Reine Mere. He seems
indeed on this occasion quite to have lost his head. Olivares, however,
turned a deaf ear to his entreaties for assistance either to the wretched
Gaston or to his mother. At a meeting of the Spanish Council he
pronounced the letter of Rubens to be unworthy of discussion. It
was full, he said, of absurdity and Italian verbiage — ' trae muchos des-
propdsitos y chdcharas Italianas.' The intention, he allowed, was
57

RUBENS
good. Rubens in one respect was justified by events. He foresaw in
Richelieu the relentless enemy of Spain. ,
When somewhat later (September 1631) Marie de Mddicis pro
ceeded to Antwerp in company with the Infanta, she was lodged in
the old Abbey of St. Michel. When she visited Rubens's studio,
La Serre, the official historian of her wanderings, recounts in inflated
language her admiration of the ' animated marvels ' of the great artist.
But, apart from pictures, there was another matter of greater urgency
to discuss. It was, in the first place, to pawn her jewels that the Queen
had come to the great market on the Scheldt, and who better than
Rubens could advise her in such matters ? He was indeed himself
ready to advance part of the money.
At the end of the year Rubens was sent on a secret and fruitless
mission to Prince Frederick Henry at the Hague. When in the
following spring (1632) he determined to have no more to do with
such work, he tells Gerbier that ' never did any resolution cause him
less regret.'
In 1632 the tide of war turned decidedly in favour of the Dutch.
The incompetence of the generals who replaced Spinola, and the luke-
warmness or even treason of the Belgian nobility, enabled Frederick
Henry to carry all before him. Isabella was fain to summon the States
General at Brussels. It was determined by that body to send a deputa
tion from their numbers to the Hague, to treat for peace. Among
the ten representatives chosen for this purpose was the Duke of
Aerschot, a prominent member of the old Belgian nobility. Now,
before this, Rubens had consented, at the entreaty of the Infanta, to
open once more secret negotiations with the Dutch. When this
became known to the deputation from the States, members to a man
of the aristocratic party, and none too well disposed to the Spanish
court at Brussels, there was an outcry of indignation. It was indeed
on the advice of Aerschot that the States had been summoned;
Isabella had appealed to him in the time of danger, when his loyalty
to the Spanish court was a matter of some doubt, and he had then
broken with his fellow nobles who were plotting against the Spanish
government. Gerbier, writing in January 1633, says : ' The Duke
d'Aerschot has great aversion to him [Rubens] for several reasons, too
long to relate.' We can, however, well guess of what nature these
reasons were. He regarded the Antwerp painter as a pushing parvenu
and a creature of the Spanish court. He may even have had suspicions
of a more serious kind.
58

RUBENS AS DIPLOMATIST
On the 28th of January the Duke was passing through Antwerp
on his way to the Hague. Rubens failed to call on him. At this
presumed breach of courtesy Aerschot expressed his annoyance. Where
upon Rubens addressed to him a letter in which he excused himself,
and went on to defend the part that he had taken in the negotiations.
' He would deem,' he said, ' unworthy of life one who should allow his
private interests to delay in any way the public cause.' This dignified
reply of Rubens brought down upon him a furious rejoinder from the
Duke — it was an outburst of long-suppressed rage. He ridicules the
expressions used by Rubens, who had begun his letter with the phrase :
' Je suis bien marry d'entendre le ressentiment que Vostre Excellence
a monstrd ... car je marche de bon pied, etc' The scathing reply
of the Duke commences thus : ' Monsieur Rubens, J'ai veu par vostre
billet le maryssement que vous avez . . . et que vous marchez de bon
pied' — he'then rates him for his incivility in not waiting on -him, and
for the impropriety of his conduct generally. He ends : ' Tout ce que
je puis vous dire, c'est que je seray bien aise que vous appreniez d'ores
en avant comme doibvent escrire a des gens de ma sorte ceux de la
vostre.' The Duke's wrath had not cooled down when he reached the
Hague ; he proclaimed to all that he had no need of painters, nor
would he have ought to do with them. Of all this the English agent,
William Boswell, dryly remarks : ' If they are angry at his [Rubens]
mixing in their business, it is probably because they know that he
understands more about it than they do.'
Such was Rubens's last experience as a diplomatist. A proposed
mission to Holland in 1635 came to nothing, as the Dutch would not
grant him a passport. This was the reward of ten years of service and
sacrifice in the cause of peace. There were complaints on both sides
to the Infanta — the insult was indeed as much to her as to Rubens —
but the matter ended ostensibly in her accepting the resignation of the
painter. The Duke of Aerschot was, however, summoned to Madrid,
nominally to explain the result of the negotiations. The visit of Rubens
in 1628 had, we may remember, a similar motive. A few months later
the Infanta died (December 1633). Almost her last act had been to
write to Philip advising him to detain the Duke on the ground of his
complicity in the late plots — this Gerbier was prepared to prove.
After a courteous reception Aerschot was thrown into prison. He
passed the remainder of his life in a Spanish fortress, dying in the same
year as the great artist whom he had so grossly insulted. It is stated
that Gerbier had received 20,000 crowns for betraying the conspirators 59

RUBENS
of 1632 ; they had appealed to him for assistance from Charles. That
Rubens had any part in this despicable business we may well doubt..
At the same time, he may have known something of the original
conspiracy. In any case there was more than enough to raise the
suspicion of Aerschot and the close friendship that Rubens maintained
to the end with a man of Gerbier's character can only fill us with
amazement.

60

CHAPTER VI
The Fourment Family — Rubens's Second Marriage— He buys the Chateau of
Steen — The 'Joyous Entry' of Ferdinand — Death of Rubens — The Division of
the Estate.
RUBENS'S political career began, as we have seen, in 1621 with
the sole rule of the Infanta. Twelve years later, it ended
with her death. We have now to turn to the second marriage
of the great artist, and to his life as a country gentleman.
Of the children of Rubens by his first wife, in 1630 there only
remained Albert, a studious lad of sixteen, who succeeded his father
as secretary to the Netherlands Council, and the twelve years old
Nicholas, who had served so many times as a model, whether for the
infant Christ or for a roguish boy playing with his fellow amorini.
On the 6th of December 1630, some six or seven months after his
return from London, Rubens was married to Helen Fourment, the
youngest daughter of Daniel Fourment, a wealthy silk-merchant.
Helen had not yet completed her seventeenth year. The Fourment
family belonged to that same circle of the haute bourgeoisie from which
came Rubens's first wife. There was indeed no member of it who had
attained to the high position of his father-in-law, the learned Jan
Brant. The families were, however, already connected, for as long
ago as 1619 the eldest brother of Helen had married a sister of
Isabella Brant. Rubens had been long intimate with the Fourment
family. The famous picture known as the ' Chapeau de Paille ' is a
portrait of an elder sister, Susanna, and this had been painted some
years before his second marriage. Susanna indeed had sat several
times to Rubens. M. Rooses speaks of her rare gifts, and would have
it that it was the cultivation of her mind that formed the link between
them — that she, in fact, acted the part of an Egeria to the great painter.
I do not find that any further proof of this is offered than can be dis
covered in her tall arched forehead and in her large — indeed preter-
naturally large — sympathetic eyes. On the other hand, there would
appear to be even less justification for the inscription ' JSfaitresse de
Rubens ' to be found on an old engraving of Susanna's portrait. There
61

RUBENS
is no hint of any scandal in the contemporary accounts. The sons
and daughters of Jan Brant and Daniel Fourment, an endless chain pf4
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, seem to have formed a prosperous
and pleasure-loving group, a society not too refined perhaps, according
to our present notions, but one prepared to enjoy the good things of
this world, and little troubled by the political anxieties of the time.
So we see them in such pictures as the ' Jardin d' Amour ' or in the
little 'Park Scene' at Vienna. (See below, Chap, x., for the portraits
of the Fourment family. )
That Rubens, now recently ennobled and Secretary to the Privy
Council of the Netherlands, slhould have sought a wife among his old
bourgeois connections is a tribute to the sound common sense that
ruled his life. The fact would tend to confirm the impression that in
his diplomatic aspirations Rubens was guided by no vulgar ambition,
but had the good of his country at heart. In a letter to Peiresc
(18th January 1634) he, however, thinks it necessary to adopt an apolo
getic tone in speaking of his marriage. After a passage that repeats
in substances a famous dictum of St. Paul on the subject of matrimony,
he says, 'I have then taken to wife a young woman of honourable
parents, but of bourgeois extraction, although all the world advised me
to choose a lady of the Court. But I feared above all to find in my
companion pride, that bane of the nobility. It is for this reason that
I have chosen one who will not blush at seeing me handle a brush.'
There is no need to describe the face or figure of Rubens's young
wife. Whether as decked out as a bride at Munich, as the happy
mother of the Louvre panel, or again as the stately young matron of
the two pictures lately at Blenheim, Helen Fourmerit is familiar to us
all. If we seek information as to her character we must go again to
the same pictures. There we have evidence of good nature, affection
for her children, both for her own and for those of Isabella Brant—
the little Nicholas of the Munich garden scene is, we see, quite happy
to act as her page — above all, complete dependence upon the will of
her husband. If she loved to deck herself in silk and fine feathers, she
was in this only carrying out her husband's wish ; she was equally
ready to stand as his model attired only in a ' courte pelisse.' Whether
she was a good manager we do not know ; Rubens calls her his ' house
wife,' but he was probably prepared to look after all such matters
himself. Rubens was now an ' armiger ' and a knight entitled to hold land on
feudal tenure; this is distinctly mentioned in the Spanish patent of
62

THE SECOND MARRIAGE
knighthood. Since the year 1627 he had been the owner of some
property in the polders, north of Antwerp ; the estate included a
country house, but we do not know if he ever lived there. It was not
till 1635 that he became the lord of the residence seigneurude of Steen,
that is so closely associated with the last years of the artist's life. This
estate is described (when advertised for sale at a later date) as a
* grande maison de pierre, avec autres beaux batiments, en forme de
Chateau, avec jardin, vergiers, arbres fruitiers, pont-levis ; avec une
grande butte au milieu de laquelle s'eleve une haute tour carree ; ayant
itang et ferme avec maison de fermier, etc. etc'
The old house, with its stepped gables, may be recognised to the
left in the great landscape in the National Gallery. The lofty battle-
mented tower, that no longer exists, is still better seen in the ' Tourna
ment Landscape ' of the Louvre. The Chateau of Steen lies between
Brussels and Malines, about seven miles to the north of the former
town. The low hills of Brabant have here sunk to the level plain that
stretches north to the Scheldt. The feudal tower is gone, and the
house is now the trim residence of a country gentleman ; but on one
side at least the stepped gables and the stone-lined mullion windows
have remained unchanged, and the moat is still fed by a clear-flowing
stream which, on the other side of the road, turns what was once the
seigniorial mill ; among tall flags and willow-herb the cattle stand
about in summer in the cool stream, just as we see them in the fore
ground of the landscape at Hertford House. The country around is
indeed quite flat, but well-timbered and fertile. Here, as Seigneur de
Steen — toparcha Steini, he is called on his epitaph — in possession of
full feudal rights, Rubens passed the last five summers of his life.
There is, however, an almost total absence of any documents that
can throw light upon the life of Rubens during these years. We know
that he suffered at this time from the gout ; as early as 1635 he was
confined to his bed for a month at a time by what he called his
' domestic enemy ' ! One has only to look at the worn expression and
pinched features in the portrait (now in Vienna) that he painted of
himself shortly after this time, to understand that illness, overwork and
anxiety had of late years combined to wreck a physical constitution
that had hitherto defied all calls upon it. But if the body was ailing
there is in his work to the very last not the slightest sign of any falling
off. More than that — it is in the pictures of these last years that we
may find the culmination of all that was best in the art of Rubens.
Perhaps in these very troubles, physical and mental, we may discover
63

RUBENS
an element that was wanting in the previously uninterrupted career of
success. Their very presence may have served as stimulants to the
inner artistic spirit. In any case, we have in this final flaring up of *
geniui a psychological problem of consummate interest.
But we must now once more return to the political changes and to
the endless war that forms the sombre background *o the life of Rubens.
The command in the Low Countries had long Wen held in reserve for
Ferdinand, the ' Cardinal Infant,' brother to the Spanish king, and now
the young prince set out from Italy to take the place left vacant bythe
death of his aunt Isabella. Ferdinand was active, intelligent, and, as a
soldier, of no mean capacity. He arrived in the Low Countries crowned
with laurels, for on the way he had joined the army of his cousin, the
King of Hungary, and the two at Nordlingen had completely over
thrown the Swedish forces (September 1634).
On the occasion of the ' Joyous Entry ' into Antwerp of the hand
some young prince, it was determined by the town council that the
procession (the ' Ommegang ') and the decorations should surpass in
magnificence even the previous record. Thirty-five years before this,
when another ex-Cardinal, the Archduke Albert, had been received in
the town, it was Rubens's master, Otto Venius, who had charge of the
decorations — in these, no doubt, the pupil had a hand. Now the general
direction, the planning, especially of the ' theatres ' and the triumphal
arches, was intrusted to Rubens. The details were discussed with his
old friends Niccolas Rockox and Gevartius. Money was collected
from every side — from the great banking house of the Fuggers, from
the Guild of St. Luke. But we are told that, of the foreign merchants,
only the Portuguese responded to the call.
If the old town was once more to deck itself out in honour of the
Spanish Infante, the occasion was not to be lost for impressing on the
young ruler the deplorable falling off. of the commerce of Antwerp.
Along with allegorical designs that celebrated the late victories of
Ferdinand, as well as the glory of his ancestors, there were others that
called attention to the decline of the city. At the end of the Rue
Haute was erected a vast trophy in the form of a theatre, one of many
others of a similar character ; here the weeping figure of Belgium
implored the prince to remove her bonds — that is to open again to
commerce the waterway of the Scheldt. On the central canvas the
god Mercury is seen taking his flight, while the figure of Navigation lies
sleeping in its chains. The best of the sculpture and the paintings,
those especially in which Rubens had had a hand, were subsequently
64

THE SECOND MARRIAGE
offered to Ferdinand in place of the customary present of money ; the
rest it was attempted to sell by auction. The expenses had greatly
exceeded the estimate, and there was much heart-burning and conten
tion before the money could be found. The official record of the event
was preserved in a sumptuous volume, the Pompa Introitus, of which
the text was composed by the learned Gevartius, and the engravings of
the arches, theatres, and porticos, executed by Van Thulden. When,
after endless delay, in December 1642, the work at length appeared,
both Ferdinand and Rubens were in their graves.
It was a matter of rejoicing to Rubens that in the next few years
the new Regent gained a series of successes over the old enemy. The
victory over the Dutch at Calloo (1638) was celebrated by further
rejoicings at Antwerp, and Rubens designed a triumphal car with
allegorical figures. The young prince had pretentions to connoisseur-
ship ; he visited Rubens in his studio, and appointed him his court
painter. For his brother the king, Rubens in these later years was
covering with desperate haste canvas after canvas. As soon as they
were dry, the pictures were sent off in batches to Madrid, the larger ones
through France with special passport. It was one of Ferdinand's
duties, in the intervals of his campaign against the Dutch and the
French, to report to Philip the progress of the work, and to encourage
the now ailing and gout-racked painter to fresh efforts.
We have but few personal records of Rubens during these last
years. In 1637 he married his ward Anna, the daughter of his old
friend Jan Breughel, to David Teniers the younger. In all his corre
spondence I can only find one letter in which there is any reference,
and this slight enough, to his life at Steen. This is a note addressed
to his favourite pupil of later days, Lucas Faid'herbe. Writing to
Antwerp from his country house (August 1638) — ' It is strange,' he
says, ' that we hear nothing of the Ay wine, for that which we brought
with us is all drunk.' This Vin d'Ay comes from the Champagne
district ; it was then much in favour, and was drunk during the year
succeeding the vintage. I have already quoted the passage from this
letter where he asks that the gardener should send the Rosalie pears
and the figs from the town garden. It was to this same Faid'herbe
that Rubens wrote his last letter, the last at least that has come down
to us (9th May 1640). Faid'herbe was about to be married, and Rubens
sends him his congratulations with those of his ' huysfrouwe ' and of his
sons. His huysfrouwe, he says, will in a few days pass through Malines
on her way to Steen. The summer-flitting then took place early in
R.-5 65

RUBENS
May. The tone of the letter is hearty and friendly, with some of the
customary * chaff' that was at the time thought indispensable on such
an occasion. It was probably not till 1639 that the gout, that had troubled
Rubens for so many years, seriously interfered with his work. In April
he was unable to sign his name, so bad was the attack in his right hand.
Yet in this year there is every reason to believe that Rubens carried out
with this hand a whole series of large pictures. In fact, up to the last
month of his life Rubens was able, not only to write long and cheerful
letters (as that to Faid'herbe already quoted), but in all probability to
work at his easel. On the 9th of April, 1640, he writes to Rome to his
friend Francois de Quesnoy — ' Were I not prevented by my age and
the gout, which renders me absolutely useless, I should hasten to
you.' As late as the 2nd of May, Ferdinand reports to his brother
' that Rubens hopes to finish the large picture and the ten small ones
before next Easter.'
But on the last day of the same month Gerbier writes to Murray
from Brussels—' Sir Peter Paul Rubens is deadly sick, the phisicians of
this town being sent unto him to trye their best skill on him.' Rubens
was indeed by this date already dead.
On the 27th of May, only three days before the end, Rubens recast
his will. By the new arrangement, Helen was to receive half of the
capitalised property. This was the share of the ' bien de communaute'
et d'acbat ' that came to the wife according to the usages and rights of
the town ; much jewelry too went to her, including a ' chain of Indian
work composed of 13 towers,' and the diamond ring presented by
Charles i. The will was in the form of a mutual one between Helen
and her husband ; and, in addition to her moiety, she received a share
equal to that of each of the children. To the studious Albert he left
his books ; the agates and the medals were shared between Albert and
Nicholas, on the condition that they should accept without demur the
other terms of the will. Some opposition on the part of the sons of the
first marriage, to the large share given to their step-mother was perhaps
looked forward to.1 For the large collection of drawings there was a
curious proviso. These were to go to any son or son-in-law who should
become a professional artist ; if by the time that Rubens's youngest child
was eighteen no such case had arisen, they were to be sold for the
benefit of the general estate. The pictures, the statues, and the other
1 We know, however, from other documents, that their rights had already been secured, pro
bably by the terms of their mother's marriage-settlement.
66

THE SECOND MARRIAGE
works of art, were to be sold at suitable time and place, publicly
or ' de main a main,' in the most advantageous way, and that on the
advice of the painters Frans Snyders, Jan Wildens, and Jacques Moer-
mans. The latter was to undertake the sale of the engravings, and in
remuneration for the task a picture by Rubens was bequeathed to him.
There were several other separate bequests of pictures — the portraits of
the testator's two wives and the corresponding ones of himself were to
go to their respective children, and the picture known as ' Het Pelsken '
(the ' Courte Pelisse ' now at Vienna) is left to the widow.1
Rubens died on the 30th of May 1640. We have singularly little
information concerning the reception of the news in his own town.
The ever-busy Gerbier mentions it in his letters home without any
expression of regret. Writing to Murray on 2nd June he says : ' Sir
Peeter Rubens is deceased three days past. So as Jordaens remains ye
prime painter here.' This is what occurs to him as the most interesting
result of the departure of his old and faithful friend. Perhaps there
was something else in his mind — the dead take their secrets to the
grave ! More suitable to the occasion is the reflection of the Abbe" de St.
Germain in a letter to Moretus. — ' He has left us, and gone to behold
the originals of the many beautiful pictures that remain with us here'
Rubens's papers and letters probably passed to his son Albert ; but
what became of them at the death of the latter is not known. The
Belgian archivists are still searching for them. In 1891 his final will
(from which I have quoted above) and some other documents came to
light while making some repairs at the Castle of Gaesbeck. The hopes
for further discoveries were thereby revived. But since this, it does
not appear that anything more has been found.
The funeral, as we know from the detailed accounts ofthe expenses
incurred, was carried out with due pomp. There were funeral feasts,
where the ' baked meats ' were washed down with liberal draughts of
the Ay wine, perhaps some of the very vintage of which Rubens had
lately laid in a stock ; there were gifts to religious houses and to the
poor ; finally, provision was made for many hundred masses for the good
of the artist's soul.
It was not till three years later that the body was deposited in the
chapel that had meantime been erected behind the high altar of the
Church of St. Jacques. Rubens on his deathbed had expressed a desire
to be buried in the great church so intimately connected with the
1 For the discovery of this will, see below. It was summarised by M. Bonaffe in the Gaxette des
Beaux Arts for 1892, and has been printed in full in the Bulletin Rubens for 1895.
67

RUBENS
artistic life of Antwerp. The picture that he selected to hang above
his tomb is a superb example of his later manner ; but those who find
in it portraits of the great artist and his family are certainly on the
wrong scent. An inscription below the altar-piece records that the
widow and children had consecrated the chapel, the altar, and the
picture to the Mother of God in memory of the deceased. There is in
the chapel no distinct monument or wall-plate to Rubens. A design
for one was indeed made, and the drawing was discovered some years
ago ; on it is a Latin epitaph composed by his friend Gevartius. It
was only in 1755 that a canon of the church, a descendant of Rubens
on the spindle side, caused the composition of Gevartius to be engraved
in front of the altar upon the slab that covers the vault. There is the
usual reference to ' the modern Apelles,' and this finds its place between
the praises of the wide learning of the deceased and the record of his
titles and honours. Finally, as his principal title to fame, is recorded
the fact that it was Rubens who laid the basis of the peace that was
some time later arranged between Philip, King of Spain and the Indies,
and Charles, King of Great Britain.
About a year after the death of Rubens, a careful inventory or
specification was drawn up of all the pictures found in his house. Of
this inventory — it was intended for a sale catalogue, but no public sale
ever took place — a unique example exists in the Bibliotheque JVationale.1
It is strange that so important a document has never been accurately
reproduced in any accessible publication, even M. Rooses has not found
room for it in his bulky biography. A contemporary English version
— probably identical with the Register of the late Sir Peter Rubens's
Rarities, sent by Gerbier to Murray for the information, no doubt, of
Charles i. — is an incomplete and not very accurate version of the
original. This English catalogue has been printed by Dawson Turner
and by Sainsbury.
The executors parted with most of the pictures by private bargain.
Philip iv. not only instructed Jordaens (after, it would seem, an
unsuccessful application to Vandyke) to complete some of the pictures
already commissioned but left unfinished by Rubens, but the agent of
the king in the Netherlands was ordered to purchase thirty-two addi
tional works from the executors, among them several copies from
Titian and other Venetians. He took, besides, a landscape by Bril and
1 Catalogue des Peintures et RareUs qui se vendront a Anvers au mois de Mai, 1641, dans la maison
mortuaire de Mesr. P. P. Ruf>ens, Chevalier et Seigneur de Steen. According to J. F. M. Michel
(Vie de Rubens, Brussels, 1771), the idea of a public auction was abandoned, and the items were
valued and disposed of separately.
68

THE SECOND MARRIAGE
four little works by Elsheimer. Not a few other pictures were bought
by different members of the artist's family. Gerbier wrote home
immediately after the death of Rubens : ' There wil be manny raritys
of Pictures, Agats, and otther pretious things sould in Sr Peeter
Rubens outcry ; if his Mag*y would have anything bought, it must be
knowne in time and bills of credit sent ; for it must be done with reddy
money.' But the English king had at this time other matters to
occupy his attention, and there is no record that any pictures were
procured for England.
As I have said, no sale ever took place. Many of Rubens's works
were given as presents to those who had rendered services to the
executors — copies of his pictures found in the house were thus freely
distributed. What remained — after being widely advertised by bills in
Holland and elsewhere — were disposed of by private bargaining.1 Not
till the end of 1645, after not a little friction between the widow and
her two stepsons, was the estate wound up. It has been valued at
400,000 florins, equal to about £100,000 in present currency.
The drawings were sold in 1657. Many of them were, it would
seem, bought by Jabach, the great banker of Cologne. From him
they passed to the French king — this was the nucleus of the vast
collection of drawings by Rubens in the Louvre. Others remained in
Antwerp, and a large collection was brought together in the eighteenth
century by Albert of Saxe-Teschen, husband of the Austrian regent,
and the founder of the famous Albertina cabinet, now one of the glories
of the Austrian capital.
1 It is not clear how many of the pictures catalogued by the notary in the inventory of 1641
were disposed of in the following years. Both Rooses' and Emile Michel's accounts ofthe whole
transaction are far from satisfactory.

69

PAKT II
CHAPTER VII
Aesthetic Analysis — The Task of the Critic — The Predecessors of Rubens — the
Romanists — The Home-stayers — The Landscape-painters.
THE main facts of the life of Rubens have now been rapidly
narrated. It has been my endeavour to select from his cor
respondence and from the notices of contemporaries whatever
would throw light on his personal character, or would illustrate his
position both as a man of general culture and as a diplomatist. As
regards the strictly private life of Rubens the material is unfortunately
very scanty, and not less scanty is the information that can be gleaned
concerning his life as an artist — this is a subject rarely touched upon in
his correspondence. We can, however, now form a fairly clear picture of Rubens as he
appeared to his contemporaries. We see him as an eminently success
ful man in his commerce with the world. He was quite abreast with
the culture of the day, interested in the researches of his learned cor
respondents, above all a practical man, a judge of character, and ready
to adapt himself to his surroundings ; winning in manner and plausible,
knowing how to gain his point, and how in the main to have his own
way. He was a good organiser, and thrifty in the management of his
affairs. The trite old saying of Juvenal, the ' mens sana in corpore
sano ' that he inscribed on the portico of his garden, was for him a
sufficient guide in the regulation of his life. As for deeper questions,
he was content— to continue the quotation from the Latin poet — ' to
order his life in accordance with the ruling of the gods,' that is, to
accept the world as he found it, without too deeply probing the grounds,
theological or social, on which that world was based.
It must be borne in mind that in this estimate I am carefully putting
apart all the elements that go to constitute the artistic side of Rubens's
character. That this can be readily done in his case is, I think, a
significant fact. To consider the matter even on the material side—
70

THE PREDECESSORS OF RUBENS
that this many-sided man of the world had a business, an atelier from
which he drew a large and steady income, does not much affect our
general estimate of the man or of the position that he held among his
contemporaries. No doubt a certain additional lustre surrounded him
as ' the Apelles of his age ' ; while, on the other hand, his ' mechanical
pursuit' was more than once thrown in his teeth by the haughty
nobility both of Spain and of his own country.
It is for us another and a more important question how far the work
of Rubens as a painter was influenced by the world into which he was
thrown, and by what we may call the material circumstances of his life.
Again, behind this question of the milieu there is another and a more
intimate one — this is concerned with the native endowments of the
man, using that term in its widest sense, so as to include not only his
physical endowments, such as his power of withstanding fatigue and the
delicacy and accuracy of his organs of sense, but in addition his force of
intellect and strength of will. All these are points upon which more
or less light should have been thrown in the foregoing biography. That
Rubens takes a high position under some of these heads, a commanding
one under others, will be at once acknowledged. What, however, I
want to dwell upon here is, that we have not even yet got to the central
element in the artist's nature. We may elaborately describe the
artist's milieu, may exhaustively analyse his mental and physical gifts,
and yet have barely touched upon the distinctive power, the possession
of which is the primary cause of the interest we take in the man, and
alone justifies the toil and expenditure of time both in the case of the
writer and of the reader of an artist's life. It is here that the biogra
pher of a great artist comes into contact with the very crux of his
argument, and the position that he takes up regarding this point must
determine the whole treatment of the subject.
As to the nature of this intimate gift — we may call it creative force,
inspiration, welling up of subliminal consciousness — this I must leave
to. those who attack the problems of the ' higher psychology.' There
are some*who would whittle away this creative power in the case of a
great artist, who would find in it a mere product of his mental and
physical endowments — in the case of a painter, of the accuracy of his
visual perception, combined with a delicate co-ordination ofthe muscles
of eye and hand. If to these gifts, and to some others, are added
certain intellectual powers, and a strength of will resulting in persever
ance and industry, then, it is said, we have all the elements requisite
for the equipment of a great painter— nothing more is wanted. This
71

RUBENS
has been, on the whole, the ground taken by inquirers of an inductive
turn of mind, by those who claim to be guided by experience and by
the comparison of individual instances. But in the case of the forma
tive arts — so at least it seems to me — it is just when we come to collect
and compare together our telling examples, that this explanation of the
artistic faculty breaks down ; as a working theory it is not supported
by experience. Of some hundred young artists who are at the same
time being trained to their work, amid the same surroundings and with
equal advantages, some twenty or thirty may be endowed with the
gifts essential to the successful painter — eye, hand, and brain may
work together. But among this last group, one and one only, no more
gifted apparently than his fellow scholars, neither more industrious nor
persevering than they, will as time goes on give proof in his work of
qualities that place him in a position quite apart from his former
companions— he takes his place among the great artists of the world.
Neither in the case of a Rembrandt or a Velazquez can we find
anything in the mental or physical equipment with which the young
painter started to place him definitely apart from his compeers. No
doubt hard work and a mind concentrated upon the task before him
will in time enable an artist to express with his hand what the eye has
conveyed to the brain. So in the case of Rubens, an infinitely refined
and responsive muscular equipment — eye, brain, and hand, linked by
nerves of exceptional delicacy — enabled the painter in time to call to life,
with the pigments on his palette, the colour impression received upon
a sensitive retina. Such bodily gifts were no doubt quite exceptional,
and by no other artist probably have such endowments been so gener
ously and yet economically made use of.
But it is not these endowments alone that have given Rubens his
lofty place in the world of art. They were but the machinery by means
of which the genius of the artist was able — and this not at once, but
only after long training— to find full expression. Behind them there
was the intangible, evasive something, the creative element, that not
only places the great painter, poet, or musician apart from his fellows,
but, whenever it is present, finds a distinct and individual expression.
It is with the recognition of this final endowment that the higher
criticism of art is concerned, and the appreciation of the presence of
such an element in the work of an artist seems to involve mental gifts
almost as rare as the endowment itself. The great artist is creative
and objective : the critic is but an interpreter, and his mental attitude
must, from the very nature of his task, be subjective and receptive He
72

THE PREDECESSORS OF RUBENS
is exposed to all the shifting currents of an emotional nature. How,
then, is he to steer his way and arrive at definite and consistent results.
To answer that question would be to expound a theory of aesthetic
criticism. All I can here say is, that the critic is more likely to move
in a healthy and bracing atmosphere if he will, as far as lies in his
power, identify himself with the artist whose work stands before him,
follow not only the lines of the brush, but, as far as his imaginative
powers allow, enter into the mental attitude and aim of the painter.
In this endeavour, I may add by the way, he will be greatly assisted
by the study of drawings, still more perhaps of preparatory sketches
and unfinished pictures. Fortunately, in the case of Rubens there is no
deficiency of such material.
But the critic of art who insists in dwelling in these lofty regions
is in danger of losing both himself and his reader in a shifting mist of
subjective appreciations. When we come to examine the pictures of
Rubens, we shall find the widest contrasts in the estimation of them by
those in whose judgment we are prepared to place the highest confidence
— by Fromentin, or Delacroix or Burger, to say nothing of the older
writers of art, such as Sir Joshua Reynolds and Horace Walpole. But
there are humbler, but not less rich, fields to be explored at a lower
level. Much that is entertaining and even instructive has been written
about pictures by men more remarkable for intellectual gifts than for
the possession of the artistic temperament. It is reported of Taine, the
great French critic of life, who had much to say about art, that he
could in practice scarcely tell one picture from another. On the other
hand, it has been cruelly said of the German critic Waagen, whose word
in the world of art was once law with us, that his opinion upon the merits
of a picture were not always the same before and after luncheon.
The material evidence about a picture passes indeed insensibly into
the artistic estimation. This is true even of dates and attributions,
still more in the case of inquiries of a technical kind, as to the nature
of the brushwork in a picture, or of the pigments and varnishes used.
What is essential is, that the writer who has to enter into these material
details should not imagine that he has advanced beyond the thresh
old of his subject.
Before I proceed to take up in chronological order the pictures of
Rubens, either one by one or in groups, the attempt must be made to
form some estimate of the place that he occupied in relation to his
predecessors and contemporaries. Now, putting aside for the moment
73

RUBENS
all question of original creative genius — in the case of a painter such
genius has little chance of asserting itself until the machinery — nerves^
muscles, and eyes — has been brought under perfect control — I should be
inclined to define the position of Rubens as that of a strongly
characterised Fleming who had learned his art among eclectic sur
roundings derived almost in entirety from the South. While in the
studio of Vaenius and during the eight years passed in Italy, the point
of view of Rubens was on the whole that of his contemporaries, the
Carracci ; but as an eclectic, both early and late, it was to Venice that
he looked rather than to Rome or Florence. This Italian material
was melted down, passed into a Flemish mould, and then stamped
with his own individual mark. His artistic ancestry on the Italian
side I shall not attempt to follow up, but of that strange school that
flourished in the Low Countries in the sixteenth century, a school in
which Rubens received his earliest training, a word must be said.
There is' one place, and one place only, where the works of this school
can be studied, and that is in the great gallery at Antwerp. A few
examples may be found at Brussels, and others are scattered through
the churches of Flanders. The school is totally unrepresented in our
English galleries, public or private. The great painters of the day,
from Jan Massys and Frans Floris to the innumerable artists who,
in the next generation, bore the names of De Vos and Francken,
reserved their best works for their native town, for the public build
ings, guildhouses, and churches of Antwerp, whence they have passed
to the museum.
Already at the beginning of the sixteenth century the painters of
Antwerp had taken a prominent position, not only in their own special
guild of St. Luke (where indeed they, had relegated the sculptors of all
kinds and the architects to the background), but they had pushed their
way into many of the literary associations. The Rederij-kammer, for
example, the famous society that took the violet as its badge, had
become, before the end of the fifteenth century, a dependency of the
painters' guild — the two were often regarded as identical. Pictura et
Poesis — it was for the cultivation of these that the societies met
together, but it is of their great feasts, held twice a year, and of their
generous expenditure at times of public rejoicing, that we hear most.
These banquets were indeed important events in the municipal life.
It was at one of them that Albert Diirer was received in 1520. 'At
the meal all the vessels were of silver, and the food was costly. Among
those present were many men of stately presence ; their wives, too,
74

THE PREDECESSORS OF RUBENS
were all present.' Great was the contrast with the simple, homely life
to which the great painter of Nuremberg had been accustomed.
The members of these guilds and social clubs were expected on
certain occasions, for example, on retiring from the position of dean or
yearly president, to present to the society a picture, often a work of
some importance. At other times two or more artists would combine
to paint one of these quaint guild-pieces, strange combinations of
symbolism and heraldry, many examples of which may be seen in the
Antwerp Museum.
It is from the entries in the books of the guild of St. Luke, the
Liggeren or registers, that most of what is definitely known of the
lives of the Antwerp artists has been pieced together. By means of
these entries we may check the fanciful stories told by the old
biographers, by Van Mander, or by De Bie. Here are registered the
day on which the young student entered the studio of the master, the
date on which he himself became a master, the fines in which he was
mulcted for breaking the rules of the guild, the year and day of his
death, and at times much besides. It is true that there are many gaps,
some difficult to explain. The name of Rubens, as a student, does
not appear ; at a later date, by his appointment as court-painter to the
Archdukes, he was, as we have seen, freed from all duties and charges
connected with the guild. We are thus deprived of what would have
been an invaluable record of the pupils whom he received in his studio.
Antwerp indeed in the sixteenth century was, apart from Italy, the
artistic centre of Europe.' Nor was there probably any town in Italy,
not even Venice, where the painters took so high a position in the
municipal life, nor where, as represented by their guilds, they formed so
united and well organised a body. The town was the great art mart
of Europe. At an early date the colouring of carved woodwork provided
perhaps more occupation than any other branch of the painter's calling.
In Germany, and to some extent in the Low Countries, this painted
schnitzwerk for long gave the key to the work executed in the flat on
panels. In the fifteenth century the painters of Antwerp and Brussels
had combined their forces, and in the former town, at the great yearly
fair, the members of the united guild were alone permitted to display
for sale, on the benches around the cathedral, the carved tabernacles
and shrines, or the painted panels that were distributed thence over the
half of Europe. Already, by 1460, a special hall had been allotted — the
Pand — for the sale of books, pictures, and carvings. This Pand, closely
connected with the old and new Bourses, came in time to be a kind of
75

RUBENS
permanent gallery for the display and sale of works of art. The name
is preserved in the Lange and Korte Pandstraet that lie to the east of
the present Bourse.
The great panels and canvases that the Antwerp masters df the
sixteenth century painted for the churches and the guilds of their town
are tributes to their perseverance and industry. There was no scamping
of the work, the officers of the guilds looked after that. Every inch of
the surface is finished as in a miniature ; so thorough is the execution
that the colours are as brilliant to-day as when the work came from the
painter's studio. As for the subjects chosen, they follow on the whole
those painted by Rubens in later days— sacred history first, then classical
history and mythology ; they are rarely concerned with contemporary
events. As in the case of Rubens again, the aim seems to have been
to follow as closely as possible in the wake ofthe great Italian masters,
and to clothe the whole with a garb of southern origin. But with these
sixteenth-century masters the southern clothes will not fit. In spite of
years spent in the study of anatomy and the learned drawings of the
later Roman school, the carefully painted muscles will not work, the
skilfully posed figures stand isolated and petrified — there is no real life
in them. So of the colouring ; the glitter and sheen of the surface are
unrelieved by any passages of repose. Certain nacreous effects, obtained
by rapidly changing and quite conventional local tints, are at times not
unpleasing, and these quasi-classical compositions of the North, in this
respect, compare not unfavourably with the dull and chilly canvases of
Vasari or Bronzino, that may at times have served as models. In this
quality of colour, indeed, these sixteenth-century men form a link be
tween the later work of Quentin Massys and the early work of Rubens.
Others, more especially after the middle of the century, went more
directly to the contemporary Venetian masters ; this was above all the
case with Otto Vaenius, the master of Rubens. Tintoretto in the later
years of the century was a name much honoured in the north ; Titian
was of course the supreme master with them all ; but in the works of
these northern followers of the Venetians it is of the poorer pictures of
such painters as Paris Bordone, or again of the Bassanos, that one is
most reminded.
I will take two examples to illustrate the life and work of these
sixteenth-century Italianisers. Frans Floris and Marten de" Vos were
men of commanding influence in their day, living in princely fashion,
and the latter at least taking a place of some importance in the annals
of Antwerp. We shall find many points of resemblance as well as of
76

THE PREDECESSORS OF RUBENS
marked contrast between their social position and that held later by
Rubens. Frans de Vriendt, known as Floris (c. 1516-1570), belonged to a
family all of whose members were artists of one kind or another. His
father was a painter, his brother Cornells was the greatest architect of
the day in Antwerp ; another brother was a painter on glass, and a third
a famous potter who entered the service of the Spanish king. Frans,
we are told, on his return from Italy was overwhelmed with commis
sions and acquired great wealth. Van Mander paints him as a man of
considerable mental gifts, mixing on friendly terms with the Prince of
•Orange and other famous men of the day ; he occupied a palatial house
built for him by his brother Cornells. For all that, Frans Floris was a
determined toper, whose boast it was that he could hold more wine than
any of his boon-companions. This is indeed a charge freely brought
against the Flemish and Dutch artists by their biographers. Those
who went to Italy returned like the Prodigal Son. The proverb went
Hoe schilder, hoe wilder, — ' as wild as a painter.' Would that it might
run — Hoe schilder, hoe stilder, ' as quiet as a painter,' says a writer of
the day. The careful and indeed laborious execution of the pictures of
Floris makes such charges as these little credible. Frans was a poor
colourist compared with many of his contemporaries ; his ambition was
to be reckoned as the Michelangelo of the north. Hence the learned
anatomy and the swelling muscles in his ' Last Judgments ' and ' Falls
of Rebel Angels ' ; more pleasing are his numerous ' Adorations of the
Kings.' Marten de Vos (1532-1603) was one ofthe one hundred and twenty
pupils who passed through Frans Floris's studio. De Vos was a most
prolific painter ; the Antwerp Museum possesses thirty -three works by
him, some of colossal size. He is said to have studied under Tintoretto
in Venice, and even to have painted the background of some of his
pictures. There is little to call to mind the subdued opulence of the
Venetian's palette in the glittering and often metallic tints of De Vos's
crowded compositions, but the man was in his way something of a
colourist. Like Rubens in the next generation, the industrious Marten
gave employment to a whole school of engravers. Like Rubens, too,
although many of his subjects are taken from sacred history, he rejoiced
in elaborate allegory. During that brief but stormy period of com
parative freedom which preceded the capture of Antwerp by Farnese in
1585, Marten de Vos took his place as a prominent citizen. A once
popular engraving after a work of his records the rejoicings that accom-
77

RUBENS
panied the throwing open of the hated Spanish Citadel. But, for all that,
his pictures were sought after by the Spaniards, and an important work
of his is still to be seen in Seville. When in 1597 De Vos painted the
picture of the ' Marriage of Cana ' that now hangs in the Cathedral,
Rubens was already a pupil in the studio of Otto Vaenius. We must
remember that there were painters in Antwerp working in the old hard,
' unemancipated ' style, even after the return of Rubens from Italy.
Of the artists who went to Italy, some like Denys Calvaert never
returned. Jan Calcar, who came from the Cleve district, took his
place as a member of the Venetian school. Others, like Bertol Spranger
and Joris Hoefnagel, settled in Germany. But there was another set
of painters who, although they can with difficulty be brought into
connection with Rubens, are in other respects of greater interest to us
than are these Italianisers. These were the men who carried on the
traditions of Quentin Massys and rejected the classical teaching of the
Romanists — the Flemish realists who painted the people and the scenes
amid which they passed their lives. Of these the earliest, and in some
ways the most interesting, was Pieter Aertszen, known as Lange Pier
(c. 1507-1575), who, although he began and ended his days in Amster
dam, was a citizen of Antwerp and a master there of the Painters' Guild.
' Long Peter ' is well known by his pictures of kitchen interiors ; in his
naturalistic treatment of such subjects he had many imitators, and that
not only in his own country. When Bassano, or even at times the
superb Veronese, turned from the stately banqueting scenes to the
offices where the feast was in preparation under the care of Martha or
another (Mary and her Master in such a case take a quite subordinate
place in the background), we may probably recognise the influence ofthe
northern realistic art ; the early ' bodegone ' scenes of Velazquez may
perhaps be traced ultimately to the same source. The work of Aertszen
and of his nephew and pupil, Joachim Beuckelaer, smacks of the soil ; it
is nowhere to be better studied than in the gallery at Brussels. The
kitchenmaids of Lange Pier are of living flesh and blood ; they put to
shame the gorgeously robed lay figures of his Italianising rivals. It is in
the pictures of these men, and with them we may class Jan Sanders van
Hemessen, whose biblical subjects are treated in homely fashion, that
the peculiar tone of colour that characterises the Flemish school as a
whole, and found later prominent exponents in Brouwer and Teniers,1
1 M. Rooses finds in Jordaens the direct descendant of these sixteenth-century naturalists ; but
in spite of his realistic leanings, the rich and original hues of this great colourist place him in some
respects further apart from them than Rubens himself— the Rubens, I mean, ofthe earlier Antwerp
period.
78

THE PREDECESSORS OF RUBENS
first becomes prominent. Certain tawny, ochry tints form the basis of
their work — into them the local colours are worked ; raw and burnt
sienna, or something akin, seem to dominate the whole school. Of
Rubens himself it may indeed be said that it is the steeping of the hues
of the Venetians in these native ochry tints that gives the prevailing
tone to his pictures ; this is visible in his early if not in his earliest work.
I would exemplify what I mean by the copies from Titian made while
in Rome that are now at Stockholm.
But, of all this homely school, it is Peter Breughel who, as a painter
of peasant life and still more as a landscapist, interests us most to-day.
Peter was an original genius and the founder of a large family of artists,
who were at work for at least a century. The grim humour of the
father was lost in the more mechanical and tame works of his son, the
second Peter or ' Hollen ' Breughel. His younger son, Jan, developed a
style of his own, and his little landscapes were repeated ad infinitum by
a son, and probably a grandson, down to the middle of the seventeenth
century. Rubens admired the genius of the elder Peter ; his work may
have influenced his treatment of peasant life in later days. With Jan
or ' Velvet ' Breughel (so called from his love of fine clothes) Rubens
was intimately connected during the earlier part of his life at Antwerp ;
they painted many pictures in conjunction, and the great artist even
deigned at times to imitate the dainty style and handling of his friend.
When Breughel died in 1625, Rubens became the guardian of his
children. There were numberless portrait painters at Antwerp in the sixteenth
century, but only one has attained to European reputation — Anton
Mor, whom, as Sir Anthony More and Antonio Moro, we hardly think
of as an Antwerp painter. In that town, however, he was born, and
there he passed his latter days, dying perhaps in the very year that
Rubens was born. These portrait painters wandered off for the most
part to Spain, to France, or to England. From Joost van Cleef, early
in the century, to the younger Frans Pourbus, the contemporary of
Rubens and his rival at the court of the Gonzagas, they found ready
patrons in all the courts of Europe. Of no slight merit are the por
traits that some of the ambitious Romanists found time to paint in the
midst of their more important engagements ; it is a marvel what down
right sound work these men could produce. In the galleries of Belgium
and Germany they come upon one as a surprise. For such a work as
' The Falconer ' of Frans Floris at Brunswick, to give but one example,
we could well spare whole acres of their elaborate, crowded allegories79

RUBENS
or Bible scenes. In many of these last, however, on close inspection
individual heads full of character and life may at times be found-
portraits, in fact, of contemporaries. Rubens himself, it must be
remembered, was but casually a portrait painter.
The landscape painters of the Low Countries in the sixteenth
century can hardly be said to form a school, nor is there any one of
them who rose to distinction ; but in the history of the evolution of
landscape painting they, occupy a position of some importance. We
have in them the first body of artists who devoted themselves to land
scape as a separate branch of art, and it is through them that passed
the tradition that links such works as those of Patinir and Herri met
de Bles with the fully developed landscape of Paul Bril, and Bril, we
know, has some claim to be considered as the founder of the Roman
school of landscape painting of the seventeenth century.
The northern landscape school — we will call it so for convenience —
had its rise early in the sixteenth century on the banks of the Meuse,
and in the next generation the most prominent artists, Lucas van
Valckenborch, for instance, lived at Malines. None of these men can
have had any direct influence upon Rubens ; the few landscapes that
he painted in the earlier part of his career were Italian, or at least
classical in character — their analogies are with the school of the
Carracci. A closer inquiry, indeed, but one that would take us too
far, would perhaps show that the Italian revivalists of the time had
in their treatment of landscape themselves learned much from the
northerners. On the other hand, some of the assistants of Rubens-
Van Uden is a prominent instance — carried on the traditions of the
older landscape painters, and in the glorious landscapes that Rubens
painted in his last years, the local scenery is treated in the main on the
lines of his Flemish precursors. Even in the great canvases at
Trafalgar Square and Hertford House some of the conventions and
mannerisms that had been carried over from the earlier Antwerp
painters maybe traced.

80

CHAPTER VIII
The Earliest Works of Rubens — Pictures and Drawings made in Italy.
I HAVE already said something ofthe training that Rubens received
in the studios of Verhaeght, of Adam van Noort, and of Otto
Vaenius. The first we know only as a somewhat indifferent
landscape painter ; he is not mentioned in the Vita of Philip Rubens,
and his influence on Rubens was probably nil. At the present day the
reputation as a painter of Adam van Noort rests upon a single picture,
the masterly ' Tribute-Money ' in the church of St. Jacques. On the
strength of this work Van Noort has been claimed as the founder of
the great Flemish school of the seventeenth century. But this fine
picture, if it is by him, and even this is not quite certain, is distinctly a
work of a later day. At the time when Rubens was in his studio, Van
Noort was a comparatively young man ; he indeed survived his pupil,
dying in 1641.
Otto Vaenius is of more importance : he was a man of culture with
whom Rubens would have had much in sympathy. Vaenius indeed
was but a poor painter ; there is a helplessness about the grouping and
the pose of his figures that gives an amateurish look to his work com
pared with that of many of his contemporaries. He had, however, a
feeling for colour, and by the study of the Venetians he had made some
advance upon the hardness and glitter of the De Voses and Franckens.
When in the spring of 1600 Rubens left the studio of Vaenius to
commence his eight long years of Italian wanderings, he was twenty-
three years old, and a master of the Painters' Guild. What had he
produced by this time to justify the statement of the Vita that he was
already the equal of his teacher ? There exists indeed but one work
that with any approach to certainty can be ascribed to so early a time.
This is the ' Annunciation ' in the Gallery at Vienna, a picture ascribed
to Rubens on the ground of the inscription on an engraving made at a
later date by Schelte a Bolswert. From this we learn that the work in
question was painted ' some years since ' for the maison prof esse of the
Society of Jesus at Antwerp. On the ground of this statement, by a
R.— 6 81

RUBENS
line of argument which need not be entered into here, the date of the
picture is thrown back to a period preceding the departure of Rubens
for Italy. This early 'Annunciation' is a mannered and insipid
work, but — and this is important — essentially Italian in style. There is
nothing in the colour or the composition to call up the name of Rubens.
The predominant influence is probably that of Correggio at second or
third hand.1
There are a few other pictures undoubtedly by Rubens that on one
ground or another have been attributed to the pre-Italian period. I
can only mention the ' Pausias and Glyceka ' that belongs now to the
Duke of Westminster. The weaver of garlands is seated on a grassy
bank ; at her side her lover calls her attention to the portrait that he
holds with outstretched arm. The flowers heaped up to the right and
below have been attributed to Jan Breughel, but they are certainly not
characteristic examples of his style. It is a pleasing picture, painted in
a light key, quite free from the contorted lines and affected gestures of
the Jesuit 'Annunciation.' The work is interesting in this — that the
general composition was repeated in the famous group now in the
Pinakothek, where Rubens is seated beside his young bride, Isabella
Brant, under a honeysuckle bower.
What were 'the beautiful pictures painted by Peter Paul and
belonging to him' that his mother in her will of 1606 mentions as
being in the Antwerp home ? And what were the canvases that the
young painter, on his arrival in Venice, showed to the gentleman in
the service of Duke Vincenzo ? (see p. 14). For my part, I am not
prepared to find a place among the last for the ' Drunken Hercules '
and ' The Triumph of Virtue ' (or ' Hero Crowned '), both now in
Dresden.2 These indeed came from the Mantuan Gallery : M. Rooses
even speaks of them as being in the style of Vaenius ; but surely these
are both pictures that stand out at once as characteristic works of
Rubens. We see in them what we look for in vain in the undoubt
edly early works of the master, certain attitudes and expressions that
occur over and over again in later pictures. Notice in the ' Hero
Crowned ' the fair-haired nymph to the right. She appears again in
the ' Daughters of Cecrops ' and the ' Toilet of Venus,' both pictures
1 This picture has apparently at one time been in two parts. The right-hand half with the
Angel is superior in merit to the left, but this latter part may have been repainted. There is a
picture at Dublin almost identical in style and composition.
2 When in the sequel a picture is spoken of as being at Dresden or Munich or other town,
without further qualification, it is to be understood as being in the principal public gallery of the
said town. This for brevity's sake.
82

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
painted about 1612. So too of the ' Drunken Hercules.' The female
satyr to the left is a familiar figure ; we see her in more than one of
Rubens's ' Bacchanals ' of the central Antwerp period. Observe, by the
way, the peculiar drawing of the knee and calf of the Virtuous Hero's
legs. Here we have an example of a mannerism characteristic of the
artist's drawing of the male figure both early and late. His courtly
correspondent Peiresc, at the time of the Luxembourg commission,
ventures to ask why he made all his heroes bancroches. Rubens
certainly learned the trick at a very early date. Even if we put
forward by some ten years the date of these Dresden canvases, they
would still be interesting as the earliest examples of the great series of
classical allegories and Bacchanal processions — for to the last class the
' Drunken Hercules ' essentially belongs.
As we proceed with the examination of the pictures of Rubens, we
shall come across not a few strange divergences of opinion concerning
the date of execution. The student is in danger of losing all con
fidence in those who speak with authority on the subject. But such
discrepancies, after all, affect but a small proportion of the total outturn
of the master. It must be borne in mind that in the absence of
material evidence as to date, those differences of style and conception,
in all cases so difficult to define, that mark the successive stages of a
painter's work, are themselves in great measure the result of changes in
the mind of the artist — as such they are under the influence of tem
porary moods. A passing reminiscence of some picture executed many
years ago, will leave its stamp on the work in hand at the moment.
For some such reason there may be a tendency to revert at times to an
•earlier style. So, again, a new line may be adopted tentatively, and for
one reason or another be dropped either for good or perhaps to be taken
in hand again at a later date. There is a pitfall for the critic of a more
material kind when a painter takes up and finishes a picture begun and
then laid aside many years since ; or again when he retouches or makes
alterations in a work of early years ; and Rubens, we shall see, regard
less of future complications, from time to time lent himself to all these
practices. The eight long years that Rubens spent in Italy were essentially
Wanderjahre. That up to the end of the period he regarded himself as
a student, I have already pointed out (see page 23). The Spanish
journey was but an incident : he was ever eager to get back to Rome,
and to resume the study of the great masters of the sixteenth century.
If we are to judge from what has survived of these early studies, it
83

RUBENS
was the making of careful drawings from the great masterpieces of
Raphael and Michelangelo, and of oil copies of the works of Titian,
that occupied so much of his time. The number of original pictures
that he painted during this period was probably not great — not great at
least compared with the outturn of succeeding years. But then at
this time he had no staff of assistants, at most the shadowy Deodato.
In this accumulation of studies, Rubens was perhaps in a measure
guided by the advice of his brother Philip, and by that of other
members of the learned circle in which his brother lived. Rubens,
we know, made at this time many drawings of statues and medals. Of
these the interest is rather historical or antiquarian than purely artistic.
But there was another reason for the preference that Rubens showed
for Rome. Rome was then a living artistic centre, a centre where the
problems of the day were being fought out. It was but a few years
before that Annibale Carracci had covered with frescoes the gallery of
the Farnese Palace. The great men of the next generation — the epigoni
of the Bolognese school— were now coming into prominence. The
early triumphs of Guido and of Domenichino — the life-course of both
these artists runs parallel with that of Rubens — were achieved during
the years that Rubens was in Italy. The air was now full of their
rivalries. We cannot say that Rubens was prepared to learn much
from either — it is rather that they were all growing up under the same
influences. But there was another painter, a few years his senior, his in
debtedness to whom Rubens was ever ready to acknowledge. It was
during the few stormy years that Michelangelo da Caravaggio spent
in Rome that he waged his great battle as a realist with the followers
of the traditional and eclectic schools. It was a combat not confined
to the pen or the brush, for heads were broken at times. Caravaggio
was driven from Rome in 1606 : he lay under a charge of murder.
Three years later he was on his way back to the Holy City. It was
Naples this time that had become too hot to hold him. On the road
he fell sick at Porto Ercole, and died friendless and abandoned. There
is no stranger figure in artistic history, and few painters have had
greater influence on their contemporaries and followers. We can nowa
days find little in his work to raise great enthusiasm any more than
profound antipathy. Yet Caravaggio was distinctly a pioneer. He
was copied both in Italy and the Netherlands. The school he founded
during a few short years of residence in Naples was the starting-point
of the great Spanish painters of the seventeenth century.
84

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
It is difficult to discern the influence of Caravaggio in the work of
Rubens. They had indeed this at least in common, a taste for the
rendering of scenes of a tragic nature without any mitigation of the
realistic horrors of death. It was at the instigation of Rubens that
Duke Vincenzo bought Caravaggio's picture of the Apostles weeping
over the dead body of the Virgin. The picture had been commissioned
for a Roman church, but the homely figures of the Apostles and the
ghastly rendering of incipient decomposition in the body of Mary were
held to render the work unfit for such a position. This sombre picture
is now in the Louvre. There is nothing in it to remind one of Rubens. '
The enthusiasm of the Flemish artist for such a work was perhaps in
the way of a reaction from the rather namby-pamby style that he had
lately favoured while under the influence of Correggio.
It was somewhat later probably that Rubens made a free copy of
the ' Entombment ' of Caravaggio, which was then in the Chiesa Nuova,
but has now found a place in the Vatican Gallery — the copy is in the
Liechtenstein Gallery. There is here an almost recherche rejection of
what has always been regarded as the seemly treatment of this well-
worn subject, in the way, for instance, that the legs of the corpse are
hoisted up so as to be higher than the head. This was what struck
Rubens, no doubt. A new pattern is evolved from the unaccustomed
lines of the figures. For such opportunities as these he was always
on the lookout.
Soon after his return to Antwerp, Rubens clubbed together with
Breughel, Van Balen, and some other artists, to buy for 1500 gulden an
important work of Caravaggio — ' Our Lady presenting the Rosary to
St. Dominic' This picture was destined for one of the altars ofthe
Dominican church of St. Paul, a church which already possessed
several works by Rubens. We must admire the catholic spirit of
Breughel and Van Balen, who could see the merits of a style so totally
different from their own. There was something, no doubt, of the
missionary spirit in this active pushing by Rubens of the stern,
masculine work of Caravaggio, who was at this time regarded as a
dangerous innovator and a heretic in art.
xLet us now consider the more important of the pictures that
Rubens carried out while in Italy, putting aside for the present those
he painted in Spain. They fall into three groups.
I. At the time of his first visit to Rome, during the winter of 1601-2,
Rubens executed for the new ruler of the Netherlands, the Archduke
Albert, three large pictures ; these were intended for the altar of St.
85

RUBENS
Helen in the old Basilica of Sta. Croce. Philip Rubens had been
secretary to Jean Richardot, the President of the Council in the
Netherlands ; the son of the latter was now the Archduke's resident in
Rome, and through him the commission was doubtless obtained (see
p. 18). For the central altar the subject chosen was the 'Invention
of the Cross ' (a fragment of the ' True Cross ' is still preserved at
Sta. Croce). On either side were ' The Crowning of Thorns ' and
' The Erection of the Cross.' These pictures passed to England at
the time of the Napoleonic wars : they have now found a resting-place
' in the hospital at Grasse. So far as any inference can be made from
pictures so much overpainted as these, there is as yet no sign of the
hand of Rubens as we know it in later days. They are eclectic works,
reminiscent, here of Raphael, in other parts of Titian, with something
of Correggio running through the whole. The pictures are in a dark
key, and the effect, differing in this from the later work of the master,
depends mostly on chiaroscuro.
II. After his return from Spain, Rubens spent some time in
Mantua. It was there that he copied two pictures of Correggio at that
time in the Ducal Gallery (probably the ' Ecce Homo ' and the
' Education of Cupid,' now at Trafalgar Square) : these copies were
sent to Prague as presents to the Emperor Rudolph n. It was at the
same period (1604-5) that Rubens carried out the one important
commission that he received from the Duke, his master. This was for
three canvases, all of colossal size, destined for the Church of the Jesuits,
an order that in later days played so important a part in the artistic
career of Rubens. In the great picture that was to find its place over
the high altar, the members of the Ducal family, attired in robes of
state, are seated below to right and left. We are, in the arrangement,
distinctly reminded of Veronese. They gaze upwards at a vision of
the Trinity that occupies the top of the picture. These parts of the
work we know, for, as separate pictures, they now hang opposite one
another over the doors of the library of the Liceo at Mantua. What
lay between on the original canvas — other members of the family,
with Rubens himself, it is said, as a halberdier — disappeared during
the revolutionary wars, at the time when the picture was cut to pieces
to facilitate its removal. The fragments, as we see them, give the
idea of a decorative picture rather broadly painted ; the portraits are
Venetian in character, the upper part of that nondescript style that
we have already recognised in earlier works — a style in which the.
graces of Correggio are superimposed upon what is perhaps a survival
86

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
of Otto Vaenius. The head of the Gonzaga duke resembles, in a
measure, the portraits that Rubens subsequently painted of himself.
I think that the artist may have taken the bei air of Vincenzo as a
standard for his general deportment ; at any rate, the Duke's coiffure
probably served as model for him.
Of the other works painted for the Jesuit Church at Mantua, the
' Baptism of Christ ' has, after many peregrinations, found its way to
the gallery at Antwerp. This is a strange picture. Rubens seems
to have been bent on showing proof in it of the wide field and the
thoroughness of his Roman studies. In composition the canvas is
divided into two parts — the Baptism proper, to the left, is perhaps
based upon one of the little panels of Raphael's famous Loggia. The
nude figures to the right are taken directly from the lost cartoon of
Michelangelo, where a group of soldiers is represented, rapidly draw
ing on their clothes, on an alarm while bathing. As it hangs now,
high up over the entrance of one of the large rooms in the Antwerp
Gallery, the picture is in its way impressive ; there is a touch of nature
in the effect of scattered sunlight finding its path through the trees,
and the scheme of colour — perhaps scarcely the original one — is
pleasing. One is reminded not a little of Tintoretto, while the ruddy
flesh-tints recall the Florentine and Roman painters of a previous
generation. But the charm that may be found in this scholarly early
picture has absolutely no relation to the impression produced by the
other famous works of Rubens in the gallery.
Of the remaining picture that Rubens painted for the church at
Mantua — ' The Transfiguration ' (it is now in the provincial museum
at Nancy) — it is enough to say that it closely follows the well-known
work that Raphael left unfinished at his death.
III. I now come to the last important picture or group of pictures
of the Italian period — the great canvas that Rubens painted in 1607,
the last of the years of wandering. It was no small honour to receive
a commission for the magnificent church not long since erected at
the instigation of S. Filippo Neri, and dedicated to the Virgin and St.
Gregory. Of the history of this picture — the ' Madonna adored by
Saints ' — I have already said something (see p. 24 seq.). It is essenti
ally a decorative work, conceived rather in the manner of the Bolognese
artists of the day, of Domenichino, for instance, whose ' Last Mass of
St. Jerome ' was painted about this time. But in Rubens's work there
are still many recollections of Correggio. It may perhaps be regarded
as the transition from the early imitative pictures to those painted in
87

RUBENS
what is known as his first style. The dark shadows, the quality of the
flesh-painting, and a certain aim at romantic effect, still point to the
earlier ideals ; but the scheme of colour (certain tricks especially for
gaining effect) and the elaborate architectural background, give the
picture a general air that we associate with Rubens as we know him
in the earlier Antwerp period. In the centre above is a bust of the
Virgin, covering the miraculous picture ; below is a group of stately
saints, in the centre stands St. Gregory, magnificently robed and gazing
upwards in adoration. But this fine picture was not destined to
remain in the Chiesa Nuova. When placed in position before the
altar the reflection from the lofty windows on either side obliterated
all the details. Nothing remained but to replace it by an entirely new
work, painted this time on slate. This is the picture, or rather group
of pictures — for the crowded composition was now distributed into
three compartments — that now stands in the church. It is certainly
remarkable that in this second picture — hastily executed, no doubt —
Rubens distinctly appears to go back to older types ; this is especially
the case in the heads of the angels who here appear to wear carefully
curled black wigs — a bit of mannerism most characteristic of his very
early work. That this should be so certainly suggests the idea that
the earlier picture which the artist brought back with him to Antwerp
may have been worked upon by Rubens at a later date — this sugges
tion, however, M. Rooses emphatically rejects. How the original
work passed to the abbey church of St. Michel has already been
indicated — there the picture was seen by Sir Joshua. Seized by the
French at the time of the occupation of Antwerp, it has found its way
to a provincial French gallery. A visit to Grenoble is still necessary
to see the first really great work of Rubens.
These, then, are the principal pictures of the Italian period — the
triplet painted for Sta. Croce, a second triplet for the Jesuit Church at
Mantua, and finally the two versions of the altar-piece for the Chiesa
Nuova. To the number may be added the ' Circumcision,' a large
altar-piece presented to the Church of S. Ambrogio at Genoa by
Nicolo Pallavicini, the banker of the Duke of Mantua. In this
picture the influence of Correggio reaches its culminating point. The
flight of youthful but not infant angels circling round the Holy Name,
would seem to come direct from the great frescoes at Parma, or again
from the far-famed ' Notte,' then in a church at Reggio.
Now there is much in common between all these pictures. In
nearly all may be seen certain adolescent angels, of a feminine type,
88

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
with black locks, carefully combed, oiled, and curled. These senti
mental figures differ entirely from the plump and roguish little boys
that do duty for them in later works. In no one of them, unless it be
the earlier picture painted for the Chiesa Nuova, can we see anything
more than traces of the conception or the handling that we regard as
an essential element in a picture of Rubens — a conception and handling
which, once adopted, underwent but unimportant modifications during
a period of twenty years. Rubens had not as yet made up his mind,
or rather he seems very nearly to have made up his mind in a very
unsatisfactory way. He was now a man of thirty ; he had been at work
with oil paints for at least sixteen years. There is no want of know
ledge of the craft in such works as the Chiesa Nuova pictures, or even
in those painted for Duke Vincenzo. The point is that they differ
on the face of them — there is no need to analyse further the points
of difference — from the work that Rubens turned out on his return
to Antwerp. On the other hand, they have among themselves just
enough in common to allow us to establish for Rubens an early or
Italian manner.
I must now turn to the pictures painted by Rubens during his
mission to the Spanish court as bearer of presents from the Duke of
Mantua to King Philip and his minister. These, we find, form a
group somewhat apart. The young painter was for the time freed
from the entanglements that the promiscuous study of the great
Italian masters had woven around him. He ' let himself go,' and for
the first time perhaps had an opportunity for displaying his gifts for
improvisation and rapid execution.
First in order come the two pictures of the ' Weeping ' and ' Laugh
ing Philosophers,' now in the Prado, along perhaps with a third
picture of the same class, an 'Archimedes ' x with his hand on a sphere —
hastily painted works in which the aim was the rendering of character.
This was a direction rather foreign to Rubens's nature, and, as a con
sequence, these works are little better than caricatures. The
equestrian portrait, four yards in height, that he painted of the Duke
of Lerma, has disappeared. But, on the other hand, if in the life-size
portrait of a Spanish nobleman, mounted on a heavy -limbed, charger
with flowing mane (now belonging to the Countess of Clam-Gallas), we
are to recognise the ' Duca del Infantado,' the son of the favourite,
and to see in it a work the master executed at this time, Rubens would
appear to have already reached the level attained by the Spanish school
1 This picture, now a mere wreck, is given by some to Rubens's last period !
89

RUBENS
some twenty years later. It is enough to say of this fine manly work
that it was at one time attributed to Velazquez. For the Duke of
Lerma he painted also the heads of the 'Twelve Apostles' — the
thirteenth head, that of Christ, is missing — now in the Prado. Here
again the attempt was made in each instance to characterise the
temperament, by means of the expression of the features and of the
gestures ; this has, in the case of most of the heads, been overdone, and
the result is again an approach to caricature. Twice, if not thrice, in
later days the series was repeated with greater or less assistance from
his pupils. These are all the pictures that can be ascribed with any certainty
to the time of the first visit of Rubens to Spain.
At Madrid, indeed, in the Academy of San Fernando, is an
important work that has been attributed to this period. But in the 'St.
Augustine between Christ and the Virgin,' the robust and emphatic
monk is twin-brother to the ' St. Francis ' of Cologne and Lille, both
works of a later date. At the same time, it is possible to find a certain
Spanish sentiment in this large canvas. Here, then, we have an
interesting problem. If we accept the ' St. Augustine ' as a work of
this early period, should we not allow of a Spanish influence in an
important group of later works ? Or should we find the connecting
link between these pictures in the influence of a certain theological
teaching, a devotional attitude, that had spread from Spain to the Low
Countries ?
I do not think that there are any copies from Titian extant that can
be definitely attributed to the time of this visit. As for the portraits
of Spanish beauties painted for the cabinet of the Duke of Mantua, all
trace of them has disappeared.
There still remain to be considered quite a number of pictures that
on one ground or another have been attributed to the Italian period.
I am personally inclined to find a later date for many of these
works. Some of them seem to me to be merely poor examples of the
first Antwerp period — they have nothing in common either with the
pictures painted in Spain or with that eclectic style founded mainly
on Correggio and the Venetians that we recognise in the three impor
tant early groups of definitely known date that have been already
described. On the other hand, I think that Rubens may have been
the painter of not a few works in Italian galleries passing now under
various names and attributed to various schools — pictures, in fact, that
have few or none of the characteristics of the Flemish painter. Indeed
90

BUST OF THE 'PSEUDO-SENECA'
(FROM A UNIQUE IMPRESSION IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM OF AN ETCHING ATTRIBUTED
TO RUBENS)

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
it is doubtful whether, apart from documentary evidence, such pictures
as the ' Circumcision ' at Genoa, or the great altar-piece in the Chiesa
Nuova, would ever have been attributed to Rubens.
Rubens was at Genoa for a few weeks in 1607, and this was
probably not his first visit. We know that he received commissions
from Genoese noblemen, and that he painted portraits of members
both of the Grimaldi and of that Spinola family with whose most
famous representative he was at a later date so intimate (now at
Kingston Lacy). The portrait of Brigitta Spinola is signed in full
and dated 1606. At Genoa, too, he studied architecture (cf. p. 25),
and with the visit of 1607 we may perhaps connect some of the
architectural backgrounds that play so important a part in many of
his pictures. Apart from the ' Circumcision ' in S. Ambrogio and
the just mentioned portraits, there is, however, no picture extant
that can be definitely brought into connection with a visit to
that city.
There is a group of pictures that we may associate with Rubens's
brother, the scholarly Philip, and with the learned friends of the latter,
with Woverius above all, and their common master Lipsius.
Let us start with the portrait of Woverius, now in the collection
of the Duke of Arenberg. He is seated at a table looking up from his
book ; above his head in a niche we see the pedestal of a bust (probably
that of Seneca) and to the left a landscape with ruins. This may well
be a work of the Italian period, though it would be rash to attempt to
fix the exact date. If we now turn to the famous picture of the ' Four
Philosophers ' in the Pitti at Florence, we see to the right the same
seated figure ; at the head of the table the grim, almost tragic head of
Lipsius dominates the group— this last has all the signs of a posthumous
portrait. Opposite Woverius is seated Philip Rubens, pen in hand,
and behind him stands his younger brother, the artist. There is a
sorrowful expression in all the faces. The bust of Seneca J is here seen
in full, and the Roman landscape that appears through an opening is
the same as that in the Woverius portrait. Now this picture is to my
mind obviously a cento, begun perhaps in Italy, but the head of the
artist, and probably that of Philip also, were added at a later time,
perhaps by another hand. The photograph, as indeed often happens
in such cases, tells a tale of alterations and additions. Notice the mass
1 This identical bust is now, I believe, in an English collection. It is not, however, now
regarded as representing Seneca. An unique etching, probably of this very bust, in the British
Museum, is perhaps by Rubens. 91

RUBENS
of dark that surrounds the head of Philip.1 What is still more con
clusive is that the head of Rubens is that of a man of at least thirty-,
five. It is indeed nearly identical with the Uffizi portrait, which
M. Rooses puts as late as 1628 (but this is surely too late).2 Lipsius
died in 1606, and Philip Rubens in 1611, and we shall probably be safe
in regarding the ' Four Philosophers ' as a memorial picture painted, or
at least completed, after the latter date. We may also connect with
it * the portrait in oval ' that Sir Joshua saw over the tomb of Philip
in the church of St. Michel, a picture we now only know from an
engraving. The bust of the pseudo-Seneca (see p. 19), on the other
hand, carries us back to the picture in the Pinakothek, where the
expiring philosopher is seen standing in his bath, dictating his parting
instructions to his friends, after his veins had been opened. This is -
undoubtedly an early picture, painted probably in Rome. Here again
Rubens and his learned friends were under a misconception. The
nude figure is taken directly from a realistically treated statue of an
old fisherman (now in the Louvre but then in the Villa Borghese)
which was at the time held to represent the dying Seneca. Rubens
made several studies of this statue (they are in the Hermitage) which,
as we now know, has nothing to do with the tutor of Nero. Finally,
as regards the landscape seen through the opening, both in the
Woverius portrait and in the ' Four Philosophers,' this may at once
be recognised as identical with the charming little panel of the
' Palatine Hill,' now in the Louvre, the earliest landscape by Rubens
that has come down to us. Simple in colour, this eminently classical
scene was painted under the influence of the Roman school, while the
streaky lines of the luminous sky call to mind certain backgrounds of
the later Venetian masters. It is a view of the mighty ruins on the
Palatine hill ; the market-girl with the scarlet petticoat, so important
a factor in the effect, is perhaps a subsequent addition. A later
engraving of this landscape by Schelte a Bolswert bears the inscription
'Pet. Paul Bub ens pinxit, Bomae.'
The ' Landscape with a Rainbow,' also in the Louvre, is
generally ascribed to the Italian period. The treatment of the sky
and the distance to the right call to mind the work of Paul Bril;
1 I have been told by a distinguished connoisseur who lately examined this picture, that he was
struck by the different handling of the two parts. This judgment was quite independent of any
extrinsic evidence. Observe, too, the awkward crossing of the hands to the left.
! Herr Rosenberg boldly evades the difficulty by dating the Uffizi portrait ' circa 1602' seeing
in it a man of twenty-five, against the fifty-one or fifty-two of M. Rooses ! After this one may be
excused for taking an independent view, both here and in other cases.
92

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
here again the figures appear to belong to a later time ; some patches
if vermilion on their robes are the only passages of positive colour.
"his use of patches of bright red is, as we shall see, characteristic of
,he first Antwerp period. Another version (in the Hermitage) of
the same landscape, with, however, fewer sheep, is placed by Rooses as
late as 1615. Besides this there are renderings of the subject in the
possession of Lord Carnarvon and of Lord Plymouth.
In the gallery at Aix-la-Chapelle is a little picture illustrating the
fable of ' The Cock and the Pearl ' which we may safely attribute to
the Italian peripd. There was in Rome at this time a German doctor,
a man of some note in his day, one Johann Faber. Faber, writing
in 1651 (Berum Medicarum Novae Hispaniae Thesaurus), speaks of
Rubens as a lover of bronzes and ancient marbles ; like his brother
Philip, he says, he was a pupil and a worthy successor of Justus
Lipsius. ' On one occasion at Rome when, with the aid of God, I had
the good fortune to cure him of a pleurisy from which he was greatly
suffering, he painted for me a cock, which he accompanied with this
witty and learned legend : " To the famous Johannes Faber, Doctor
of Medicine, my Aesculapius, I dedicate this picture, in consequence
of a vow made for the re-establishment of my health when I was
condemned." On a large canvas he painted my portrait.' The illness
of Rubens was probably in the spring of 1606. The portrait of Faber
has disappeared.
I do not know of any other important pictures that can with
absolute certainty be attributed to the Italian period, unless it be the
large and sketchy ' St. George and the Dragon ' of the Prado. This
picture was bought by Philip iv. from Rubens's studio after his death.
The figure of the princess to the left calls to mind the St. Domitilla
of the Chiesa Nuova altar-piece. Though painted entirely in the
Italian manner, in the exaggerated violence of the action of the horse
and rider we have, I think, the earliest instance of that aim at the
expression of dynamic force, the successful rendering of which in later
days distinguishes Rubens from all other masters.
There still remains, however, a group of pictures that are generally
regarded as having been painted in Italy. I do not think that in a
single case there is any documentary proof of this. The pictures in
question are essentially Flemish in colour and general handling ; in the
painting of the flesh, above all, the smooth surfaces and glazings of
the Antwerp period are already to be observed if they are not fully
developed. Take the ' Romulus and Remus ' of the Capitol Museum
93

RUBENS
as an example ; if this is a work of the same period as the altar-piece
in the Chiesa Nuova or the ' St. George ' of the Prado, Rubens must
have been working at the same time in two diametrically opposed
styles, carrying on two distinct traditions, of which one was dropped
once for all on his return to the North, and the other continued with
little further development.1 Other examples of the same class are the
' St. Jerome ' of Dresden, a picture essentially Flemish in style, the
' Two Satyrs ' at Munich, and the two Dresden pictures, the ' Hero
Crowned ' and the ' Drunken Hercules,' of which I have already
spoken. The 'Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine,' that has so
strangely passed to America from an English Ducal collection (it was
seen by Waagen at Stafford House), is difficult to class. St. Catherine
calls to mind a Venetian Magdalen, the Virgin is of a distinctly
Bolognese type, and in the head of St. Joseph the influence of
Caravaggio may perhaps be traced ; there remains the infant Christ,
and his fat little legs are quite characteristic of the Rubens of Antwerp
times. I reserve what I have to say of the small, unfinished ' Resurrection'
of the Pinakothek and of its companion, the ' Fall of the Damned,' in
the Suermondt collection at Aix-la-Chapelle. They will be best
considered along with the huge pictures of the same class now in the
Munich Gallery.
In addition to the vast number of studies and drawings that Rubens
made at this time from the works of the Italian masters — it may
indeed be said that this was his principal occupation during these
years — he made careful copies in oil of no inconsiderable number of
pictures, chiefly of the Venetian school. Many of those that were
found in his house at his death cannot now be identified. In the
inventory of the Succession 2 there are ten pictures attributed to Titian,
arid as many as thirty copies by Rubens of the Venetian master. I
will here only mention the most important of the copies made at this
time that have survived.
The ' Triumph of Julius Cesar,' in the National Gallery, is the
only one of ' the three canvases, after Mantegna, mounted on panel,'
of the Inventory (see p. 68) that can now be traced. In these Rubens
concentrated and freely summarised the long series of tempera
1 Yet this is not impossible. On the other hand, even after Rubens's return to Antwerp, we
shall find occasional reversions to his eclectic Italian manner. The ' Romulus ' is placed by
M. Rooses as early as 1602.
2 1 can find no English word corresponding to the French ' succession ' or the German ' Nachlass.'
The word ' estate ' is hardly sufficiently explicit.
94

THE ITALIAN PERIOD
paintings by Mantegna that have found their way from Mantua to
the galleries of Hampton Court. M. Michel suggests that these free
copies may have been painted when Rubens was in London in 1628-29,
but I do not think that the Duke of Mantua's pictures had by that
time arrived in England. In any case, only the right hand half of the
canvas is taken from Mantegna ; for the beautiful group to the left
and the Roman landscape above Rubens is alone responsible. He was
perhaps attracted as much by the subject — the wealth of classical
detail — as by1 any merit that he saw in the work ofthe Italian master.
Of all the copies made by Rubens, the most beautifuL-withonLdoubt,
are the versions of two of the three famous .mythological scenes— (the
third is our" 'Ariadne" of the National Gallery) that Titian had painted
for the Duke of Ferrara. Rubens reproduced the 'Sacrifice to
Veeliis ' and the—' Bacchanals,' which were then in the Aldobrandini
Palace at Rome. The originals have passed to Madrid, while Rubens's
copies are to be seen in the Royal Gallery at Stockholm. It is perhaps
not an exaggeration to say that these are the most beautiful and
interesting copies that have ever been made by one master of another,
the more interesting, as the originals have suffered so much since the
day of Rubens ; the ' Sacrifice ' is now a mere wreck, cold and inhar
monious. In the version of the_jl,eming---ilie glorious colours- of
Titian are seen flsitwgrp through-a-fflass-nf warm amheyiint. Though
carefully following the lines of the Venetian model, the copies are in
spirit and temperament essentially the work of Rubens.
Of the other so-called copies of Titian that Rubens made while in
Italy, I can only mention in passing the portrait of ' Isabella d'EsTE,'
the original of which he found in the palace at Mantua, and the ' Venus
at her Toilette ' ; both these, as well as some other female heads,
are now in Vienna. The first (in the Imperial Museum) is a fairly
accurate rendering of the original : but the ' Venus ' (in the Liechten
stein Gallery) has very little of Titian about it, and is probably of
later date.

Note, p. 89. I have the authority of Senor de Beruete for stating that the equestrian portrait
of the Duke of Lerma which Rubens painted while in Spain is to be identified with a. picture now
belonging to the Count of Valdelagrana, to whose family it has passed by inheritance from the
Duke of Medinaceli.

95

CHAPTER IX
Portraits of Isabella Brant — The ' Elevation ' and ' Deposition ' — The Principal
Pupils and Assistants — Treatment of the Nude in the Earlier Antwerp Period —
Religious and Profane Pictures of the Earlier Years.
WITHIN little more than a year of his return to Antwerp
Rubens had established himself as the most distinguished
and the most sought-after painter of the day. As court-
painter to the Archdukes he received a pension of 500 florins, and,
as we have seen, was freed from all the harassing regulations of the
Guild of St. Luke.
The organisation of his studio, so as to allow of the steady outturn
of the great canvases and panels, must have been the principal task of
the first few years. Already, in 1611, he protests that as many as a
hundred would-be pupils had to be turned away, and that all appli
cants had to wait their turn (see p. 31). We have absolutely no
information as to these earliest pupils, nor do we know how soon he
began in part to replace them by ' assistants,' working at a fixed salary.
The elder Teniers, and that Deodato del Monte who had accompanied
him to Italy, are said to have been working in Rubens's studio before
1616. Even previous to that year Antoon Sallaert (1590- after 1647),
already a painter of some distinction, may have come from Brussels to
assist him, and Frans Snyders, who had returned from Italy a year
later than Rubens, soon found abundant work in the great atelier as
a painter of animals and still life. Jan Breughel's intimacy with our
painter had perhaps begun before the Italian journey — he was no
assistant of Rubens, but collaborated with him on equal terms.
At the time of the return of Rubens, the painters most in vogue at
Antwerp, although on the whole to be classed as Italianisers, were for
one reason or another turning out works distinctly more Flemish in
style than had been the case twenty years previously. In fact, quite
apart from the genius of Rubens, a school composed, it is true, of
' Romanists ' for the most part, but for all that one of a distinctly
Flemish type, was growing up under the direction of such men as
Abraham Janssens, Marten Pepijn, and Henri van Balen, to say
96

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
nothing of the many younger members of the Francken family. The
work of these men was for many years little influenced by the new
master. They must indeed in some degree themselves have influenced
his work, unconsciously no doubt ; no painter, unless he be a recluse
and an eccentric, and Rubens was nothing of the kind, can entirely
escape the reflection of his artistic milieu. We must remember that
even in Rome at this time the Northern painters, the Brils and
Elsheimers for instance, were already as much the teachers as the
pupils of their Italian contemporaries. At Antwerp, a little later,
Rubens yielded at times to the fashion that favoured the minutely
finished work of Van Balen and Breughel, but this was with him little
more than a passing fancy.
In October 1609 Rubens was married to Isabella Brant, and the
picture that he painted at the time of his young bride seated beside
him under a honeysuckle bower may be reckoned as the earliest of
his great portraits. The relation of this work (now in the Pinakothek)
to the still earlier painting of the flower-girl and her lover at Grosvenor
House I have already mentioned (see p. 82). What is most remark
able about it is that we have here what is perhaps the most intensely
Flemish picture that Rubens ever painted, as it is at the same time
the one that is most distinctly ' intimate,' and I may say bourgeois in
character. It is, in fact, a work quite apart from his other pictures of
the time. Perhaps it is the elaborate painting of the quaint costume —
what we should call Jacobean, as opposed to the Caroline fashion of
later works— that calls to mind the portraits, immensely inferior of
course, that Van Somers and others were at this time painting at the
Court of James i. The puce gown of the bride and the yellow stockings
of Rubens are of tints that are not found in later works of the master.
The tone of colour is very low ; Sir Joshua notes of this picture that
'the linen is grey ; he was at this time afraid of white.'*
Rubens painted Isabella many times after this, but none of the
later portraits are works of any great artistic importance. We can
trace in them the gradual sharpening of the already marked features,
the pinching of the mouth, and the increasing projection of the cheek
bones. At the time of her death, in 1626, Isabella was only thirty-
five, and the portrait in the Hermitage was probably painted not
long before that date. In spite of the kindly smile, we can see traces
of suffering patiently borne in this most sympathetic face.1
1 The Windsor portrait with orange blossom, in' which M. Rooses sees a likeness of Isabella,
I reserve till I come to speak ofthe Fourment family. (See p. 163.)
R.-7 97

RUBENS
To return to the works carried out soon after Rubens's return from
Italy— there is no need to dwell upon the uninteresting ' Dispute on
the Sacrament' — a picture painted probably as early as 1609— now
in the church of St. Paul. It received the honour of removal to
Paris in 1794 ; strangely enough, after its return to Antwerp the work
was no longer considered worthy of Rubens, and it was for long
attributed to Antoon Sallaert.
As early perhaps as 1608, at any rate in the following year, Rubens
received a commission for a large picture to be placed in one of the
chambers of the Antwerp Town Hall. At the same time, and for
the same room (it is now the Salle des Manages), Abraham Janssens,
then a man of thirty-five, painted the strange picture now in the
museum, where the Scheldt and the town of Antwerp are represented
by a river-god and a nymph. This last picture M. Rooses, somewhat
strangely, calls a work manifestly of the school of Rubens. Con
sidering the date at which it was painted — Rubens was at the time
a newcomer to Antwerp — is not this putting the cart before the
horse? I would rather see in this good decorative piece, carefully
painted and rich in colour, an example of the Antwerp school at the
time of Rubens's return from the South, one of the works that were
not without their influence upon the still impressionable painter.
Rubens, on his part, with that happy inconsequence so charac
teristic of him — the subject of a picture mattered little if it only
gave the opportunity for the display of his talents — chose for his
theme the ' Adoration of the Magi,' the earliest of a series of mighty
canvases and panels, on which the three Eastern kings, with their
gorgeous and motley retinue, do service through a long course of
years. In this picture, crowded and confused in composition, the
varied and brilliant colours are expended with little more skill or
economy than in the works of the Franckens or of Marten de Vos.
For it is indeed of the work of the older Antwerp contemporaries
of Rubens that this pasticcio reminds us, above all in the way in which
use is made of the Italian masters. The nude muscular figures in
the centre are taken from studies of Italian galley-slaves, most likely
at se'cond hand. But notice the figure of the Moorish King — this
is the first appearance of a type that we shall see in many a subsequent
work. Only three years after its completion Rubens's ' Adoration
was carried off to Spain by a Spanish diplomat, to whom it had been
presented by the town council ; it is now in the Prado. It has been
supposed that some thirty inches of canvas on the right-hand side,
98

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
including the figure on horseback in which the features of the artist
have been recognised, were added twenty years later, when Rubens
was again in Madrid. There is certainly a strange break in the com
position, very noticeable in the photograph. But the addition, if any,
I should rather regard as a contemporary one, perhaps necessitated
by the exigencies of the position assigned to the work. What is
of interest in this picture is to find that so much remains of the
Italian mannerism; for Rubens had already by this time painted
pictures in which these petty affectations had been thrown aside.
I now come to the earliest of the world-renowned creations of
Rubens — the ' Elevation of the Cross,' which stands in the Cathedral
at Antwerp as a pendant to the somewhat later and still more famous
'Descent.' The 'Elevation' was painted for the old church of St.
Walburga, and it was there that Sir Joshua saw it on the occasion
of his Flemish tour in 1781. It was at the instigation of his friend,
the rich merchant Cornells van der Geest, that Rubens obtained the
commission. Van der Geest was a noticeable connoisseur of pictures
and, what was exceptional at this time, an admirer of the early
Flemish painters, above all of Quentin Massys (cf. note, p. 121).
He is described by Rubens at a later date as the best of men and
the oldest of his friends and protectors. (This in a letter written on
the occasion of his patron's death in 1638.) Van der Geest's face is
well known to us, for his portrait by Vandyke is one of the greatest
treasures of the National Gallery. The high altar of St. Walburga
where the ' Elevation ' was placed, was approached from the nave
by a steep flight of steps. The picture then commanded the whole
church from a lofty position.1 Rubens painted, or at least completed,
the picture on the spot, working behind a screen of canvas that was
erected for the occasion. He was engaged on this altar-piece during
the summer of 1610. With its completion we may connect the
definite establishment of the great Flemish School of the seventeenth
century. The central idea of the 'Elevation' is no doubt the opposition
between the calm and motionless figure on the Cross, with eyes
uplifted to heaven, and the noisy striving crowd around. With bent
1 Sir Joshua Reynolds notes of this work that ' the appearance of heaviness when seen
near entirely vanishes when the picture is viewed from the body of the church, to which you
descend from the choir by 20 stairs.' Both this picture and still more the ' Deposition ' were iu a
deplorable condition when Reynolds saw them. Of the latter he says : ' It is mortifying to see to
what degree it has suffered by cleaning and mending : that brilliant effect which it undoubtedly
once had is lost in the mist of varnish.'
99

RUBENS
backs and strained muscles, those who raise the Cross seem barely
able to complete the task that is set them. Sir Joshua did not miss
this— 'the bustle that is in every part of the picture makes a fine
contrast to the character of resignation in the crucified Saviour.'
This note of opposition is taken up again in the wing to the left,
where, above a confused and restless group of wailing women, young
and old, the sad, silent figures of John and Mary stand apart, gazing
motionless at the tragic spectacle. Here, too, the contrast is accentu
ated by the colours employed — on the one hand, the deep blues and
greys of the solemn figures above, on the other, the brilliant garments
of the gesticulating women in the foreground. The crimson robe
of the young mother below is the most vigorous piece of colouring
in the whole triptych. In the central composition there is indeed
a singular absence of positive colour. But little use is made of the
broad masses of unmitigated vermilion that, as we shall see, play so
important a part in the colour scheme of the period that follows. One
patch there is — the turbaned figure to the right of the Cross — otherwise
the effect depends upon contrast of light and shade.
There is in the Louvre a large drawing in black chalk and wash,
where we see the first thought of this scene. The composition has not
yet been divided into three compartments. The figure on the Cross is
lost amid a confused crowd — it is a scene of sound and fury, and the
commotion seems to have spread to the threatening sky above. In
desperate haste the Cross is raised, as if to forestall some natural con
vulsion. Two other sketches, both in oil (one at Dorchester House)
intervene between this grand conception and the completed picture.
The composition now arranges itself in more subtle and scholarly
lines, and falls apart into three groups. The figure of Christ comes
to be more prominent and takes its place in the main line of the
design, which now descends diagonally from left to right. But the
weight of the Cross is still supported by the gigantic galley-slave, as
in the sketch, the protagonist of the drama.
And yet, for all this advance in the composition, in the completed
picture we miss the fire and inspiration of the first conception. The
scene has become a static one. The Cross no longer sways upward
to assume its final place, for the men at the ropes, for all their striving,
can barely maintain it in its present position. In the sketch Rubens
has attained to the expression of dynamic energy and rapid movement,
but he has not yet mastered the difficulties involved in transferring
this living power to the finished picture — this was to come later.
100

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
For a detailed analysis of this great work, I must refer the reader
to the admirable description by Sir Joshua, which I regret I cannot
find space to quote (Journey to Flanders). It is of interest as the
practical description of a painter nearer to Rubens than we are in
many respects. Sir Joshua was still under the influence of the old
traditions of the schools, and was ready to accept much that is now
regarded as artificial and conventional. As for Rubens, at this time
more especially, he was steeped in these traditions. We, on the other
hand, pay little attention to what I may call style.
And here I may say, that the modern critic finds a great difficulty in
entering into the spirit with which these subjects from sacred history —
those from the Passion of Christ above all — are treated by Rubens.
The religious emotion is not absent, but it is a rhetorical emotion, one
with which an Englishman of the twentieth century is not much in
sympathy. Rubens, however, admirably interpreted a certain vein of
sentiment that may be associated with the Jesuit teaching of the seven
teenth century, and in connection with this sentiment he found much
that appealed to him as being admirably suited for artistic treatment.
For one thing, the ' emotional discharge,' so favoured by the teaching,
allowed great freedom to the artist in the display of varying gestures
not only in the principal figures but also in the attendant crowd. As
to the sincerity or insincerity of the emotion, this is not a question that
concerns us here directly. But, none the less, doubt upon this point has
certainly done not a little to put us out of sympathy with much of the
work of Rubens, just as, on the other hand, in the case of Rembrandt,
confidence in his sincerity has brought that painter nearer to our hearts.
The ' Elevation ' is generally regarded as the final word of Rubens
while working in his ' first manner ' — the consummation of his Italian
training : with the ' Deposition from the Cross,' begun little more than
a year later, the ' second manner ' is held to have its glorious opening.
Such a line of demarcation is no doubt useful if only as an aid to the
memory among the profuse and varied outturn from the artist's studio
at this time.' But, so it seems to me, the later picture is in some
respects a return to the ideals of the Roman painters of the day, while
the ' Elevation,' the grand first sketch above all, marks the upheaval of
an original conception that had its birth in the mind of the artist. If,
however, we confine ourselves to technical considerations there is no
doubt good ground for the usually accepted division. In the later
work there is a great advance towards simplicity of composition, con
centration of effect, and economy of colour ; there is some tendency
101

RUBENS
towards the fusion of touch that characterises the later work of Rubens.
But the Antwerp ' Deposition ' seems to me a very exceptional work,
having little relation to the bulk of the pictures that Rubens painted
in the ensuing years.
The ' Deposition from the Cross ' was painted for the Guild of the
Arbaletriers, who had an altar in the south transept ofthe Cathedral;
here the great triptych was placed, and here, or close by, apart from a
passing visit to Paris, it has remained ever since. In the archives of
the Serment or Guild, of which at that time Nicolas Rockox, the
burgomaster of Antwerp, was president, some entries relating to this
work have been found that throw light on the social life of the time.
No business could be contracted without an expenditure on drinking
that would put to shame a London vestry. When the deputation from
the guild visited the artist's studio there were vails for the students, and
the wine-bill amounted each time to several florins. This was shortly
before Rubens had taken up his abode in his new house, and the studio
was then in an upper chamber, a loft it would seem, probably over the
dwelling of the Brant family. The transfer of the great panel from
this loft to the Cathedral was again a task necessitating the refreshing
of many mouths. This transference was effected in September 1612,
but the side panels were not completed till eighteen months later. The
final payment that brought up the sum to the 2400 florins agreed upon
was not made till 1622 ; but Isabella had long before this received the
pair of richly embroidered gloves, the delivery of which formed part of
the contract.
According to the commission originally given, Rubens was upon
the new altar-piece to record the good deeds of St. Christopher, the
patron-saint of the guild. But, as M. Rooses well remarks, the quaint
story of the good giant, as told in the Golden Legend, had little
charm for the learned artist, with his mind full of classical myths and
allegories. The name Christopher means, however, ' bearer of Christ,'
and thus interpreted there was a wide scope for the painter — in the
centre the cross that bore our Lord, to the right, Simon with the infant
Saviour in his arms, to the left, the Visitation, with the Virgin pointing
to her precious charge. The good saint himself had to be contented
with a place on the back of the wings. Here, when the shutters were
closed, the great figure of the Christ-bearer looms out of the darkness,
and the hermit waits with his lantern to receive the divine Child.1
1 In the Pinakothek is a sketch for this subject, in which the hermit and St. Christopher are
brought together on one panel.
102

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
The ' Descent from the Cross ' is essentially a learned picture,
learned both in the carefully considered grouping of the figures and in
the richness of hue attained with the use of so little positive colour.
The special triumph, however, of Rubens in this work is the effect
obtained by the relief of the dead body against the slightly whiter back
ground of the winding sheet. It is this that constitutes the undying
attraction of the picture — the rest is mostly rhetoric and learned
attitudinising. The industriously composed figures take their place in
the scheme, but are of little interest individually. It is in this that we
feel the difference from the treatment of the same subject by Rem
brandt, although the Dutch artist doubtless learned much from this
very picture. The best analysis of the ' Deposition ' is that to be found
in the Maitres d Autrefois. Much of this I would willingly quote — the
passage, for instance, where Fromentin describes the beautiful white
body as it slides down upon the shroud — did I not despair of rendering
it in English. More manageable are the technical notes of the great
critic, though here too the language of the atelier is hard to render in
our tongue.
' The canvas is sombre in spite of its bright passages, and of the
extraordinary whiteness of the winding sheet. ... It is a picture
with a blackish foundation, on which are disposed large, firm masses
of light in no way toned down. The colouring is not very rich ;
it is full, sustained, carefully calculated to tell from a distance. . . .
It is made up of a green that is almost black, of an absolute black,
of a somewhat dull red, and of white. These four tones are placed
edge to edge as frankly as is possible with notes of this violence;
the contrast is sharp, and they do not suffer by it. . . . The pigment
is smooth, compact, with a flow that is facile and prudent. . . .
Rubens remembers, observes, restrains himself; he is in possession
of all his forces, but keeps them in the background, and only uses half
of them.' The ' Visitation,' which forms the left wing ofthe great triptych, is
a charming composition, ' picturesque and homely in a noble way ' says
Fromentin, 'rich, though sober in colour.' 'Jamais le Flandre ne mit
autant de bonhomie, de grace et de naturel a se rev§tir du style
Italien.' In the Borghese Gallery we have what is probably an earlier
version of this subject.
The ' Deposition from the Cross ' is the subject of many other large
pictures — six are enumerated by M. Rooses — that Rubens had a hand
in at this time. They are all variants of the great Antwerp panel, differ-
103

RUBENS
ing more or less in the arrangement of the figures. In view of the fact
that the composition is in every case inferior to that of the great trip
tych, in more than one, indeed, strikingly awkward, it is difficult to
believe that they are subsequent in date. I have only had occasion to
examine one of the series, the 'Deposition,' now in the Museum at
Lille. Apart from certain obtrusively awkward attitudes, what struck
me in this picture was the general want of fusion of the parts : it was
a cento of clever bits. The colours are indeed more brilliant than in
the Antwerp picture, but this may be in part the result of recent clean
ing. There is documentary evidence that the damaged ' Deposition '
at St. Omer was bought and fixed in its place in 1612, but this does not
prove that it was not painted before that year. There are two versions
of this subject at Arras and another at Valenciennes. We have, in fact,
quite a group of these pictures in French Flanders. The remaining
version of the ' Deposition,' after the great Antwerp panel perhaps the
best of the series, is now in St. Petersburg. It was bought from the
Empress Josephine, into whose hands it had passed from the church at
Lierre for which it was painted.
To understand the conditions under which these variants of the
Antwerp triptych were painted — no one of them is entirely by the
hand of Rubens — we should have to know more than we do of the
arrangement of the artist's great atelier, which by this time must have
been thoroughly organised. Rubens may probably have made several
experimental sketches for the 'Deposition ' — in oil, on panel, no doubt;
these were then passed on to his assistants, or to his more advanced
pupils, and the designs transferred by them to a large canvas or panel.
In some cases the assistant may have only ' dead-grounded ' the picture
— to use the favourite expression of Sir Joshua — basing his work upon
the sketch of the master, this last either in monochrome or with the
colour only slightly indicated (innumerable are the oil sketches of this
class — -not all indeed by the master's hand — that survive). In other
instances the work may have been so far carried forward by the assis
tant as only to require a few touches from Rubens's brush. Again, the
bulk of the work may have been completed by the assistant, but one
or two important figures left to be painted in by Rubens, or, finally, the
process may have been reversed, and the figures by the master painted
first, and the background and accessories added subsequently by one or
more assistants. In view of these arrangements, we may well imagine
that although the inferior versions of the ' Deposition ' may only have
left the studio after the completion of the Antwerp triptych, they, for
104

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
all that, may have been begun and the composition fixed at an earlier
date. It is universally acknowledged that of the pictures that pass as by
Rubens, by far the larger number are only in part the work of his hand.
The identification of the passages painted by the master himself is one
of the principal tasks of the Rubens expert. Unfortunately, just as in
the case of the determination of the date of one of his pictures, there is
little unanimity of opinion on this point. Still more difficult is it
when we have to deal with a work that is evidently in the main by one
of the assistants, to put a name upon the painter responsible. We have
not here the help of the Guild books, the Liggeren, for Rubens, as we
have seen, was now a free lance, he was under no obligation to register
his pupils in these books or to pay the requisite fees. What we know,
then, of these assistants is dependent upon chance references, and for
the identification of their work we in each case must go to such of their
original pictures as are available. The most talented of his pupils
Rubens was able to retain as paid assistants. It seldom happened that
they could better their position, financially at least, by leaving his
studio. Perhaps only in the case of Vandyke was this possible.
Of the earliest pupils of Rubens — of Deodato, and of Teniers — I
have already spoken ; both, it would seem, worked under him before his
departure for Italy. This need not surprise us, as other similar cases
are recorded. Vandyke had a pupil living with him while he was quite
a lad. There is a persistent tradition that the Brussels painter Antoon
Sallaert had a hand in some of the pictures painted at this time, in
the ' Elevation,' for instance, of which he is reputed to have painted
the shutters, and again in the still earlier ' Sacrament.' This associa
tion with Rubens is the more remarkable, as Sallaert as a painter lies
quite outside the Antwerp School.
But there were four men who were probably already at work in the
studio of Rubens, and who continued in the closest connection with
him up to the time of his death. These are names of the utmost im
portance for the student of Rubens, though only one of the number is
widely known as an independent artist.
Frans Snyders (1579-1657) was born in Antwerp only two years
after Rubens. They were in Italy at the same time, and they probably
met in Rome. Snyders was a long-lived and prolific painter, but his
work is of little interest when not lit up by the magic touches of
Rubens. There are few of the older collections in England that do not
105

RUBENS
comprise examples of his still-life scenes and his hunting-pieces. His
handsome and kindly face is well known from the portrait by Vandyke
at Castle Howard. One of the pleasantest anecdotes in the old art
histories tells of his relations to Jan Breughel, how each in turn when
in distress was assisted by the other.
Paul de Vos (c. 1590-1678), who married the daughter of Snyders,
was eleven or twelve years younger than his father-in-law. He was
essentially an animal painter, but, in England at least, his pictures
generally pass under the name of Snyders. To judge by some examples
of his work at Brussels and in the Louvre, he was an admirable painter
of dogs, of their coat above all. But his hunting scenes are wanting in
the spirit of life and motion, and his colouring is dull and monotonous.
De Vos was content to the end to work, for daily wages, it would seem,
in Rubens's studio. A man of happy disposition and unambitious, his
hearty, jovial features have been handed down in a fine portrait by
Vandyke. It is more difficult to determine the share taken in Rubens's pictures
by Jan Wildens (1586-1653). Wildens was, it would appear, more
than any other, the factotum of the studio, and all through life the
intimate friend of the master. As an independent artist we know him
as a very poor painter of hunting scenes and landscapes. A snow-
piece of his may be seen at Dresden, and some topographical views at
Brussels. Wildens was in Italy for several years after 1613, but on his
return fell back into the place he had previously occupied in the great
atelier. If in a picture by Rubens we come upon a passage of low-toned
landscape broadly treated in the Italian manner, this part of the work
may be safely attributed to Wildens.
Lucas van Uden (1595-1672) was younger than Wildens, and he
survived his master for more than thirty years. He took his place as a'
distinguished landscape painter, but unlike Wildens his landscapes are
essentially Flemish, comparatively rich in colour and in composition
varied and broken up. He painted the green fields divided by wet ditches
and lined by pollard willows — the same landscape in fact that provided
material for Rubens in his later days.
These four then — Snyders, de Vos, Wildens, and Van Uden — are to
be regarded as the most important among the numerous assistants of
Rubens. Others may from time to time have taken a prominent
place. Vandyke, a little later, eclipsed all his fellows. Then came
Cornells Schut, and later still van Thulden, and many besides. Each
takes his allotted part in the great picture manufactory. No doubt
106

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
even the modest share of the profits that fell to them greatly exceeded
what they could earn as independent painters.1
The twelve years that succeeded the return of Rubens to Antwerp
were the most tranquil period of the artist's life. It was the time of the
Great Truce, and there were as yet no politics to interrupt the steady
outturn from the well-appointed studio. Within three, or at most five
years of his settling in his new house, Rubens had adopted a style
which, during all this period, and even later, he maintained with little
change — apart, that is, from occasional excursions into what we may call
the domain of other artists. He was occupied in about equal degree
with sacred and mythological subjects ; from these he turned at times
to portraits or, more rarely, to landscapes. Perhaps, from our artistic
standpoint, the more logical division of his work is, on the one hand,
into pictures of which the raison d'etre is the rendering of the nude — the
selection of subject, whether sacred or profane, 4seing guided by the
occasion that it presented for finding broad surfaces of the unrobed
figure — and, on the other hand, pictures in which the opportunity for
the expression of rapid motion and impetus has determined the choice ;
such opportunity he found, above all, in hunting scenes and battle-
pieces. If not acres, yet assuredly very many square yards of work of
the first class may be seen at Antwerp and Munich. The manner of
his rendering of flesh at this time is known to all who have ever cared
to look at a picture of Rubens. (The uniform, smooth, enamelled
surfaces, the blue markings of the veins, the delicate warm glazings and
the well-defined outlines, these are just the ppjnts that distinguish the
work of this period from the later freer stylejAs to the rendering of
rapid motion, it is enough to say that at this time what is aimed at does
not as a rule ' come off.' In this respect there is nothing to compare
to such later triumphs as the great ' Kermesse ' of the Louvre, or even
to our ' Rape of the Sabine Women.' The ambition is present already
and the inner impulse, but except here and there in a sketch, the hand
has not yet learned to express the vision in the brain.
Among the bewildering variety of subjects treated by Rubens it is
some consolation to discover a certain tendency to ' runs.' We have
already had an example of this in the case of the seven ' Depositions '
painted within a few years. These sequences give us a lead in the
1 There is no documentary evidence that Jordaens (1595-1678) ever worked in Rubens's studio,
but that he did so is not unlikely. Jordaens early in life had had much practice in painting in tem
pera ; this he learnt from his father. He excelled in the preparation of water-colour cartoons for the
tapestry weavers. His experience in such work would have been of service to Rubens. See p. 187.
107

RUBENS
arrangement of our task. In following them up we are even encour
aged now and again to kick over our chronological traces.
About the time when he was occupied with the ' Elevation,' Rubens
painted for the church of the Franciscans — the ' Recollet ' Church so
rich in his works at the time it was visited by Sir Joshua — a life-sized
' Crucifixion,' that now hangs in the Antwerp Museum. This is the
finest of several works painted at this period, where the body of the
crucified Saviour is relieved against a dark background ; in this case
the narrow strip of distant hills and buildings below calls to mind the
Palatine landscape so often introduced in earlier compositions. There
are smaller pictures ofthe same subject — at Hertford House, at Munich,
and in the Museum at Malines — all vigorous in execution and marked
by the same brown shadows. In the Liechtenstein ' St. Francis
Praying Before the Crucifix,' a closely allied picture, we have a
transition to the Fismciscan series, to which I shall come somewhat
later. Quite a number of works with subjects taken from the life of Christ
belong to the time of the Antwerp ' Deposition.' They form, on the
whole, an uninteresting class. The surface is smooth and enamel-like,
the outline hard, and the attempt at the expression of emotion has led
in some cases to very unpleasant results. One of the earliest of these
is the triptych with the ' Resurrection ' that Rubens painted for the
tomb of Jan Moretus the printer (d. 1610), the father of his life-long
friend Balthazar. This still hangs in one of the chapels of the apse of
the cathedral at Antwerp — a dull uninteresting work that is generally
passed over by the visitor.
One of the best known pictures of this period is the ' Doubting
Thomas ' that Rubens painted for the tomb that his friend Nicolas
Rockox had built for himself in the Re'collet church (it is now in the
museum). Fromentin's note on this work is brief—' Cela, un Rubens ?
Quelle erreur ! ' But for all that the rendering of the figure of Christ,
nude to the waist, is a characteristic example of the artist's flesh-paint
ing at this time; the modelling is skilfully indicated by grey-blue
markings. On the wings are the likenesses of the donor and of his plain
Spanish wife — the former a good bit of downright prosaic portraiture.
The ' Woman Taken in Adultery,' formerly at Leigh Court, and
now in the Royal Gallery at Brussels, is a work of the same calibre.
High finish and brilliant colouring combine with careful, indeed
laboured, rendering of facial expression to produce a most disagreeable
picture. 108

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
The ' Return from Egypt ' that was in the Marlborough collection
is a more broadly painted work. The treatment of the subject is
unusual — the young Christ walks between his mother and Joseph.
This picture is well known from the fine engraving by Vorsterman.
There is a replica of the work at Holkham.
' Christ's Charge to Peter ' (' Feed my Sheep,') now at Hertford
House, was painted for a tomb in St. Gudule. It is an empty and
rather feeble production. A not unsimilar work is the ' Christ Giving
the Keys to Peter ' that Jan Breughel placed over the tomb of his
father in the church of La Chapelle at Brussels. This picture is now
in a private collection in New York.
Rubens was able to find in the Old Testament many incidents of
which he recognised the pictorial value. That most offensive subject,
the ' Drunkenness of Lot ' he painted twice at this time. The version
engraved in 1612 by Swanenburg is lost, and the famous picture pre
sented to Marlborough by the Emperor passed from Blenheim to the
late Baron Hirsch, and is now, I think, in Paris. The grouping of the
figures seated on the ground is repeated in several mythological subjects
of the time.
Quite in a different spirit is the charming little picture of the ' Dis
missal of Hagar,' of which one version is now in the Hermitage and
another belongs to the Duke of Westminster. It is, indeed, a genre
scene treated somewhat in the manner adopted later by Isaac Ostade.
The Guild of Musicians at Brussels was under the protection of
' Saint Job,' and from them, in 1612, Rubens received a commission for
a large triptych illustrating the history of the patriarch. This much-
admired work we know only from engravings and old copies, for, along
with other pictures by Rubens, it perished during the bombardment of
Brussels in 1695.
The ' Susanna and the Elders ' in the Stockholm gallery is the
earliest version of one of Rubens's most favourite subjects. It belongs
to a small group of pictures of this period that are both signed and
dated (1614) — for all that, a hastily executed little work, but not without
charm. Apart from the inscription, one would certainly have been
inclined to find for it a later date. In the large ' Susanna ' at Madrid
we may recognise the same model and the same dolphin fountain.
I have already spoken of the treatment that St. Francis, the poet
and idealist, receives at the hand of Rubens. He appears as a burly,
I had almost said a truculent friar, such as the artist might have seen
any day in the church of the Re'collets. For the church of the Capu-
109

RUBENS
chins at Lille Rubens, about 1615, painted the large ' St. Francis
Receiving the Infant Christ from the Virgin ' now in the museum
of that town. The head of St. Francis is indeed here not unsympathetic,
and the bambino is a delightful bit of painting. The vermilion robe of
the rather commonplace matron who represents the Virgin dominates
the whole picture ; upon it depends the colour effect of the other parts.
For a church of the same order at Cologne Rubens executed a few years
later the ' St. Francis Receiving the Stigmata ' now to be seen in the
Wallraf-Richartz Museum. This is a soundly executed but prosaic
rendering of the famous scene. Only the heads of the two friars are
usually attributed to Rubens ; it seems to me, however, that the ad
mirably painted wreeds and brambles are, if not by the master, at least
copied from a drawing by him ; perhaps the elaborate study of brambles
belonging to the Duke of Devonshire may have been made use of: the
landscape as a whole may very reasonably be given to Wildens. This
picture is carried out in grey-greens and browns. The total absence of
positive colour should be noticed. In the ' St. Francis Holding the
Crucifix ' now at Oldenburg, a work painted rapidly with a thin pate,
we have an earlier picture where the sentiment is somewhat different..
The ' convalescent,' sickly expression of the saint's face is the nearest
approach that Rubens would make to the rendering of the Franciscan
ideal. To the early Antwerp period belongs the large picture painted for
a Jesuit church that now hangs in the Rubens room in the Louvre.
' Christ on the Cross with Mary, John, and St. Magdalene ' is a
simply composed and impressive work. We have in it a typical example
of a somewhat crude device, of which Rubens was much enamoured at
this time, for ' pulling together ' and enhancing the varied tints of his
work. The robe of St. John is an unmitigated mass of the brightest
vermilion. To some small extent the absence of shading in the folds
might be thought to be due to the removal of the surface in cleaning ;
but in this and in some other similar cases I can see little sign that the
picture has undergone any process of skinning. As in the Lille picture,
and indeed in many others of this and later periods, the red mass here
takes its place for an obvious purpose. To use the language of modern
science — the fatigue from over-excitement of those elements in the
retina that are sensitive to that colour, brings into prominence the
stimulus given to other nerves by the blues and the greens ; these nerves
are then ready to accept, as brilliant examples of these latter colours, the
greyish violets and dull greens to which indeed the artist has mostly
110

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
limited himself for the rest of the picture. If the student will examine
closely the colouring of an average picture of this time, he will find that
apart from the patches of vermilion and some passages of yellow, there
is a total absence of positive hues ; and yet, as a result mainly of the
principle I have attempted to explain, the general effect is that of a
rich and varied colouring.1
I will mention one other religious subject of this period, ' The Holy
Family with the Parrot,' now in the museum at Antwerp. This
picture Rubens painted for the Guild of St. Luke, perhaps as a com
pensation for the exemption from all dues and charges at the time of
his appointment as court painter. In that case the picture might date
as early as 1610 or 1611, but it is probably a little later. Few pictures
have been so differently judged. Reynolds, who saw it in 1781 in the
hall of the guild, fell foul of it at once. That he should find so much
to blame in this work is the more remarkable, as, of all the pictures of
Rubens, it would seem to be the one that had most influence on the
later style of the English artist. He abused the picture, and then came
home with his eye so full of its vigorous scheme of colour that we find
.this scheme reflected in more than one of his later works. The ' Holy
Family with the Parrot ' is a powerful picture painted under Venetian
influences, somewhat coarse perhaps, both in colour-effect and in execu
tion. The curious expression on the shrewd face of St. Joseph should be
noticed ; not less the beautiful landscape passage to the left with yellow
sunset. But if Rubens found abundant occupation in filling the gaps in the
walls of the Antwerp churches, his brush was scarcely less in demand
for quite another class of painting. The mythological and allegorical
pictures that he turned out at this time were eagerly sought after — the
demand came especially from the electors and other princes of the
Empire, and the majority of these works are still to be found in German
galleries. In most of these pictures the artistic aim does not differ
from that we have dwelt upon in the case of the religious subjects of
this time, but here perhaps the general emptiness of the conception is
less repugnant to us ; we accept as natural the obvious search for occa
sions for covering large surfaces with the deftly modulated enamel that
serves to represent the nude human figure. What, however, we feel
1 This is perhaps only another way of putting Chevreul's law of complementary colours, that
exercised the minds of artists in the thirties and forties of the last century. Rubens ' called up '
his cool tints by means of vigorous passages of positive colours from the warm end of the spectrum.
The Venetians at times reversed the process. Ill

RUBENS
the want of, are passages of repose in the uniformly illuminated surface,
and, again, a greater fusing of the flesh surfaces with their surroundings.
But for this we shall have to wait till a later time.
I shall pass rapidly over this early series of wbat may as a whole be
classed as mythological nudes. In the museum at Cologne is a large
picture purchased at the Dudley sale in 1892. The ' Juno and Argus,'
we know from a letter of Rubens to De Bie the engraver, was already
finished in 1611. This picture was at Manchester in 1857 and Burger
(Thore), the French critic, who saw it there, took occasion to denounce
it as an empty, inflated canvas ' of the Italian period,' with little work
in it by the hand of Rubens. It seems to me a good early example of
a decorative picture, if not all by the master's hand, yet thoroughly
Rubens-like in sentiment. The central point of interest is the fore
shortening of the body of Argus ; this body and the crimson robe of
Juno dominate the scene.
Not much later in date, probably, was the Marlborough ' Rape of
Proserpine ' that was burnt at Blenheim in 1861 ; the composition, as
we see it in the engraving of Soutman, differed only from the much
later ' Proserpine ' at Madrid in being less concentrated. Waagen
speaks df this large picture as a chef-d'ceuvre entirely by the master's
hand. The ' Prometheus and the Eagle ' now at Oldenburg, is mentioned
in the list of the pictures offered to Carleton (p. 39 seq.). The eagle is
there stated to be by Snyders. The foreshortening of the nude body
may be compared with the decapitated ' Argus ' in the nearly con
temporaneous picture at Cologne.
The ' Ixion deceived by Juno ' was long one of the treasures of
Grosvenor House, where it was seen by Waagen. In this strange
composition Juno appears twice, and the painter has not been at pains
to distinguish the eiSwW from the genuine goddess. It was lent to
the 'Old Masters' in 1895, but I am told that the late Duke got rid
of this picture, and after passing through the hands of a French
dealer, it found its way to the Yerkes collection in New York.
The following pictures form a somewhat later group. The * Jupiter
and Callisto ' in the Cassel gallery is a signed and dated panel (P. P.
Rubens F. 1613). The arrangement of the two nude figures, excellent
work by the master's own hand, may be compared with that in the
' Drunkenness of Lot.' The companion picture, the insipid and awk
wardly composed ' Venus, Ceres, and Bacchus,' also at Cassel, is per
haps wholly from the brush of a pupil.
112

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
The ' Venus Frigida ' (Sine Cerere et Libero friget Venus) is one
of the mo9f interesting pictures of this group, not only on account
of the delightful painting of the rounded back of the goddess, but
because there is something original and, what is rare in Rubens,
quaint and humorous in the conception. It must be borne in mind
that in this picture some eight inches of the panel to the left, as well
as a similar amount of the upper portion, are later additions. This
work, again, is signed and dated — P. P. Rubens F. 1614. (At Antwerp.)
The ' Perseus and Andromeda ' of Berlin may probably be con
nected with the fresco (if fresco it was) that Rubens painted on the
walls of his new house (see p. 33). This may perhaps account for the
peculiar lightness of touch, as well as for the curious arrangement of
this rather ill-composed work. It is indeed, what is unusual with the
master at this period, a sketch on a large scale. A somewhat later
version of the same subject is now in the Hermitage.
But perhaps the most perfect and typical example of the flesh
painting of Rubens during the earlier Antwerp period (if indeed it
should not be placed somewhat later) is the carefully executed ' Boreas
and Oreithyia,' now in the Academy at Vienna. Nowhere can his
method of modelling the nude body by means of glazes of various
depths be better studied.
Other mythological subjects of this time are the ' Faun with
Basket of Fruit ' (Vienna, Schoenborn Collection (?) ),so like the very
early ' Satyrs ' of the Pinakothek, and the ' Ceres ' of the Hermitage,
with the carefully designed architecture : both early examples of col
laboration, for Snyders had his share in the first, and the garland of
fruit in the second is the work of Breughel.
There still remains a long list, where goddesses and nymphs pro
vide occasion for wide expanses of brilliant flesh-painting. The large
' Erichthonius and the Daughters of Cecrops ' of the Liechten
stein Gallery has the stamp of an early work. The nymph to the right
calls to mind a figure in the still earlier ' Hero Crowned ' of Dresden.
At Belvoir Castle is another version of this subject.
The ' Venus and Adonis ' of the Hermitage is probably the earliest
of a series, of which the most famous is the great canvas that was
presented by the Emperor to the Duke of Marlborough. This picture
was, I believe, bought in at the Blenheim sale in 1886 ; it now
belongs to the Dowager Duchess. All these renderings of the
reluctant Adonis are based more or less closely on the well-known
picture by Titian ; they form a passage to the ' Meleagers ' and the
113

RUBENS
hunting scenes. The landscapes are in most cases, I think, by his
faithful assistant Wildens, and either he or Snyders may have painted
the dogs. They form as a whole an uninteresting group.
There remains a small group of pictures where Diana and her
nymphs play their part as a pretext for the introduction of the nude.
Here again we are naturally brought into connection with hunting
scenes — not as much in the 'Sleeping Diana' of Hampton Court,
which, before the surface was skinned off, was probably a marvellous
example of flesh painting, a forecast in a grander style of the work
of the French Boucher — as in such pictures as those at Dresden,
where the goddess is represented as returning from the chase. Here
too the Satyrs and the Fauns of the woodlands begin to play an
important part, and we enter into those side tracks of the classical
world of legend where, far below the Olympian heights, we may
expect to meet the old wine-vanquished Silenus, reeling along in the
midst of his ribald crew. It was in the rendering of such scenes as
these that Rubens before long was to attain to mastery.

114

CHAPTER X
The First Twelve Years at Antwerp (continued) — Battle Scenes and Hunting
Pieces — The ' Natural History ' Series — Landscapes — Breughel and Elsheimer —
Imitation of Earlier Masters — Garlanded Madonnas — -The Apocalyptic Series.
AMONG all the pictures that we have so far considered, I do not
J-\ think that it would be possible to point to a single one —
unless it be the sketch for the great ' Elevation,' now in the
Louvre — in which the rendering of motion plays an important part.
Yet it was this power of conveying the impression of irresistible
impetus and overflowing life that was" the essential gift of Rubens.
Here it is that he surpasses all other painters and reigns supreme.
From this we may judge that it was only after long striving and many
still-born efforts that this unique talent attained to full expression.
During many years the life and movement, at times successfully
rendered in the early sketch, was frozen up again during the more
laborious processes involved in the carrying out of the finished picture.
It was in certain battle and hunting scenes that Rubens had early
occasion to prove his mettle as a painter of violent action. In this
series we notice again and again the superiority of the first sketch to
the finished work.
It is in two pictures painted, it would seem, soon after the com
pletion of the ' Elevation ' triptych, that Rubens first tackled the
difficult problem. The ' Defeat of Sennacherib,' now in the Pina-
kothek, stands quite apart from the other Biblical subjects of the time.
It is a scene of wild confusion ; from the sky above angels of wrath
urge on the panic and confusion that reigns below. In the shock of
cavalry in the centre we have the first conception of a group that we
shall come upon again in more than one of Rubens's hunting scenes.
But amid all this sound and fury there is an air of unreality, and this
is increased by the artificial scheme of illumination.
The ' Conversion of St. Paul ' in the same gallery may be regarded
as a companion picture. There is here in the centre a similar group of
prancing horses and struggling figures. A few years later Rubens
painted a larger version of the same subject ; in this work the hand of
115

RUBENS
the young Vandyke can be traced in the rearing horses that take so
important a place in the composition. This picture was long at Leigh »
Court ; after the Miles sale in 1884, it passed to a Paris dealer, and
finally has found a home in the Berlin Gallery. But in none of these
elaborate compositions, any more than in the early hunting scenes, can
we find any trace of that marvellous power of rendering rapid motion
that gives life to later works of the same class.
It is indeed an easy passage from such pictures as these to the
hunting-pieces that were turned out from the studio between 1615 and
1620. The earliest of these of which we have any record is the work
with the curious title, ' Europeans hunting Wolves and Foxes '—a
huge picture measuring 12 feet by 18, that Rubens in 1617 offered
to Sir Dudley Carleton. After some negotiations the English
diplomatist contented himself with a reduced version ; the larger one
Rubens finally sold to the Duke of Aerschot. This picture has dis
appeared, but there are in England two smaller versions of the subject,
one lately belonging to Lord Ashburton, the other to Lord Methuen
at Corsham Court, and the first of these M. Rooses identifies with the
Carleton picture. These works are best known by the engraving of
Soutman. Rubens painted about this time as many as five large 'Lion Hunts.'
The most famous of these is the one executed for the Duke of Bavaria,
now in the Pinakothek. Here we have a vigorous m&lee of horsemen,
with rearing steeds and bounding lions ; the picture is closely allied in
conception to the ' Conversion of St. Paul ' in the Berlin Gallery — the
turbaned figures and the dappled horses are painted from studies that
had already served for earlier pictures of the same class. Rubens's
hunting scenes — as I have said, hardly convincing as renderings
of vigorous action — are carefully composed, and they abound in fine
passages of paint from the master's hand. In the ' Lion Hunt ' the
conception is dominated by the white band formed by the rearing
horse and the body of the falling Arab. The death-stricken face of
this latter figure should be noted — Rubens has devoted to it more
than usual pains. At Dresden, at Richmond and in the Palazzo
Corsini at Rome are other versions — the latter perhaps an early work,
and the first idea of the Munich picture — and in these it may be noted
that tigers also are introduced.
Of quite a different character are the Boar Hunts, of which there
are examples at Dresden and at Marseilles. The Dresden picture (in
the same gallery are also two spirited sketches of the same subject) is
116

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
essentially a landscape ; it is a forest scene, where, amid the masses of
fallen timber, the headlong rush of the boar is received upon the
spears of the footmen, while at the same moment the mounted hunts
men and the struggling hounds fling themselves from all sides upon
the quarry. There is a vigorous replica of the Dresden ' Boar Hunt ' at
Glasgow that came from the Adrian Hope collection. The picture at
Marseilles differs in composition ; it is an enlargement of the central
group ; the mounted figures to the right — a lady and a cavalier — have
already taken their place in the earlier Ashburton ' Wolf Hunt.'
In other cases it is the Calydonian boar that is hunted by ' Meleager
and Atalanta.' In the large and ambitious picture in Vienna,
Atalanta to the left has just let fly her arrow — a fine figure, doubtless
by Rubens. The halting action of the carefully drawn dogs and
game suggests the hand of Paul de Vos or Wildens. Compare with
this the life and swing in the fine sketch of the same subject that has
passed from the Calonne and Radstock Collections to Sir Frederick
Cook's Gallery at Richmond. Other versions of this composition have
been noticed in English collections (Earl of Milltown, Walpole, etc.),
but I cannot trace their present whereabouts.
The ' Calydonian Boar ' has taken us back to mythological scenes.
Where the quarry is the stag, we come again upon Diana and her
nymphs. But these stag hunts — that at Berlin, for instance, and the
Ashburton picture (now in the market) — are mostly late works, and
none of them of great importance.
In the case of the hunting scenes generally, it is, as I have hinted,
the sketch that interests us most. Here we have the original con
ception as it came from the master's brain ; the sweeping lines convey
the fling and impetus of the onrushing meute. Our English collec
tions are fortunately rich in oil-sketches of this kind, generally thinly
painted on panel with slight indications of colour.
But Rubens was not content with the sport offered by his own
country. Lion hunts we have already noticed, but about this time
(1615-20) his interest was excited by the monsters of the tropical flood
and jungle. The industry of the Belgian archivists has unearthed the
fact that as early as 1613 Rubens purchased books on natural history
— for example, Aldrovandus's great work, and some German compila
tions on the subject. At this time, too, he may have witnessed the
arrival at Antwerp of more than one shipload of rare animals brought
from the Indies or from tropical Africa to supply the princely mena
geries then coming into vogue. 117

RUBENS
But these exotic beasts have found their way not only into hunt
ing scenes ; in the ' Neptune and Amphitrite,' the picture from the,
Schoenborn collection, bought in 1881 by the Berlin Gallery for such
a large sum, we have quite a compendium of tropical natural history.
In this timidly executed and cold work (painted about 1616-17,
according to M. Rooses, but perhaps a little earlier) the nymph, so
familiar to us in the ' Erichthonius,' in the ' Toilet of Venus,' and even
in the early ' Hero Crowned,' occurs again. On either side of the
central figures we see a lion, a tiger and a hippopotamus. To the right
a sea-nymph sports with what is probably meant for a crocodile, and
on the other side a solemn-looking rhinoceros receives a douche from
a huge nautilus shell that another nymph empties over its head. By
the shore lie carefully painted tropical shells. The execution of these
strange animals has, I should say, been attributed to Wildens, the
Jack-of-all-trades, who is always called in when no other name will
well fit.
Another picture of the same class, but of somewhat later date, is
the so-called 'Four Quarters of the Globe' (otherwise known as the
' Four Rivers '), now in Vienna. M. Rooses praises the rich glow of
colour in this picture, but it struck me as a cold academic work, awk
ward in composition, and where the master's hand is only to be recog
nised in a few passages. The Nile is to be identified by the crocodile
that lies in front of him ; the Ganges by the snarling tigress suckling
her young. This latter group may well be the work of Rubens.
There is indeed in the Academy at Vienna a clever study of a very
similar tigress and cubs, painted, it would seem, . from nature, and
doubtless by the master.
The 'Alliance of Earth and Water' ('Neptune and Cybele') in
the Hermitage, is a closely allied picture. Here too a tiger is to be
discovered, and, as in the ' Amphitrite,' sea-shells, carefully painted.
The 'Crocodile and Hippopotamus Hunt' ofthe Augsburg
Gallery is yet another picture of the same class, but we are here taken
back to the hunting scenes from which we have lately digressed. This
picture, again, is highly lauded by M. Rooses. ' Effrayant de mouve-
ment ' he calls it, ' superb in its unity and admirable balance, it greatly
surpasses the master's wild-boar hunts.' To me it seems an artificially
composed picture of smooth and monotonous handling, in which the
part of Rubens cannot have been large. Like so many other of these
scenes where wild animals are introduced, it has been well engraved by
Soutman. 118

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
With these pictures too we may class the ' Daniel in the Lion's
Den,' a work that has long been popular with us in England'. As
' Daniel in the midst of many lions, painted from nature entirely by
my hand,' we find it in the list of the pictures offered by Rubens to Sir
Dudley Carleton, and it is there priced at 600 florins. Carleton presented
the picture to Charles 1., and later it passed to the Duke of Hamilton.
At the sale of the Hamilton collection in 1882, the 'Daniel' fetched
over five thousand pounds. A few years later the Duke was able to
buy it back for a much smaller figure. This picture is essentially a
study of lions in various positions. Daniel is there, but the beasts pay
no attention to him. Rubens at this time made many studies from life
of lions, mostly in black chalk. There is one — in this case a lioness —
in the National Gallery (Peel collection), and several others in the
Albertina. More important is the large oil study of a young lion
belonging to, Lord Normanton.
Before passing on to the landscapes painted during the early and
middle period, I will mention what is perhaps the only important still-
life piece entirely by the hand of Rubens. This is the ' Philopoemen '
of the Louvre, which is essentially a magnificently executed study of
game and vegetables — the hunted patriot plays but a secondary part.
But this brilliant little picture is, after all, only a sketch for a large
work (now lost) formerly in the Orleans Gallery.
Of the landscapes painted by Rubens, the greatest number and the
most interesting belong to the last years of his life. I have already
spoken of the early ' Landscape with a Rainbow,' and of the many
later versions of the same subject. There are in our Royal collections
two landscapes of which it is very difficult to fix the date ; in both of
them Van Uden or another has probably played a more important part
than Rubens.
' The Dairy Farm at Laeken ' (Buckingham Palace) was bought
by George iv. from the Lunden family. It was no doubt one of the
seventeen landscapes in the artist's house at his death. By Rubens are
the market-women, the barrow with vegetables, and perhaps the
passage with horses watering in the middle distance.
The ' Summer,' at Windsor, may probably be identified with the
' large landscape full of figures, horses, and carts,' that was among the
pictures of the Duke of Buckingham that were sent to Antwerp for sale
after his death. Along with it was the ' Winter, with Nine Figures,'
119

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
There is another little picture, again dated 1614, where Rubens has
adopted a miniature-like finish. This is the ' Pieta,' with the weeping
women, at Vienna (signed and dated ' P. P. Rubens F. 1614 '). There
is another version of this carefully composed group at Antwerp. In
this beautiful picture, painted with a broader brush than the last, the
figures are set in a* rocky landscape.
Not less interesting is it to find Rubens imitating the style of the
Flemish and German painters of the early sixteenth century, and even
copying their works. There were two pictures of this class at Blenheim.
1. The 'Paracelsus,' only brought £125 at the Marlborough sale.
This panel has since been acquired for the Brussels Museum at
a much higher price. It is a free copy from a German or Flemish
picture of the early sixteenth century, of which there is a version in the
museum at Nancy.1 2. More sympathetic is the ' Head of a Young
Man,' now in the Pinakothek. Here we have a copy (if we can call any
work of Rubens a copy) of a portrait by Joost van Cleef, now in the
Berlin Gallery. Again in the catalogue of the Buckingham pictures
sold at Antwerp in 1649 (see p. 47), No. 10 is entitled ' The Duchess
of Brabant and her Lover,' and this has been identified with the
curious panel now in Vienna, where Rubens has posed two figures in
the costume of the early fifteenth century. According to the inscrip
tion upon Van den Steen's engraving of this work, the true title should
run: 'St. Pepin, First Duke of Brabant, and St. Bega.' It is
there said to be ' after an old picture.' The work is essentially Flemish,
in the style of Quentin Massys. It is a carefully painted little panel,
all by Rubens's hand. It may be noted that in a few of Rubens's large
pictures, as in the ' Conversion of St. Bavon ', there is an attempt at
obtaining 'local colour' by the partial introduction of mediaeval
costumes. When Rubens worked in collaboration with Jan Breughel, he
adopted a highly-finished, at times almost miniature-like, treatment.
The two artists seem to have thus combined their forces at intervals
between 1612 and 1620. In the ' Adam and Eve ' of the Hague, the
graceful figures are little more than staffage in the landscape of the
older painter. So of the little heads of the Virgin encircled by the
only one is universally accepted — a vigorously executed figure of St. Catherine. In the British
Museum is an etching ofthe bust ofthe Pseudo-Seneca (a unique example), which is probably by
Rubens. 1 This picture may be recognised in Van Haecht's painting of Cornelis van der Geest's Gallery
(O.M. 1907). It is not unlikely that this wealthy patron of Rubens may have directed his
attention to the old Flemish painters. Cf. p. 99. 121

RUBENS
elaborate wreaths of Breughel — these are in some cases essentially
flower-pieces. The most famous of these combined works is perhaps
the ' Garlanded Madonna ' at Munich. Here the colour scheme of
Rubens's Virgin is quite spoiled by the gay flowers, which seem, how
ever, tq have been painted before both the central panel and the sur
rounding angels. A similar picture from the Schoenborn collection is
now in the New York Museum. Another combined work of this class in
the Louvre was painted originally for the Cardinal Federigo Borromeo.
When Breughel sent off this panel to his patron, he speaks of it as his
finest work, and he states that the birds and other small animals lurk
ing among the flowers are painted from life after those in the posses
sion of the Infanta Isabella. He then mentions quite incidentally
that ' M. Rubens has given a proof of his talent in the central
medallion.' In the case ofthe first of these * Garlanded Madonnas,' the flowers
are surrounded by a ring of winged boy-angels.. But in the ' Madonna
with the Holy Innocents,' also in the Louvre, the central figures are
encircled and supported by a closely packed throng of wingless putti, who
fill up the whole of the background. This is a somewhat earlier work,
belonging to a time when Rubens was occupied with the problem of the
play of light upon complicated masses of flesh ; the dexterous handling
of the brush in the rapidly-sketched contours, and in the reliefs of these
little plump dimpled bodies is nowhere better seen than here. Notice,
above all, the markings of red paint by which the hollows of the flesh
are subtly indicated. ,
There are some other pictures for which Breughel provided the
flowers. He painted an elaborate wreath for the curious allegory
now at Glasgow, where three nymphs are apparently robing a statue of
the many-breasted Ephesian Diana. 'Nature Adorned by the
Graces ' is no doubt the subject of this strange picture. The basket
of flowers that the ' Three Graces ' raise above their heads in the
pictures at Vienna and Stockholm, may also be attributed to Breughel.
To him, too, we may give the flowers and the landscape in the 'Nymphs
Plucking Fruit ' at the Hague, but in this case the attribution to
Rubens of the figures seems to me somewhat doubtful.
Of the Holy Families and Madonnas of this time I must content
myself with a brief mention. That in the Gallery of Hertford House
is worthy of a better place than it now occupies. The picture is
remarkable for the exquisite flesh-painting of the two boys. The
' Holy Family with the Lamb ' that the great Duke took from the
122

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
palace of Tervueren is perhaps the work of a pupil. Another
Madonna from the Blenheim Gallery passed to a French collection.
This picture is identical in composition with one of the wings of the
famous ' Christ a la Paille.' The ' Holy Family ' of the Pitti is a
charming, if somewhat awkwardly arranged group. If the robust boy
lying in the homely cradle is to be identified with the young Nicolas,
this would fix the date to about 1619. The ' Holy Family with a
Basket ' at Sanssouci 1 is probably somewhat earlier. This slightly
painted picture is remarkable for the graceful if somewhat mannered
pose of the Virgin, and for the happy rendering of the infant Christ.
A replica, or perhaps rather a contemporary copy, of this picture
has lately been presented to the gallery at Vienna by the Emperor of
Austria. In 1620 Rubens's elder son was six years old, his second a sturdy
baby of two ; the two boys find their places in numerous pictures — at
this time they must almost have lived in the studio. As early as
1618, when he painted the beautiful ' Children with Garlands,' now
in the Pinakothek, perhaps the most popular of all Rubens's pictures
of children, the young Albert was pressed into service. The boys in
this case much resemble the little winged angels of the ' Garlanded
Madonna ' of the same gallery, but their burden of fruit and flowers
is here rather the work of Snyders than of Breughel. To the same
class belongs the picture at Vienna, where we see the ' Infant Christ
and St. John ' with two boy angels, playing with a lamb — a damaged
and in part repainted panel, of which there exist numberless replicas
or copies, in some of which the angels are missing. (Berlin, Kingston
Lacy, and especially the well-preserved picture at Wilton. )
In 1615 (the date we have on the authority of his nephew Philip)
Rubens painted for his friend Cornells van der Geest a small picture
that ranks amongst his greatest works : this is the ' Battle of the
Amazons,' one of the glories of the Munich Gallery. It was at the
instigation of the same patron that the great ' Elevation of the Cross '
had been carried out some years previously. In spite of the distinct
statement of Rubens's nephew, M. Rooses will have it that the Amazon
picture also belongs to the earlier time. As an unsurpassed rendering
1 In the Picture Gallery along with some twenty other works that have at least come from the
great atelier. The Holy Family in question, like so many other of the Potsdam pictures — and
this applies not only to the works of our master — shows signs of vigorous and drastic cleaning
following on a long period of neglect.
123

RUBENS
of headlong impetus it has indeed some relation to the powerful sketch
of the ' Elevation ' in the Louvre. The drawing of the horses calls to
mind the 'Sennacherib' and the 'Lion Hunts.' But the 'Battle of
the Amazons ' has merits that none of these pictures possess. It is
not only in the quality of paint, in itself so delightful, that Rubens has
here given proof of his genius, but he has in this picture, perhaps for
the first time, come forward as the successful portray er of irresistible
onrush and rapid motion. The engraving in six parts that Vorsterman
made of this work in 1623, is remarkable as the biggest print ever
executed from a picture of Rubens ; it is dedicated to the Countess
of Arundel. Bellori states that this engraving was made from a draw
ing of the picture by Vandyke, touched in parts by Rubens. The
general composition of the ' Amazons ' is repeated in a later oil-sketch,
powerfully painted with full palette, now at Hertford House. This
is the ' Defeat of Maxentius,' one of the ' Constantine ' series that
Rubens executed about 1626.
I have so far said nothing of a group of pictures that comprises
some of the most superlative as well as some of the most uninspired
of the works of Rubens. I refer to what may be called the Apocalyptic
Series, that was in the main executed between the years 1615 and
1619. Here I may mention that the identification of the subject of
these pictures presents some difficulty. Rubens does seem to have
clearly differentiated in his mind two very different events — the Fall
of the Rebel Angels and the scenes connected with the Last Judg
ment. After all, what was required was an occasion for rendering
a vision that, as far as I know, was peculiar to the artist — a stream
or cascade of naked bodies ; in other cases we may better liken the
effect to an ascending column of vapour. The subject indeed had
been long a favourite one. What may be called the anatomical or
Michelangelesque treatment had been carried on in Italy by Vasari and
Bronzino, and in Flanders by Frans Floris. But with Rubens the
aim, or rather the first vision, was of quite another kind ; in the
carrying out, however, the artist was led aside to the anatomical
development of individual figures, and in doing this the original con
ception was lost. There are some who are unimpressed by those
marvellous cascades of naked flesh — they have even been compared
to strings of sausages.1
1 Raw sausages, I suppose, but in even a raw sausage a great artist may find suggestions for
artistic treatment.
124

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
The greatest difference of opinion prevails as to the time when
this idea first entered the brain of Rubens. On the ground partly of
an early picture in the Durazzo collection at Genoa, M. Rooses, who
confesses that he only knows the work from what is but a poor modern
engraving, throws back the date of the first conception to the Italian
period. But this Genoese picture, even if by Rubens, we may, I
think, put aside as having little relation to the group in question.
There are in the museum at Aix-la-Chapelle (Suermondt Collection)
and in the Pinakothek at Munich two small panels, the one known
as the ' Fall of the Damned ' and the other as the ' Assumption of
the Righteous.' That these are companion pictures there can be
no doubt; they are of the same size, and hasty sketches for figures
in both may be found on either side of the same sheet of paper (in
the British Museum). I cannot discuss the grounds — very uncon
vincing they seem to me — that have led to the placing of both these
little unfinished panels in the Italian period (i.e. before 1609). A
mere glance at a photograph, I should have thought, is enough to
show that the ' Assumption ' at least is no work of a novice.1
In fact, both these sketches or unfinished pictures must in all
probability be associated — at least in their original condition, for one
at least has been much painted on since — with the great ' machines '
that Rubens painted beween 1615 and 1618 for the new Jesuit church
at Neuburg, as well as for other churches of the Order. As for the
' Fall of the Damned ' at Aix-la-Chapelle, this is distinctly the
first idea for the big panel now in the Pinakothek that goes under
that name. This Munich panel we may perhaps regard as the typical
picture of the series. Rubens took infinite pains in the working out
of the detail for this elaborate composition ; witness the careful studies
of individual figures and groups of figures, of which four have passed
from the Peel Collection to the National Gallery, two others are in
the British Museum, and a seventh in the Albertina. In this case
the fire of the original version is in some measure preserved, although
the unity of the composition has been lost. Only a fragment of
1 I notice that in the last edition of the Munich Catalogue the ' Assumption ' is relegated
to a place among the 'Studio pieces.' It is suggested that it may be identified with a sketch
or unfinished picture bought by Wildens at the sale of Rubens's effects— 'The Assumption ofthe
Blessed Souls'— of which it is recorded that only a few figures were painted in the middle, and
that the owner had it finished by a certain Jan Boeckhorst. But the panel in the Munich Gallery
is obviously not finished. Still less can the Munich panel be identified with a sketch that Rubens
is recorded to have made for a picture that he proposed to paint for the Duke of Buckingham.
This would place it much too late. I confess myself quite unable to understand the argument
of M. Rooses in respect to these two panels. ( Vie de Rubens, p. 195 seq.)
125

RUBENS
this picture has been engraved (by Soutman), otherwise we might
have thought that Milton had found in the wild avalanche of head
long falling ' bodies, the suggestion for a famous passage in the first
book of Paradise Lost.
The ' Little Last Judgment ' is in its present form an upright
panel about six feet by four. As in the last work, Michael is here
seen hurling down what may be either fallen angels or the bodies
of the damned. It was originally an oblong picture, and in this
form was, in 1642, engraved by Suyderhoef — Milton may have seen the
engraving. At some later time Rubens added a semicircular segment
at the top, where Christ is seated in judgment. In its original form
this must have been a striking composition. Even now, in spite of
the want of cohesion between the two parts, it is without doubt the
most satisfactory of the Apocalyptic Series.
On the ' Great Last Judgment ' and on the ' Fall of the Rebel
Angels ' that Rubens executed in 1618 and 1619 for the Jesuit church
at Neuburg, I need not dwell. The spirit of the original conception
has here completely evaporated. These huge ' machines,' painted
for the most part by pupils, are now in the Pinakothek. They play
their part in the decoration of that astounding room, where Rubens
rules supreme ; but the judicious visitor gives them a passing glance
and turns to matters at hand of quite another calibre. Even more
empty is the ' Apocalyptic Woman ' in the same gallery, but this
picture is of some interest, as it is probably the earliest example
of the series. It was painted perhaps as early as 1611 for a church
at Freising, and a view of that Bavarian town occupies the lower
part of the canvas. Finally, as regards the smaller sketchy version
of the ' Last Judgment ' at Dresden, Dr. Bode is probably right in
classing it as a later school-piece.
I have done my best to present, in logical connection, this most com
plicated group of pictures. It will be noted that only of the canvases
painted for the Duke of Neuburg is the date definitely known.1 I
should personally be inclined to place the Munich ' Fall of the Damned,'
as well as the ' Little Last Judgment,' at a later date than these, and
to connect them rather with the time when Rubens was working
for the Duke of Buckingham ; but apart from ' stylistic ' grounds the
evidence in favour of this arrangement is, I confess, very slight.
1 It is perhaps worthy of note that here at Neuburg at the very time when these huge altar-
pieces were delivered at the little Bavarian town (lately handed over to the Jesuits on the
conversion of the Duke), the young Descartes, seated by the stove in his room, was dreaming
of the discovery of a new and wonderful science.
126

PORTRAIT STUDY
(FROM a DRAWING IN THE K(;L. KUPl-'ERSTICHICAlllNiiTT, UtKl.lN)

CHAPTER XI
The First Twelve Years at Antwerp (continued) — Portraits — Pictures for the
Jesuit Church — Decius Mus Series — The Earlier ' Assumptions ' and 'Adorations '
— The ' March of Silenus.'
WHAT rank are we to give to Rubens as a portrait painter ?
I know of some competent judges who would be prepared
to grant him the very highest place. On the other hand,
Fromentin denies to Rubens the smallest merit in this department.
' His portraits,' he declares, * are weak, the result of little observation,
superficially built up and based on the vaguest likeness.' When com
pared to the great masters of portraiture, and even to men of the
second rank, ' we see,' says the French critic, ' that Rubens was wanting
in that naivete, in that concentration of mind, humble and yet strong,
that is required of the artist before he can attain perfection in the
rendering of the human face.' In other words, Rubens took little
interest in the observation of individual character. He prided himself
rather upon his power of generalisation. We must not, then, in his
portraits look for any interpretation of the inner man, for the rendering
of anything more than what presents itself to the ordinary observer
' in the light of common day.' This rendering, however, is, as far as it
goes, so perfect, attained by such simple and straightforward means,
and the result is in not a few cases such a healthy, enjoyable piece of
downright painting that we forget to ask for anything more. But, with
a few notable exceptions, Rubens's faces do not haunt you like those of
Rembrandt, nor do they inspire complete confidence as counterfeits of
the very man as do those of Holbein, or even of Antony More at his
best. They are wanting, again, in the distinction, somewhat artificial,
perhaps, of Vandyke. It must be remembered, however, that Rubens
entered into the inheritance of an accomplished school of portrait
painters, and that with one of the later members of that school, the
younger Frans Pourbus, he was closely associated during his Italian
period. The portraits of this painter, I may add, are sometimes not
easily to be distinguished from the earlier ones of Rubens.
These earlier portraits of Rubens need not detain us long. I have
127

RUBENS
already spoken of those of Isabella Brant and of the Rockox family—
the latter on the wings of the St. Thomas triptych.
Of the many likenesses of the ' Archdukes ' that Rubens painted
during the lifetime of Albert, perhaps no example that is distinctly by
his hand has come down to us ; the best known is the pair of about
1617, now in the Prado. The portrait of Pieter Peck or Pecqdius,
Chancellor of Brabant, a diplomatist with whom Rubens had at one
time intimate relations, is a forcible work conveying the impression of a
man of strong character (collection of Prince Anton von Arenberg).
The Doctor van Thulden, now in the Pinakothek, was painted pro
bably about 1620. The Louvain professor is seated, in black academic
robes, and the artist has caught the momentary expression, not a very
pleasant one, with which he looks round, quietly and decidedly, as if
to clench some point of canon law. It is a model well worthy of study
by the modern painter of a presentation portrait. At Paris, in the
house of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, there are two good portraits of
this time — Peter van Hecke and his wife, Clara Fourment. Clara
was the eldest of the sisters of Helen Fourment, the artist's second
wife, born twenty years before her. This is the first time that we come
across a member of this subsequently much painted family. The portly,
bourgeois figure of Peter, in black doublet, relieved against a red
curtain, is solidly painted with a fat brush, with warm lights and deep
shadows. In the Cook collection at Richmond is a portrait of a young
gentleman in black, in expression unusually refined and courteous,
which belongs to this time ; but I cannot see in the face any resem
blance to the artist's brother Philip.
But of all the portraits that Rubens painted at this time, none have
gained him greater praise than the pair that now hang in the gallery at
Brussels. Charles de Cordes was married in 1617 to Jacqueline
van Caestre ; the young wife died the next year. These facts fix the
date of the pictures. Nowhere is the consummate skill in execution
attained at this time by Rubens better seen than in these portraits. In
spite of an appearance of finish, we have here the rapid work of a full
brush.1 In the case of Jacqueline there is something in the rendering
for which a claim of spiritual insight has been made — an admonition of
approaching death has been found in the face. Rubens had a hand
some model, and he has well rendered the sad and rather peevish ex-
1 M. Rooses speaks of an 'execution extremement soigne'e,' but this is surely to damn these
admirable pieces of painting with a kind of praise which is not called for in this case. It is inter
esting to compare the widely contrasted appreciation of these portraits by two such critics as
Fromentin and the late R. A. M. Stevenson.
128

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
pression of the beautiful face before him ; he has rejoiced in the skill
with which, with a slight touch of vermilion here and there, he has
brought out the value of the sober tones of the hair and complexion.
But is there anything more in this face than what Fromentin calls
' epidermis painting,' resulting in what is ' expeditive, brillante, une
ressemblance aimable, une ceuvre ephemere ' ?
Rubens, indeed, when at work on a portrait was, we may well
imagine, thinking about the great canvases he had on hand at the time,
perhaps turning over in his mind the place that could be found for the
head he was painting in one of his compositions. A man content him
self with the external aspect of the world around him, he was at no
pains to search out the inner psychology of the men and women who
sat for him. This is perhaps the reason that the studies that Rubens
made of a Negro's Head (Brussels Gallery), quite apart from the
marvellous modelling with the brush and the rendering of the
epidermis, are so eminently satisfactory. We feel that the ethos of the
merry, chattering ' nigger,' whose life is all on the surface, has been
rendered with radical truth — there is nothing more to say.
But Rubens at times struck a deeper note, never more so than in
the 'Last Communion of St. Francis,' that he painted in 1619 for the
Re'collet Church at Antwerp. Nowhere, perhaps, has a certain phase
of religious sentiment, which it would be out of place to analyse here,
been more admirably recorded ; and never, perhaps, has the rendering
of a pathetic and tragic scene been more sympathetically co-ordinated
with a masterly arrangement of chiaroscuro and a restrained but delight
ful scheme of colour. But read the eloquent lines in the Maitres
a" Autrefois, where Fromentin recalls his impressions of this noble
picture, and compare what he says with the passage in which Reynolds
declares this strange, haunting figure of St. Francis to be so ' disgustful '
as to counterbalance whatever other merit the picture may have. The
figure, he says, is without dignity, and appears more like a lazar than a
saint. Sir Joshua here speaks less as an artist than as a healthy
English gentleman of the eighteenth century, little in sympathy with
such a phase of piety.
Only a year later, in 1620, Rubens painted for the high altar of the
same Franciscan church — this time at the charge of his friend, the
Burgomaster Rockox — another equally famous picture. This is the
large ' Crucifixion,' better known as the ' Coup de Lance,' that now,
like the ' Last Communion,' hangs in the Antwerp Gallery. Here is a
R.-9 129

RUBENS
picture that appeals to us mainly by certain passages of magnificent
painting. In calfing up this picture to my mind, what presents itself t
first is the ray of brilliant sunlight — the first, doubtless, after the dark
ness of the eclipse — that illumines the golden robes of the Magdalene
and gilds the horse's head above. Here for once the tints of primary
yellow get the upper hand of the inevitable vermilion (this, indeed,
appears on the robes of the virgin and of the soldier holding the spear).
But perhaps, among other causes, it is as a consequence of this sub
ordination of the red keynote that the picture as a Whole lacks unity-
it is a concatenation of beautiful passages. Sir Joshua, I should
mention, after several pages of praise of this work, declares ' that it is
certainly one of the first pictures of the world for colouring, and, what
was not to be expected from Rubens, correctness of drawing.' J
The rather melodramatic ' Christ a la Paille,' the central panel of
a triptych that formerly stood over the tomb of Jan Michielsen (d.
1617) in the Antwerp Cathedral, has attained to some fame from the
very realistic painting of the head of Christ and the skilful way in
which the collapse of the corpse is rendered. In this picture, painted
thinly with a wet brush, Rubens carries certain mannerisms that dis
tinguish his flesh-painting at this time to excess — I mean in the use of
ultramarine in the half-tones and of vermilion in the reflections. The
' Christ a la Paille ' may be compared with the Trinity that Rubens
painted several years later for the Grands Carmes — both pictures are in
the Antwerp Gallery. This is essentially an elaborate study in fore
shortening ; the hastily painted Almighty and the weeping angels are
quite subsidiary to the dead body of Christ.
We do not know at what date Vandyke entered the studio of
Rubens, but we are able to group together quite a number of pictures
in which the hand of the most brilliant of his pupils (if pupil he ever
was) may be more or less distinctly traced. In 1609, when he was
barely ten years old, Vandyke was entered in the books of the Guild
of St. Luke as a pupil of the elder Van Balen. Nine years later, in
1618, he was received as master. When working under Rubens he
must have passed rapidly through the grades of pupil and assistant;
already by 1618 he is probably to be reckoned as a collaborator. Early
in 1621 Vandyke entered the service of James i. ; at that time he only
remained about eight months with us, but his return to Antwerp was
followed very shortly by his departure for Italy. It was during the
1 The chalk ' study ' for the Coup de Lance in the National Gallery I should rather regard as
a drawing made for the engraver by some clever pupil, perhaps by the young Vandyke.
130

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
years 1618, 1619, and 1620 that he took an important part in the work
turned out from the studio of Rubens. Vandyke's manner at this time
was something very different from what we usually associate with his
name — his execution is coarse and hasty, with heavy black shadows.
We have a good sample of his early work in the ' St. Ambrose and the
Emperor Theodosius ' in the National Gallery, a free copy of a large
picture by Rubens now in Vienna. It is in the painting of the fiery
steeds in some of the battle and hunting pieces of Rubens that Van
dyke's hand may perhaps first be recognised.
Among the pictures offered to Sir Dudley Carleton was the
'Achilles with the Daughters of Lycomedes,' now in the Prado
Museum. Rubens declares that the picture was " the work of the best
of his pupils, but entirely retouched by me.' It is generally understood
that the reference here is to Vandyke. If so, already by 1617 Vandyke
had taken a prominent place in the studio. The figure of Achilles is
indeed quite characteristic of Vandyke's earliest style.
In the same correspondence with Carleton (cf. p. 40) there is
question of the tapestries that the English Ambassador was to secure
in part payment for his marbles. Rubens mentions that the designs
for a series illustrating the history of Decius Mus, the Roman consul
who devoted himself in battle to assure the victory of his people, were
at the time in Brussels, in the hands of the tapestry weavers — the
tapestry had been ordered by certain Genoese noblemen. Now at
Vienna, in the Gallery of Prince Liechtenstein, is a series of six boldly
executed canvases, each some 9 feet by 14 to 17, illustrating this
history. Rubens was here able to display his intimacy with the details
of Roman antiquarian lore. ' In the treatment of this sombre and
sublime drama,' says M. Rooses, ' the artist takes an epic tone, and in
no other of his works is this tone better sustained. In none is a noble
action represented under more noble forms.' This is true in a measure,
but at the same time we have here typical examples of the rhetorical
style so favoured in the seventeenth century in the treatment of classical
subjects. The 'Dedication' is perhaps the most beautiful of the
Decius Mus series ; in the simple colour-scheme the gold embroidered
robes of the priest play an important part. There is something original
in the composition, and the high-priest with his attendant are impres
sive figures. There is in Munich a powerful sketch, by Rubens's own
hand, for the last of the series, the ' Funeral of Decius,' and other
sketches have from time to time turned up in private collections. It
was these sketches, it would seem, that were handed over to the young
131

RUBENS
Vandyke, and from these, according to Bellori (writing in 1672), the
large canvases now in the Liechtenstein Gallery were carried out.
Some time after Rubens's death they became the property of Gonzales
Cocques, and from him probably Bellori derived his information. To
what extent Rubens may have worked upon the canvases of his clever
assistant is a point that cannot now be cleared up, but the composition
was entirely his. Characteristic of the work of Vandyke at this time
is the dappled genit d'Espagne, an old friend that turns up in three of
the Decius Mus series. It is not quite certain whether we are to regard
the Liechtenstein canvases as the actual designs sent to the weavers,
or whether special cartoons were made for their use. It is recorded
that in the eighteenth century part of another series turned up. Thus
we would have — 1. The original sketches of Rubens. 2. The can
vases prepared from them by Vandyke, and more or less worked upon
by the master. 3. The cartoons made by the pupils for the weavers.1
4. The tapestries themselves. Of these last several sets are in existence,
in Madrid, in Prague, and more than one in Vienna.
Closely connected with the Decius Mus pictures, and like them
crowded with classical arms and furniture, is the ' Hero Crowned by
Victory ' at Cassel, a work that in composition bears a remarkable
resemblance to the early ' Hero Crowned ' at Dresden (see p. 82).
There is a smaller version of the same subject at Vienna, a brilhant httle
masterpiece, rapidly but solidly painted. The large panel was painted
about 1619 for the Guild of the Archers at Antwerp. Napoleon is
said to have admired this picture, and when it was carried off to Paris
to have placed it over his working table in his cabinet.
Another picture of this time or a little earlier, and one in which
Vandyke would seem to have had a hand, is the * Lot leaving Sodom,'
which was presented to the great Duke of Marlborough by the town of
Antwerp. At the Blenheim sale it was bought by Mr. Butler for
£1850. Lot's buxom daughter, who carries off a basket piled up with
the family plate, is a figure familiar to us in works of this time ; her
satin robe is a fine piece of painting.
The ' Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau,' now in the Pinakothek,
is apparently the picture bought in 1628 by Philip iv., and how it
passed to Munich is a mystery. This is a clever pasticcio ; we have the
1 I cannot point to a single example of a true cartoon by Rubens or his assistants. We are dis
tinctly told that Jordaens made such cartoons in water-colour for the tapestry weavers ; but of
these, too, have any survived ? In any case I do not think it well to employ the word ' cartoon'
for oil designs on canvas, although in Rubens's atelier such canvases perhaps at times took tlieir
place, and my third stage was omitted. (See also notes pp. 107 and 187.)
132

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
camels of the ' Adoration ' series, while the woman grasping the strug
gling child takes us back to one of the wings of the ' Elevation. ' There
is, however, a note of distinction about the half-kneeling figure of
Jacob that redeems the picture from the commonplace.
In 1617 a great triptych was commissioned by the Guild of the
Fishmongers of Malines for their altar in the church of Notre Dame
de la Dyle. In this case a full record has been preserved of the
negotiations between Rubens and the delegates of the fishmongers, and
we learn how the large panels were forwarded to the artist from
Malines and returned by boat to that town when finished, and how
after being placed in position they received some final touches from the
master's brush. The expenses, 1600 florins, were to be discharged by a
town duty levied on foreign fish. In the centre we have the Mirac
ulous Draught of Fishes, a learned composition, though the figures
are rather crowded. The picture as a whole is dominated by two huge
patches of vermilion, the robe of Christ to the right and the short
jacket of the stalwart old fisherman to the left. The realistic treatment
of this last figure, with his tall fisherman's boots, has been often noticed ;
the careful drawing of the fish, and more especially of the shells on the
beach, connect this picture with the Berlin ' Amphitrite ' and others of
what I have called the 'natural history' series (see p. 117 seq.). St.
Peter kneeling before Christ is a sympathetic figure ; the others are
academic studies by means of which an elaborate design is built up.
Notice in the ' Tobias and the Angel,' on the wing to the right, the
total absence of positive colour ; except for the amber robe of the angel
the picture is made up of greys and olive-greens. Apart from the little
pictures of the predella, two of which are now at Nancy, the complete
work still stands in its old place behind the altar in the church of Our
Lady at Malines. We have in the National Gallery a beautiful
' sketch ' of the ' Miraculous Draught ' by Vandyke ; it is in grisaille
heightened by a little colour. The composition is less crowded than in
the case of the Malines triptych, and indeed we are here reminded not
a httle of Raphael's famous cartoon.
We have seen that in the Decius Mus series it is difficult to put a
limit upon the amount of work to be attributed to Vandyke. In the
vast series of pictures executed at this time for the Jesuit church at
Antwerp, the part played by master and pupil has been variously
estimated. Although the Jesuits returned to Antwerp immediately
upon the capture of the town by Farnese, they only began to build
their great church in 1615, nor was it finished till 1621. The agree-
133

RUBENS
ment that was come to in March 1620 between Rubens and the director
of the maison prof esse has been preserved. In it Rubens undertakes to
complete before the end of the year thirty-nine pictures destined to
take their place in the new church,. on the ceiling of the aisles and of
the gallery that ran above (the aisles, as in some of Wren's city churches,
were in two stories, and divided from the nave by a double row of
arcading). It was especially stipulated that the designs were in every
case to be by Rubens ; the canvases on the ceiling, however, might be
painted by Vandyke or other pupils. For the complete series Rubens
was to . receive 7000 florins. The high altar of the church had been
designed, in part at least, by Rubens himself, and for it he had already
undertaken to paint two large altar-pieces, which were to be exposed
to view in turn. These were to illustrate the Miracles of St.
Ignatius Loyola and of St. Francis Xavier, the two great saints of
the order. In 1718 this gorgeous building, which rivalled in magnifi
cence the church of the Gesu at Rome, was struck by lightning, and
the body of the church, along with the thirty-nine canvases on the
ceilings of the aisles, was destroyed by the fire that ensued. Now
Rubens had retained the sketches for this series, painting in return for
them the large ' Assumption,' now in the Gallery at Vienna. Of these
seventeen are now known — four are in the Louvre, six in the Academy
at Vienna, five in the grand-ducal Museum at Gotha, one at Brussels,
and finally one with us in the Dulwich Gallery. These boldly executed
sketches are carried out on panel with thin washes of pale but bright
and clear colours. They are above all remarkable for the masterly
perspective of the figures, arranged so as to be seen from below. It
was on this account perhaps that Rubens so prized them. Of special
merit are the ' Elevation of the Cross ' and the ' Crowning of the
Virgin ' in the Louvre. The decoration of the Antwerp ceilings doubt
less served as a model for many later works in similar positions that
have adorned the baroque churches of the Jesuits and of other orders.
For the two big miracle pictures that Rubens painted for the high
altar he received 3000 florins, this time giving up the original sketches.
These large altar-pieces escaped all injury in the fire, but of the sketches
which appear to have been at the time in the church, one at least has
suffered. Both pictures and sketches were bought by the Austrian
Government in 1775, and they now hang side by side in the Imperial
Museum at Vienna, offering a rare occasion for comparison and study.
In the powerful sketches there is little positive colour. On a ground
of pale lavender that has been scumbled over the white lining of the
134

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
panel, the design is sketched in in subdued tones, with here and there a
touch of crimson ; but the great red patches of the finished canvases
are here, as elsewhere in the case of sketches, absent. These huge
miracle pictures are indeed dull works, totally wanting in spontaneity ;
the interest is concentrated on the rendering of maniacal seizure and
the resuscitation of the dead ; little rnoTe than the figures of the patients
are by the master's hand. The miracles of St. Francis Xavier are
supposed to take place in Japan, but Rubens was not concerned with
any question about the 'local colour.' What is remarkable is to find
in parts a return to certain types characteristic of Rubens's Italian
period. Indeed in both works I see the mannered hand of some early
assistant rather than that of Vandyke. Rubens painted another
version of the Ignatian miracles for the Genoese banker Nicolo
Pallavicini. This large picture is now in the Church of S. Ambrogio
at Genoa. Of the other large decorative pieces that Rubens painted before and
after 1620 for the altars of various churches, the most important fall
into two series : one concerned with the Assumption of the Virgin, the
other with the Adoration of the Kings or Magi.
The Assumption of the Virgin was painted five times by Rubens,
and three of the series were executed at this time. Rubens's treatment
of the subject may be regarded as a passage from the conception of
Titian to that of Murillo — with these three artists above all we connect
the scene. The earliest of the ' Assumptions ' of Rubens was painted
in 1619. It was a present from the Archduke to the church of the
Barefooted Carmelites at Brussels. The picture now hangs in the
gallery of that town. This is no doubt an eminently successful work,
but nothing more — ' brilliant and cold, uninspired as to the theme,
methodical and prudent in the execution,' says Fromentin. Only the
figures round the tomb can we regard as entirely by the master, the
upper part has only been touched by him. It is characteristic of
Rubens that here, as in so many other cases, the part of the picture
that he looked upon as most important and that he reserved for him
self does not include what we should regard as the principal figure.
As a colour scheme the whole picture is dominated by the vermilion
robe of the Apostle leaning over the empty tomb. At Buckingham
Palace is a small version of this picture, probably made for the
engraver. Very inferior on the whole is the great panel, now in the Hof-
museum at Vienna, which Rubens completed a little later for his Jesuit
135

RUBENS
friends at Antwerp, to redeem, as I have already mentioned, his thirty-
nine sketches. But this picture has suffered much, first in the fire at *
the Jesuit Church, and again when it was sawn into three segments by
the Commissioner Denon before its removal from Vienna to Paris in
1809. More decorative in conception is a third ' Assumption ' that Rubens
painted at this time for another church at Brussels (La Chapelle). This
picture was bought in 1711 by the Bavarian Elector, and has remained
ever since at Diisseldorf, the one representative of the famous Rubenses
that Sir Joshua saw in that town.1 On one occasion, when it was
proposed to move this huge panel, the waggon that bore it broke down
in the market-place, and the attempt was never repeated.
The two ' Assumptions ' that Rubens painted at a later period
(Antwerp Cathedral, 1626 ; and Liechtenstein Gallery, 1638) I shall
treat of in a subsequent chapter.
Rubens painted the Adoration of the Kings not less than eight
times.2 Of that painted in 1610 for the town hall at Antwerp I have
already spoken ; of the others, four fall within our present division of
time. This was a subject that must have been entirely after Rubens's
heart. Here was an opportunity for the elaborate grouping of figures
clad in gorgeous Oriental robes. The whole is conceived in the spirit
of the spectacular arrangements — Twelfth-Night or Presepio scenes —
so popular at the time. It is to be noted that Rubens in these pictures
concentrates his attention not less upon the attendants than upon the
kings or magi themselves ; some of these individual figures are magni
ficent examples of the great artist's brush. On the other hand, the
Virgin Mother and the Infant Christ hold but a secondary position, and
the execution of this part is often left to an assistant.
The ' Adoration ' now in the Brussels Gallery came from the
Capucin church at Tournai. The scene is full of animation ; the crowd
on the staircase at the side is kept back by men-at-arms. The beams
of the sun almost extinguish the light of the smoky torches. The king
in the centre is a mass of vermilion ; behind him stands the white-
turbaned Caspar, and the kneeling king is robed in amber-coloured
brocade. The great triptych that Rubens painted for the church of St. Jean
1 The others are now in Munich.
2 Madrid, 1610 ; Rrussels, 1618 ; Lyons, 1618 ; Malines, 1619 ; St. Petersburg, 1620 ; Antwerp,
1624 ; Paris, 1627 ; Grosvenor House, 1632. Besides these there were studies and replicas as well
as other ' Adorations ' that are now lost.
136

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
at Malines, was commissioned as early as 1616. As in the case of the
other important works of Rubens in that city, the panels were
forwarded by boat to Antwerp. The wings and the predella (now in
part at Marseilles) were finished first ; the central panel was sent off
in 1619 ; in 1624 one of Rubens's pupils was sent to clean and varnish
the whole work. In the same year Rubens gave a receipt for the final
instalment of the payment. The picture still remains in its original
position over the high altar. In the central panel the miraculous
light that encircles the Child is contrasted with the ruddy glare from
the flaming torches. As for the kings or magi, they follow closely
upon the Brussels picture. The effect of rich colour is obtained, as
in all of this series, by simple means. The subjects on the shutters
are taken from the life and death of the two Johns — the precursor and
the evangelist. What Rubens says of the work — that it is all by his
own hand — can only apply to the central panel. The wings are at
best gone over in parts by him.
Rubens must have had a much smaller share in the ' Adoration '
now at Lyons. This picture was bought in 1698 by the Elector of
Bavaria; in 1800 it was taken by the French from the Electoral
Gallery at Schleissheim ; having found its way to a provincial gallery,
it was overlooked at the time of the Restoration.
The ' Adoration ' now in the Hermitage dates from about the same
time, or possibly a little later. It was bought in Holland for Catherine
in 1770. Caspar, the negro king, clothed in a scarlet mantle; here
occupies the central place and dominates the rest. According to
M. Rooses, this is only a school-piece, slightly touched by Rubens.
Two other versions of the ' Adoration ' that are known to have been
painted about, this time have not been traced.
Rubens found much less to interest him in the 'Adoration of the
Shepherds,' though he painted the subject more than once at this
period. He treated it for the most part as a scene from peasant life ;
a stalwart milkmaid plays an important part. The well-polished milk
cans of brass that she carries, or which stand beside her, are familiar
to all visitors to the Low Countries — the form has not changed since
Rubens's day. In the picture at Rouen the shepherdess hands an egg to
the infant Christ ; there are three careful studies for this figure in the
Albertina. Another ' Adoration ' in the church of the Madeleine at
Lille is very similarly treated. A third, now at Munich, was painted
for that Jesuit church at Neuburg for which, at the instigation of the
newly converted Duke Wolfgang Wilhelm, Rubens executed so many
137

RUBENS
large and uninteresting works. This huge picture is a poor, dull affair,
with little sign of Rubens's brush. Even in the composition it is
difficult to trace the hand of the master. In the angels floating above
we are strangely taken back to the mannerisms of the Italian period ;
the only explanation I can offer is that this part may be the work of
some belated assistant, possibly of that mysterious Deodato who
accompanied Rubens to Italy. The 'Adoration of the Shepherds'
formed again one of the subjects on the ceiling of the Jesuit church;
the powerful sketch, in exaggerated perspective, is now in the Academy
at Vienna. Finally we see the milkmaid and the humble offerings of
the shepherds in the little predella of the St. Jean triptych that has
passed from Malines to Marseilles.
If among sacred subjects Rubens found the mise en scene that
above all others satisfied him in the Magi and their Oriental retinue,
so among classical compositions it was the noisy and riotous throng
that accompanies the march of the aged Silenus that supplied him
with a congenial motive. In the swing and abandon of the motley
crew of satyrs, fauns, and woodland nymphs, as they rush forward,
half supporting, half dragging along their old chief, he indeed met
with a subject after his own heart.
We have a link between such pictures as these and the hunting
scenes that have already been dealt with, in such works as ' Diana
returning from the Chase,' of which there are two examples at
Dresden. These two pictures have much in common, but while the
one with half-length figures is (apart from the fruit and the dogs, which
may be by Snyders) entirely by the master's hand, the other is little
more than a ' touched ' work. They are neither of them, it would seem,
later than 1615 or 1616.
If we turn to the ' March of Silenus ' of the Pinakothek, or again
to the great canvas of the same subject that has passed from Blenheim
to the gallery at Berlin, it is still the same reckless throng ; but now
the restraining influence of the divine huntress is removed and the
orgiastic spirit reigns supreme. The same heads appear in all these
pictures. Notice especially the archly grinning nymph, a favourite type
at this time — a type, however, in which I can see little resemblance
to Isabella Brant. The Munich ' Silenus ' was in the succession, and
was subsequently sold by Rubens's nephew to the Due de Richelieu.
Philip Rubens, in a letter to De Piles, says that the picture was
painted in 1613 ; it is, however, generally held to be some five years
138

EARLIER ANTWERP PERIOD
later. The Blenheim ' Silenus,' it is stated, was given to Marlborough
by the Emperor. The bounding tiger in both works is a link with the
' natural history ' series of the years 1618-1620. The ' March of
Silenus ' in our National Gallery was, it would seem, painted several
years after this. Here the soft yielding flesh of the old drunken chief,
strained like a wine-skin as he falls back into the arms of his atten
dants, is the centre of artistic interest. In these last three pictures the
figures are entirely by the hand of the master ; the animals, fruit, and
flowers probably the work of Snyders.

139

CHAPTER XII
The Four Main Periods — The Luxembourg Pictures — Religious Pictures of the
Third Decade — Profane Subjects — Pictures painted in Madrid — In England.
IN tracing the history of Rubens's life we have found that the year
1621 forms a convenient dividing point. In the first place, it is
the central year of his artistic career, and with it comes to an end
the busy period during which Rubens's interest was concentrated upon
the rapid outturn of panels and canvases for churches and princely
galleries. During the next ten years — which saw indeed the pro
duction of many a famous work — there is a marked falling off in the
number of his pictures. It was a time of political activity and of
diplomatic journeys to foreign courts. The remaining decade of the
great artist's life, which we associate with his second marriage and his
life as a country gentleman, is again a period of restless production.
I feel it indeed impossible to mark the artistic career of Rubens by
any sharp dividing lines ; the change of style is gradual, and there are
many relapses into earlier manners. All attempts at systematic
arrangement have only led, after Procrustean efforts, to the arrange
ment of the works of the master into obviously incongruous divisions.
According as weight is given to external evidence — this often of the
vaguest description— or to supposed characteristics of style, we find
at times a difference of ten or even twenty years in the date attributed
to a picture by writers of equal authority. At the best we may
discover in the career of Rubens two dates that may be regarded as
critical — as turning-points as well for his material life as for his artistic
style. The first of these dates is that of the artist's return from Italy,
the other that of his second marriage. Halfway between the two
comes the year 1621, as I have said, an important one in the artist's
life. I would prefer, then, to divide Rubens's career as an artist into four
periods of about ten years each.
1. The eclectic or Italian period, before the development of any
distinct personal style (1600-1608).
140

PARIS AND MADRID
2. The period of unresting production at Antwerp, including the
organisation of his studio (1609-1621).
3. The period of politics and diplomatic journeys (1621-1630).
4. The period succeeding his second marriage — the time of the
Helen portraits, the late landscapes and the numberless pictures hastily
executed for Philip iv. (1630-1640).
These periods, it will be seen, roughly correspond to the first four
decades of the seventeenth century, and are thus easily borne in
mind. I have called the third decade of Rubens's artistic life the period of
diplomatic journeys. Now the most important work undertaken
during this time, one that kept him occupied for the greater part of
four years (1622-1625) and that involved as many as three journeys to
Paris, had, as we have seen, many relations to the politics and
diplomatic intrigues of the time. I refer, of course, to the great series
of canvases illustrating the history of Marie de Mddicis.
The Queen on her return from her exile (August 1620) occupied
herself with the embellishment of the Luxembourg Palace that in the
first year of her regency Salomon de Brosse had built for her on the
southern heights of Paris. The two main corps du bdtiment of the new
building were connected on either side by a lengthy gallery. In the
right wing it was determined to place a series of pictures illustrating
the life of the Queen, in the left a corresponding series dealing with
the career of her husband, the late King ; the execution, however, of
the latter work was left to a future date.
The selection of the subjects was made in the first instance by the
Queen herself ; they were in a manner to constitute an apologia for
her past life. This was, of course, in view of the involved relations
of political parties, and of the still insecure position of Marie— it was
but a few years later that she was driven out again to end her days in
exile — a matter of some delicacy ; many changes were indeed made
during the execution of the work. No less difficult was it to find a
painter who would do justice to so ambitious a scheme. There was
certainly no one in France in whose hands the commission could be
placed, although Simon Vouet was for a moment thought of. Indeed,
it was soon evident that there was but one artist living capable of
carrying through the work. This was the great Fleming, of whose
talents Marie had already heard from her friend and correspondent
the Archduchess Clara Eugenia.
The preliminary negotiations were left in the hands of Claude
141

RUBENS
Maugis, the Queen's treasurer, and the Baron de Vicq, agent or
minister of the Archdukes at the French court. Of the latter Rubens
painted, after the completion of the great work, an admirable portrait
which is now in the Louvre. The great painter arrived in Paris early
in 1622, and for the sum of 20,000 crowns undertook to carry out both
the series. This was indeed a task after his own heart, nor did the
difficulties connected with the choice and treatment of the subjects
alarm him — they were but occasions and excuses for introducing the
elaborate allegories in the scheming of which he so delighted. During
the first visit of six weeks Rubens probably did little beyond making
some studies of the Queen's head (now in the Louvre and the
Albertina), perhaps of others also who had to find their place in the
pictures. What is more of interest to us is that he now made the
personal acquaintance of his correspondent Peiresc, in whose hands he
left most of the troublesome details connected with the size and
arrangement of the canvases. In addition to the portraits of Marie
and of her parents (the Grand Duke Cosmo and his wife Johanna of
Austria) there were to be twenty-one large historical subjects.
During the spring and autumn of 1622 Rubens was occupied at
Antwerp with a series of sketches that he made for the great work.
These sketches he subsequently presented to Maugis ; according to
Peiresc, his hand was forced in this matter. Of these preliminary
sketches the greater number may now be seen in the gallery at
Munich ; five are in the Hermitage, and one has found its way to the
Louvre. They are of supreme interest to the student, throwing light
upon Rubens's method of work at the time. Some are more finished
than others, but in all the composition is already definitely fixed. What
is above all noticeable in them is the absence of all positive colour ; the
crimson draperies of the finished pictures are represented by pale
pinkish tints ; some are little more than grisailles, carried out in
greyish lavender and pink, a few notes of colour and the high lights
being dashed in here and there. It has been suggested by a French
critic that by thus keeping the sketches in a low key of colour, Rubens
was better able to control his assistants. ' A middle scale was main
tained that allowed Rubens to touch the work freely and to alter it
without fear of rendering it heavy and opaque' (E. Michel, Bubens,
vol. ii. p. 31).
Already in May 1623, Rubens was able to bring with him to
Paris not only the series of sketches, but nine of the large canvases
far advanced towards completion. These were placed in the gallery
142

''-_ . ...

¦A'-iy'^r-
'¦>
. ¦ ^-.i^--
1 ¦• : . ;
•
X'WX
; , ,.:%'•!''
..
, j '
' . ¦
; ¦¦ ¦
. ¦ :y§.
. ¦ .
' , ,'¦¦ -x/...
;x4-
j ;, 'HS'-^y
' . ¦ .*r'>.
' .%"T -> , <*^T> ~V"' '¦>' f?XX
y ¦
: ,.¦¦;. ; \i
' ¦ ... i *^ft"
7' A t.;^%9^«a#'''
jt'm
i'-' :.- -'yi
. fw.
r^
.- 'Vf S&X X, X .."".,
-_
;
'' ~\$L.-> "¦"'^'.fV.-'C vV ¦ : p?-''ffi ¦
**\ *—a. , -a - -^ ' ¦• - .-•¦¦/
-. . " ¦ -
'"' "¦'¦'.
rfnt. m/'t._
\
MARIE DE MEDICIS
I.OUVRE, PARIS
PARIS AND MADRID
and carefully guarded from all eyes but those of the Queen-Mother
and the great Cardinal. This was only a flying visit ; eighteen months
more were required to complete the work. It was stipulated that all the
pictures should be in place ready for inspection by the many dis
tinguished guests that were assembled in Paris on the occasion of the
marriage of the Queen's daughter, Henrietta, to the son of the English
king.1 Fortunately the date of this marriage was somewhat delayed,
and Rubens had time after his arrival in Paris not only to put the
final touches to his canvases, but, according to one acgpunt, to paint
an entirely new picture. This was the ' Prosperity of the Regency,'
that was to take the place of one of the original canvases that repre
sented the flight of the Queen from Paris — the latter composition we
only know from the sketch now at Munich ; the grounds for the
rejection one can readily understand. De Piles tells us that Marie,
during the time that Rubens was thus occupied, spent many hours with
him in the gallery, eagerly watching the artist while at work and
delighted with his conversation. The Queen, we must remember,
was, with all her faults, a woman of artistic temperament — that came
to her with her Medici blood. She may perhaps be reckoned as an
artist herself ; at least she is said to have acquired the art of engraving
on wood. Of Rubens's experiences in Paris, and of the part, he took in the
festivities ofthe royal marriage, I have said something in the first part of
this book (see pp. 45-46). I will here only mention in this connection
a curious panel, now in the Liechtenstein Gallery, on which Rubens has
sketched in an elaborate mythological scene, 'Apollo driving out
Diana.' This sketch is identical in composition with a fresco, in the
manner of Primaticcio, which at that time covered the ceiling of a
room at Fontainebleau. The work of the Italian must have appealed
to the great Fleming when he visited the palace in company with
Buckingham and Gerbier. Even in the moment of his triumph
Rubens was open to receive fresh suggestions.
I shall not attempt to describe the Luxembourg series. The
elaborate allegory that plays so important a part in the composition
is of little interest to us ; it was indeed difficult of interpretation even
at the time. A writer of the day published a poem upon the
pictures, in which he professed to provide a key to the enigma.
Rubens was indignant at the presumption, and repudiated the proposed
explanation. He was, however, by no means eager to elucidate the
1 Charles was already king himself at the date of the marriage.
143

RUBENS
matter himself. The position, as I have said, was a delicate one. While
flattering the Beine Mere, he had to avoid anything that would gfwe
offence to the young King, and there was the Cardinal in the back
ground preparing for his final spring.
From the point of view of art, perhaps the most noticeable point
about the series as a whole is the uniform standard of excellence
attained. It is here less easy than in the case of other pictures of
Rubens to distinguish the parts executed by the assistants from the
work of the master. We are completely in the dark as to who these
assistants were. There is a tradition that Justus van Egmont, then
quite a young man, was with Rubens in Paris, and there is mention
in his correspondence of a certain Maximilian, of whom nothing further
is known ; Wildens's hand may perhaps be recognised in some of the
backgrounds. As in other works of the time, it is the abundant use
made of masses of a bright crimson — not the unmitigated vermilion of
earlier days — together with a good deal of an amber yellow in the
draperies, that gives the general key to the colour-scheme. It is by
contrast with these colours that the greyish tertiary blues and greens
are made to do the work of pure primitive pigments. A general
richness and harmony is thus maintained, without any crude contrasts
of colour. In another respect these canvases are characteristic of the
middle period of the artist, if not of his work generally. Nowhere is
the absence of pronounced passages of shadow more striking ; there is
on the whole a uniform distribution of illumination.
No one of the Luxembourg series is more brilliant in effect than
the ' Exchange of the Princesses,' and this is largely due to the
masses of deep-toned red that encircle the central figures. Here we
have the careful full-length portraits of Anne of Austria and of
Elizabeth de Bourbon, and with this picture as a guide it is surprising
that there should have been so much confusion in the attribution of
other portraits that Rubens painted of these two princesses. The
suave beauty and the elegance of the ' Birth of Louis xiii.' has gained
it many admirers — the feet of Marie have served as a model for many
generations of young painters. On the whole, in this series as else
where, Rubens has put most of his own work into the figures in the
foreground, even if these take but a subordinate place in the scene — .
witness the beautifully painted cupids playing with armour or riding
upon lions — while when we come to the Olympian gods and goddesses,
the execution is less convincingly that of the master.
The pictures were cleaned in 1775, again in 1858 (when a coat of
144

PARIS AND MADRID
varnish was removed), and finally when quite lately they were removed
to the room specially built for them. They are now almost as rich and
brilliant in effect as when first painted. Taken as a whole, these are
paintings in face of which it is impossible to work oneself up to any
great pitch of enthusiasm. Rubens knew what was expected of him
and gave of his talent in overflowing measure, but this was not an
occasion when he could safely ' let himself go,' nor one for breaking
fresh artistic ground.
There is a small group of portraits, chiefly of royal personages, that
Rubens painted at this time, more or less in connection with the
Medici series. Of the portraits that he painted of Marie de Medicis,
only one calls for mention. This is the literal rendering that he
retained for his own use; it passed after his death to the Spanish
King, and is now in the Prado. In the Louvre there is a portrait of
Anne of Austria, of which the head is identical with that in the
Luxembourg canvas of the ' Exchange of the Princesses ' ; for all that,
this portrait long went under the name of 'Elizabeth of France.'
There is another portrait of Anne in the Prado ; the two pictures are
in part identical and both belong to this time. What is apparently a
replica of the last was formerly at Blenheim, and this, it would seem,
must be the picture that Waagen entitled ' Catherine de Medici ' ! In
all these, note the careful drawing of the beautiful hands — the hands of
which the French Queen was so proud.
Rubens, we know, painted at this time two portraits ofthe Duke of
Buckingham. One of these is now in the Pitti ; the other may perhaps
be identified with the equestrian portrait belonging to the Earl of
Jersey. Lord Jersey has also an Apotheosis of the Duke that was
found in the artist's studio at his death. The brilliant sketch in the
National Gallery, there entitled, I know not on what grounds, the
'Apotheosis of William of Orange,' would appear to be the design
for the last work.
Of this group of portraits it may be said that few are of any
superlative merit as works of art, and as historical records they are
inferior in interest to the chalk drawings of the same great people to
be found in the Louvre and the Albertina.
But the gigantic task of carrying out the Luxembourg series by no
means occupied the whole of Rubens's time. The years from 1622 to
1628 witnessed the culmination of the central period of the master's
artistic career. The close of this period saw the production of some of
his most magnificent works. Now it is in these works — such pictures,
a-io 145

RUBENS
I mean, as the Antwerp ' Adoration,' or Lord Darnley's ' Thomyris'—
that M. Rooses would find the starting-point of the final style of
Rubens. To me, however, these pictures — -both technically and in
inspiration — seem but the glorious consummation of the methods and
aims that had long dominated his brush. The real change came at a
later date, after the Spanish journey and the renewed study of Titian
and the other Venetians. From that time forth, but not till then,
Rubens was able to give expression in his completed pictures to that
unity of conception, at times to that dynamic force, that before this was
only to be found in his hastily executed sketches.
Quite a number of large altar-pieces belong to this time (1625-1628).
I will mention two that are little known. In the ' Decapitation of
St. Catherine ' that he painted for the church at Lille, dedicated to that
saint, Rubens centred the interest on the bending figure in crimson
robe preparing for the stroke of the executioner. There is a haunt
ing charm in the figure — we have discovered something of the sort
already in the St. Francis at Antwerp — that we rarely find in the
artist's work. A graceful study of the saint, a drawing of unusual
refinement, may be found in the Albertina. The ' St. Roch inter
ceding for the Plague-stricken,' in the cathedral at Alost, is a more
rhetorical work. As usual with Rubens, it is to the figures in the fore
ground — in this case the writhing victims of the plague — that he con
fined his own brush; the heavenly vision above has been left to be
mainly carried out by an assistant.
There is a long story connected with the picture — the ' Conversion
of St. Bavon' — that was painted for the cathedral at Ghent. The
sketch or preliminary picture that Rubens made as far back as 1612 i&
now in the National Gallery. But it was not till twelve years later,
and for another bishop, that Rubens completed the triptych (the sketch
combined the three subjects) now in the cathedral. Rubens declares
in a letter to the Archduke, complaining of the delays, that the work
was the finest he had ever conceived and the most beautiful ever
executed in the country! The composition is indeed most accom
plished—it is dominated by a band of light that takes a winding course
through the picture — but the work is now a wreck. Rubens has here
been at pains to present some of the figures in medieeval costumes
(cf. p. 121) ; the hennins on the heads of the female onlookers to the
left should be noticed.
The ' Miracle of St. Francois de Paul ' is only known to us by
sketches ; there are quite a number of these, some of great vigour— at
146

PARIS AND MADRID
Vienna (2), at Munich, at Dresden, and one in England belonging
to Mr. Charles Morrison. The figure of the saint floating in
the air seems to have been inspired by a well-known work of
Tintoretto. The date of the ' Education of the Virgin,' now in the gallery at
Antwerp, is, if we are to regard the figure of the Virgin as painted from
the young Helen Fourment, fixed to about the year 1625, when the
future bride of Rubens would have been eleven years old. ' La plus
charmante fantaisie decorative qu'on peut voir,' says Fromentin. It is a
harmony of silvery greys, conceived almost in a rococo spirit. What
more delightful bit of painting could be found than the grey-blue dress
of the Virgin — the tints pass into the blue-grey sky and are accentuated
by the rosy hues of the flesh and of the flowers behind. There are
passages in the background that seem to be an anticipation of Boucher,
perhaps I should rather say of Fragonard at his best, and it is something
of a shock to find that M. Rooses sees the hand ofthe dull and mechanical
van Thulden in these parts (van Thulden was, by the way, only
nineteen when this picture was painted). Rubens had certainly at
this time some pupil or assistant who excelled in the rendering of
vaporous effects with delicate rosy tints ; we see his hand in some
of the Olympic visions of the Luxembourg canvases, and again in
the figure of the Madonna and of the surrounding angels in more
than one large ' Assumption ' ; a weak and somewhat effeminate
painter perhaps, but one with a feeling for grace and for delicate
colour harmonies. With regard to the ' Education ' picture, there
is an old tradition that in the St. Anne we have a likeness of the
painter's mother, and that the features of the St. Joseph are those of
his father !
I have spoken in the first part of this work of the connection of
Rubens with the Abbey of St. Michel, where both his mother and
brother lay buried. It was only natural that he should put his best
work into the great ' Adoration of the Kings ' (now in the Gallery at
Antwerp) that he painted about 1625 for the high altar of the Abbey
Church ; but, as I have said already, I cannot see in this ambitious
work ' the inauguration of his third and last period.' Fromentin, com
paring it with earlier renderings of the same subject, finds that it is
' d une audace plus grande, d'une carrure, d'une ampleur, d'une
certitude, et d'un aplomb que le peintre a rarement depasse.' But in
spite of all this the work is made up of detached fragments, each mag
nificent in its way. We have the portly Turk (who turns up again at
147

RUBENS
Cassel, this time as a full-length portrait1) and the St. Jerome-like
Mage to the left — both old friends ; even the camels we have seen '
before in the retinue of the patriarch Jacob. Only the life-sized head of
the ox, that so strangely fills up a gap in the lower corner, is new. As in
earlier versions of the subject, the ' Twelfth Night ' spirit still reigns
supreme. It should be noted that this huge work is painted on panel.
About two years later, in 1627,2 Rubens painted ' The Kings ; again,
this time for a church in Brussels (the picture is now in the Louvre).
The composition is here somewhat simplified, the brush is loosely
handled, and the painting is in parts very Titianesque. Much use is,
however, still made of masses of a powerful vermilion in the draperies.
There was at Blenheim a version of ' The Kings ' closely resembling in
composition the Louvre canvas ; this picture is now at Dublin, in the
possession of Lord Ardilaun.
"Rubens, as we have seen, painted his earliest version ofthe 'Assump
tion of the Virgin ' not later than 1619 ; the latest, now in the Liech
tenstein Gallery, Was turned out from the studio shortly before his
death. There is, however, little difference in treatment between the
first and last of the series. They are all large decorative ' machines '
that take their place well upon the high altar of a church, I have
already mentioned the ' Assumptions ' that are now at Brussels, at
Vienna, and at Diisseldorf. I need not dwell upon the 'gone-over'
school-piece, commissioned by one of the Fugger family, that is still to
be seen in the church at Augsburg for which it was executed.
The most famous of the Assumptions of Ruberis was painted in
1626 for the high altar of the cathedral at Antwerp where it now
hangs. It replaced a : Nativity ' by Frans Floris. As on other similar
occasions, Rubens completed the picture on the spot ; for several
months he and his assistants alone had access to the choir, the services
being; conducted in a side chapel. Rubens received for this important
work 1500 florins ; he claimed in addition 45 florins for an ounce of
ultramarine that had been consumed during the execution — the colour
may be recognised in the Virgin's robe and on that of one ofthe apostles.
This is, no doubt, the most successful of the master's ' Assumptions,',
rich, I might almost say gay, in colour, and full of animation.
I must pass rapidly over a few other pictures that Rubens painted
1 This has lately been recognised as the portrait of a Flemish merchant at Venice who traded
with the Levant. It was perhaps through him that Rubens got his knowledge of Oriental
costume. 2 Hardly before 1629, says M. H. Hymans. See Gaz. des Beaux Arts, 1903.
148

PARIS AND MADRID
for various churches about this time (1622-1628). The large ' Awaken
ing of Lazarus ' was sold by a French nobleman to the King of Prussia
in the eighteenth century ; it is now in the Berlin gallery. This care
fully composed picture M. Rooses considers to be wholly the work of
Rubens ; others have found in it traces of the brush of Vandyke ; in
that case it must be earlier than the date (1624) usually assigned to it.
Rubens's rhetorical treatment of religious subjects here takes a senti
mental turn which is fortunately rare with the master.
Very different in handling is the 'Departure of Lot from Sodom,'
now in the Louvre. In the happy flow of line of this charming com
position, rapidly carried out in tints of red, amber, and olive-green, we
have indeed a foretaste of Rubens's later style. It was painted for the
\ French King at the time of the master's moment of triumph on the
completion of the Luxembourg pictures. As if satisfied with the work,
he signed and dated it—' Pe Pa Rubens Fe A0 1625 ' may be read on
the column to the left. The little dog that trots along in front of Lot's
daughter may indeed be regarded as a second signature.
In 1628 the Augustinian confraternity (the Fathers of the Obser
vance) ordered three pictures for their new church at Antwerp. They
selected the most prominent painters of the day. Vandyke and Jordaens
received each 600 florins for the works commissioned of them. But for
the third picture the fathers were fain to pay to Rubens as much as
3000 florins. This is the elaborate composition, generally known as the
* Marriage of St. Catherine,' which remains still in its original posi
tion in the church of St. Augustine. It is a work that well deserves
the praise given it by Reynolds x — it was probably, when he saw it, in
a better condition than it is now. The position of the Madonna seated
high up on a lofty pedestal was doubtless suggested by the arrange
ment in more than one picture by Titian. The passages of brilliant
lighting pass in a sweeping curve right through the picture. There
is a 'swing' and an impression of exuberant joy in this masterly
work that place it on a level with the masterpieces of Rubens's
later day. There are smaller versions at Madrid and Berlin, and
numerous so-called sketches, not all by the master, turn up from
time to time.
Scarcely had Rubens finished his work for the Luxembourg palace
when he received from the Infanta an important commission. He was
' It is the ' eloquence ofthe artist,' he declares, that gives the interest to the picture. 'The
whole subject appears as much animated and in motion as it is possible for a picture to be where
nothing is doing.'— Voyage to Flanders. 149

RUBENS
to furnish designs for a series of tapestries to be executed at Brussels.
The archduchess since the death of her husband had adopted the dres*
of a nun (so she appears in a portrait by Rubens now at Devonshire
House). Her thoughts turned back to the Convent of the Descalzas
Reales at Madrid, where she had passed some time before her marriage,
and to the nuns of her old home she now presented this splendid suite
of tapestry, and here indeed it is still preserved. As many as thirteen
large canvases were executed in Rubens's studio ; five of these celebrated
the Triumphs of the Eucharist or Holy Sacrament ; there were
four subjects from the Old Testament symbolical of the mystery; the
remaining four represented in groups of two the confessors and defenders
of the Eucharist. The majority of these pictures found their way at
a later date to the convent of Loeches (not far from Madrid), others
probably perished by fire in Brussels. The two that are now in the
Louvre are part of the pillage brought from Spain by General Sebas-
tiani. Four others came at the time into the hands of the Danish
agent at Madrid, and after many adventures passed to the Marquis of
Westminster ; these are the four large canvases now at Grosvenor
House. The Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge possesses seven
sketches in grisaille, the first thoughts for the compositions. In the
Prado are eight larger sketches, carried out in colour to a considerable
degree of finish. In this series of the Holy Sacrament the architectural
framework plays an important part in the composition; Rubens's
favourite torque and belted columns support a heavy architrave, below
are sphinxes and classical mouldings. Broadly, almost rudely painted,
a brilliant effect is obtained in spite of a sparing use of primitive colours ;
an amber-yellow is the prevailing tone heightened by patches of red.
Nowhere is the theatrical, decorative side of Rubens's art better ex
emplified than in these huge canvases. Perhaps no other works of
Rubens meet with less favour from those who are unable to enter into
the rhetorical spirit of the seventeenth century.
At this time Rubens undertook but few mythological subjects, and
of these only one or two are worthy of special reference. In the small
' Judgment of Paris ' at Dresden little more than the design can be
from the master's hand ; it is of interest only as being an early version
of the vastly superior picture in our National Gallery. The large
' Cimon and Ifigenia' now in Vienna — the subject is taken from one
of Boccaccio's tales — was painted in 1625 for the Duke of Buckingham.
Wildens and Snyders had a large share in this artificially composed
work, so poor in colour. In the little sleeping boy whose head appears
150

PARIS AND MADRID
above the fountain to the left we may perhaps recognise the seven-
year-old Nicholas.
Among the pictures by Rubens sold at Antwerp by the heirs of the
Duke of Buckingham was ' a naked woman and a hermit.' This we
may doubtless identify with the ' Sleeping Angelica ' (from Orlando
Furioso) of the Vienna Hofmuseum,1 a work that may be well classed
with the ' Boreas and Oreithyia ' in the Academy of the same town
(p. 113); they are both superlative examples of the brilliant flesh-
painting and the subtle modelling of the master, in the one case at
the earlier, in the other at the latter part of his middle period. In
the ' Angelica ' the flesh-tints are set off by the crimson carpet upon
which the heroine reposes.
The ' Three Nymphs with the Horn of Plenty ' (in the Prado)
was bought by Philip iv. from the succession. Here again Snyders had
a large share in the painting of the fruit and the birds. At Dulwich is
a sketch of the figures alone by the hand of Rubens. The picture at
Brussels that is now known as 'Venus at the Forge of Vulcan' (about
1622) has had a strange history. The part with Vulcan is a later
addition painted to replace the left-hand half of the panel that had at
some previous time been sawn off; the part detached is now at Dresden,
where it is known as the ' Old Woman with the Brazier ' ; this we
discover from more than one old copy made before the panel was divided.
Here we have Rubens in a humorous vein, experimenting in the style
of his contemporaries ; the one half of the original panel is remini
scent of Jordaens, the other with the effect of artificial light, of his
Dutch contemporary Honthorst, whom (it would seem, however, at a
later date) he visited at Utrecht (see p. 52). 2
Ofthe many examples ofthe ' Caritas Romana' (Cimon and Perus),
the most important perhaps is the one that has passed from Blenheim
to the gallery of the late Consul Weber at Hamburg. There are other
versions at Wimpole (Lord Hardwicke), at Amsterdam, and in the
Hermitage (this last an earlier work). The head of the old man closely
resembles that of the ' Drunken Lot ' in the early picture which was
also in the Marlborough collection.
Perhaps the finest example of Rubens's genius that we have left in
our English private collections is the ' Thomyris and Cyrus ' of Lord
Darnley. This picture has many points of resemblance with the great
1 Herr Rosenberg is surely wrong in placing this picture as late as 1635.
Two other pictures in which artificial light plays an important part may very possibly belong
to this time : these are the ' Judith ' and the ' Samson ' which are described in the next chapter.
151

RUBENS
' Adoration ' at Antwerp. As I have said, I should regard both these
works as representing the culminating point of Rubens's middle period*
rather than as introducing his final manner. There is no unity in the
picture ; its merits depend upon the superlative painting of individual
figures. Notice especially the man in Polish costume and a Turk beside
him. Rubens at a later date painted another version of the subject,
now in the Louvre ; the composition is here more concentrated, but
the figures have lost the vigour of the earlier work. M. Rooses will
have it that there is an interval of ten years between the two works
(circa 1623 and 1633) ; I should, however, be inclined to place them
nearer together (say 1626 and 1630).
I have now to consider a few of the portraits that Rubens painted
in the years preceding the Spanish journey. Apart from the ' Chapeau
de Paille,' which I will reserve until I come to speak of the relations of
the artist to the Fourment family, by far the most interesting of these is
the 'Albert and Nicholas' ofthe Liechtenstein Gallery, which Rubens
painted about 1626, when his sons were twelve and eight years old
respectively — a delightful picture, highly finished and in good condi
tion. The gay dress of the younger boy, whose roguish face is
so well known to us, is relieved against the sober, black costume of
the elder.
There is evidence that Rubens between 1625 and 1628 painted
several portraits of his friend the great general Spinola. The best
known is that now in the gallery at Brunswick, but even finer is the
head, perhaps the study from life for the last, that M. Durand-Ruel
lately acquired from an English collection. Both these date from
the time when the great general passed through Antwerp, after
the capture of Breda ; we have here the Spinola of ' Las Lanzas.'
That in the Nostitz collection at Prague differs somewhat in the
arrangement of the armour — it is probably a little later in date;
there is a fourth portrait in the Leuchtenberg Gallery at St.
Petersburg. There are several fine male portraits that belong to this time,
for the most part downright, solidly painted works — but nothing
more. Witness the unknown man with chagrin expression in the
Brunswick Gallery, another of a younger man with black mantle
folded round his waist at Antwerp, and several finished studies of
heads at Vienna. There is more refinement in the portrait of his
friend, the town-secretary Gevartius, to whom Rubens entrusted the
interests of his children during his long absence in Spain and Eng-
152

PARIS AND MADRID
land. Gevartius, pen in hand, is seated at his work-table, on which
stands a bust of Marcus Aurelius ; we are here reminded of an early
group of portraits in which Seneca takes the place of the Roman
emperor (see pp. 19 and 92) (at Antwerp).
. When in the year 1628 Rubens set out for Madrid, he took with
i him a number of canvases ; others were forwarded later from the
great studio. Pacheco, the contemporary historian of Spanish art,
' gives a list of eight of these pictures ; only two, however, can now
i be discovered in the Prado gallery : the 'Achilles and the Daughters
of Lycomedes ' is a work in which Vandyke had had a large share ;
i it is one of those that had been rejected by Carleton in 1618 (see above,
i pp. 40 and 131) ; the other is the ' Ceres and Pan,' a pleasing picture
: with abundant fruit and foliage, much of it painted by Wildens. The
i ' Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau ' also figures on Pacheco's list, and
i this is probably the large canvas now in Munich (p. 132). The other
pictures doubtless perished in the fire at the Palace in 1734.
Nor, as far as one can judge, were the original pictures that Rubens
'. painted during his stay in Madrid — they were chiefly royal portraits
i destined for his gracious mistress the Infanta — works of any great
importance. Rubens relates that the king came to see him nearly every
; day. He found much pleasure in the conversation of the well-informed
I and courteous Fleming — it was a relaxation, no doubt, from the weary
; round of duties and ceremonies, devotional and political, that occupied
i so much of Philip's time.
! The large Equestrian Portrait of the King, with allegorical
I figures, mentioned by Pacheco as a work of commanding merit, has
; disappeared. As for the many half-length portraits of Philip iv. —
there are several in English collections — they may all, says M. Rooses,
i be traced back to that now in the Pinakothek, which is to be regarded
as representing the official type. This is ' a very literal rendering of
a very plain face,' but it is the face that we know from the many
masterpieces of Velazquez, and this fact alone makes us look at
Rubens's version with some interest. There are other portraits of the
king in which he wears a hat ; one of these is mentioned in the
succession. So of the queen Elizabeth of France ; the half-length
at Munich may be regarded as the type ; there is a replica at Vienna
which is undoubtedly by the hand of Rubens. At Munich, too, is
the young Cardinal Infant whom Rubens painted so often a few
years later when, as the Archduke Ferdinand, he made his triumphant 153

RUBENS
entry into Antwerp. In the earlier portrait the red robe and cap pro
vided a setting after the artist's heart, and he seems to have taken
some interest in the pale and rather nervous face of the young prince.
The other royal portraits that Rubens painted at the time cannot
now be traced.
But of greater importance to us is the artistic work of another kind
that Rubens found time to carry out^while in Madrid. It would
seem that he must have devoted every spare moment to making copies
— renderings, in the case of Rubens, we may better call them — of the
magnificent_can vases by the— gteak- V^ptign posters, of the Titiahs
above all, that were then in the royal palace. Rubens was at the time
a man of over fifty ; it was not from yesterday that he had taken his
place as the most famous painter in Europe. But now he was ready
to go to school again, and to throw himself with youthful energy into
the task of absorbing the very spirit, of Titian. There were probably
as many as seventy pictures by the Venetian master at that time in
the Royal Palace — many of these have since perished by fire. Pacheco \
affirms that Rubens copied them all. There is no doubt some exaggera
tion in this. Among the pictures copied, the ' Europa,' the ' Venus
and Adonis,' and the ' Two Baths ' (of Diana ?), as well as several
portraits, are mentioned by name. Now, if we turn to the inventory j
of the property found in his house at his death, we find among the
' pictures made by the late Mr. Rubens in Spain, Italy, and else
where, after both Titian and other great masters,' a ' Callisto,' an
'Actaeon,' a 'Venus and_Adonis,' an ' Adam and Eve,' an 'Europa,']
' Venus looking in a glass with Cupid,' and in addition a long list
of portraits including Cardinal Ippolito Medici, Charles v. and his
wife Eleonora ' on one canvas,' Philip n. on foot, and many others
— thirty-two pictures in all. Some of these so-called copies, the
' Isabella d'Este,' for example, and the ' Venus with the Looking-
glass ' (if this is to be identified with the picture now at Vienna),
are works of an earlier time — the latter indeed, if founded upon, is
no copy from, Titian. Of the early copies of the 'Bacchanal' and
of the ' Sacrifice to Venus,' I have already spoken — these are pictures
that have followed the fortunes of Bernadotte, and have passed to
Stockholm. Of the long list given in the inventory, only two, I
think, can now be discovered in the Prado, the ' Adam and Eve ' and
the ' Europa,' and these, magnificent works as they are, are very free
renderings of the Venetian master.
I have dwelt at comparative length on the obsession of Rubens
154

PARIS AND MADRID
at this time_bxJi£-H^^-of Titian, for I think that this obsession
haa~alionsl5erabie influence upon the later style of the Fleming. If
we find him after this period abandoning the somewhat crude devices
by means of which he had been wont to give richness to the colouring
of his pictures— the patches of vermilion or crimson, for example, and
the broad expanses of amber-coloured robes — and adopting hence
forth a more fused handling, bringing his masses of flesh into closer
relation with the rest of the picture, it is in the first place to this
intimate intercourse with the works, especially the later works, of the
Venetian master, that we must attribute the change. Other important
advances there were during the last ten years of the great artist's
career, due to causes of a more intimate and obscure nature — to
physiological changes in the organism of the artist, I might say ; but
to use such language is after all but to evade the difficulty and to
acknowledge the imperfection of our analysis.
The nine months (1629-1630) that Rubens passed in England,
following as they did on this renewed study of the Venetians, came,
then, at a critical period in his artistic development, and it is dis
appointing to find how little he produced at this time. There is no
record of any copies made from the great masters. Rubens indeed
mentions in a letter to Dupuy (August 5, 1629) 'the incredible
number of excellent pictures, statues, and antique inscriptions pre
served by the Court.' His attention at the time appears to have been
especially concentrated on the marbles.
The most important picture that Rubens painted while in London
is no doubt the elaborate allegory in which the blessings of peace, the
peace that it was the object of his mission to bring about, are con
trasted with the horrors of war. It was to clinch his argument, so
to speak, that this picture was presented to Charles i. After many
wanderings this fine work, now so much darkened, found its way back
to England ; it was presented to the National Gallery by the Marquis
of Stafford as long ago as 1828. This is a work painted distinctly
under Venetian influence, and we have in it one of the earliest
examples of Rubens's final manner. The picture was doubtless painted
in the studio of Sir Balthazar Gerbier, and it is of interest to find in it
likenesses of more than one member of his host's family. We have in
England a couple of pictures in which the Gerbier family is grouped.
Of these, that at Windsor is the best known ; the other and perhaps
finer version, that has passed from Lord Radnor to Mrs. Culling-
Hanbury (O.M. 1902, as 'the Family ofthe Duke of Buckingham '), is
155

RUBENS
apparently the work engraved by MacArdell.1 The little girl to the
right in the 'Peace and War' may be recognised in both these
portrait groups ; she appears again in a pleasing head of a girl at
Althorp. Lady Gerbier herself probably sat for the figure of Peace.
Again, in the ' Venus and Cupid ' at Dulwich, the upper part of the
principal figure is nearly identical with this same figure of Peace, so
that this Titianesque work may well be classed in the same group.
Finally, I may mention that there is another version of the ' Peace
and War ' at Munich, but this is a very inferior production with little
in it by the hand of Rubens.
The ' St. George ' at Buckingham Palace is essentially a landscape,
and belongs to the same class as the little ' Park Scene ' at Vienna.
It is distinctly a wrork of the final period, loosely painted and
' picturesque ' in conception. Charles i., for whom the picture was
executed, takes his place as St. George ; the princess he has rescued
is represented by the Queen. Horace Walpole is responsible for the
identification of the scene with the banks of the Thames at Richmond.
The grisaille sketch in the National Gallery representing the 'Birth
of Venus' surrounded by a border of sea-nymphs and dolphins, is a
design by the hand of Rubens for a salver, which a few years later
(together with a ewer with the ' Judgment of Paris ') was carried out
for Charles i. by Theodor Rogiers, a famous silversmith of Antwerp,
and a friend of our master.
It is uncertain how far we can associate the designing of the
Ceiling of the Banqueting House at Whitehall with the presence
of Rubens in London. The sketches, however, were probably made
at this time or a little later. There is indeed an interval of fourteen
years (1621-1635) between the first commissioning and the final
delivery of this series. The work itself was certainly not carried o.ut
earlier than 1634. Even then the canvases remained rolled up for
some time, and it was not until October 1635 that Rubens sent them
off from Dunkirk in the charge of one of his pupils — it was on the
ground of the gout that he excused his own presence again in London.
The honorarium, £3000, was not all paid till 1638 ; but with the final
instalment the artist received from Charles a chain of gold weighing
nearly seven pounds. There is no need to say anything of the ceiling
itself — often and often repainted, the hand of Rubens is now scarcely
1 M. Rooses accepts this as a work by Rubens's hand. The Windsor picture was bought in
Holland for the Prince Regent as a Vandyke. This canvas has been enlarged (perhaps twice) at
later dates. Whether even in the central original group the brush of the master can be recog
nised remains in dispute. It would be very interesting to confront the two pictures.
156

PARIS AND MADRID
recognisable.1 The sketches, on the other hand, are of considerable
interest ; in these the design is rapidly executed on the panel by a brush-
drawn outline in sepia, a little colour is then rubbed in here and there.
The manner of work should be compared with that employed for the
sketches made many years earlier for the ceiling of the Jesuit church at
Antwerp (p. 134). Rubens simply rioted in the daring problems of
perspective that he here set himself. The subject is the ' Happy Reign
and Apotheosis of James i.' and the poor old king takes the place of
Solomon or of a Hebrew prophet amid torque columns and impossible
architecture, or again floats up to heaven feet forward, borne on the
back of Jove's eagle. One of the finest of these sketches is in the
Academy at Vienna, two are in the Hermitage (ex Walpole collec
tion), and others may be found at Brussels, Antwerp, Paris, at Rich
mond in the Cook Gallery, and in other private collections in England.
A good idea of their style may be formed from the little ' Apotheosis '
(of Buckingham or another) in the National Gallery.
How important a bearing the political relations of Rubens had
upon his work as a painter is well exemplified by the history of the
never-completed series that was to illustrate the Life of Henri iv.
and to form the complement, in the other wing of the Luxembourg
Palace, to the Medici canvases. I may well end this chapter, that
opened with the -triumph of the earlier series, with some explanation of
the breakdown of this supplemental commission.
It was soon after the completion, in 1625, of the earlier work that
Richelieu made his final and decisive bid for power. His policy was
strongly anti-Spanish ; Rubens meantime had more and more identified
himself with the Spanish court. The unhappy Queen-Dowager had
now to bow before the great Cardinal. But Rubens, although he met
with little encouragement from the all-powerful minister, was himself
eager to carry through the great work, recognising the artistic capa
bilities of the subject, and at the time when, in 1628, he was summoned
to Madrid, he was well advanced in his designs. It was probably at
this juncture that Richelieu proposed to transfer the commission to Le
1 This is a statement that in view of the recent restoration requires some modification. The
canvases have been stretched and provided with a suitable backing so that the quilt-like sagging
no longer interferes with the effect. The ceiling had been previously restored by Kent in the
reign of George n. ; by Cipriani in 1785 ; as well as twice during the nineteenth century.
Although the canvases are still too dark in relation to the elaborate gilt framing, there is an
opulent and truly Rubens-like effect in the ceiling as a whole. It may be noted that the central
oval piece measures 32 ft. by 21 ft. It thus surpasses in size the largest of the Medici canvases
(January 1908).
157

RUBENS
Josepin (otherwise the Cavaliere D'Arpino) — but it was soon recog
nised that he was too old for such an undertaking. The Queen in
despair attempted to enter into relations with Guido ; the name of
Guercino was also mentioned. But nothing came of all this, and on
his return from England early in 1630, Rubens again took up the task
and was at once busy scheming the arrangement of the twenty-four
pictures that were to illustrate the life of Henri iv. In the inventory
of the succession there is mention of six large unfinished canvases
belonging to this series ; only two of them can now be traced ; these
are the huge pictures — they are 22 feet in length — long in the Niobe
room at the Uffizi ; one — 'The Battle of Ivry' — is a melee of cavalry
loosely sketched in ; the other — ' The Entry of Henry iv. into Pakis'
— is carried somewhat further. Both subjects are treated in a classical
spirit ; in the latter work may be found some reminiscences of the
'Triumphs' of Mantegna (cf. p. 94). As bearing on the manner of
execution of such large canvases, it is of interest to discover that
the hand of the master is in evidence throughout both these unfinished
pictures.1 There are numerous small sketches on panel for these and ;
other subjects of the series; in England, there are three at Hertford;
House and one at Cobham ; of those in continental galleries the most
important are the vigorous ' Taking of Paris ' at Berlin, and the two
curious designs in the Liechtenstein Gallery.
But already in 1631 Marie de Medicis was a prisoner at Compiegne,
and the great Cardinal ruled all with an iron hand. After this there
was no question of any dealings with a painter who had all through
identified himself with the Spanish party at the French Court, and now
openly sympathised with the fugitive Queen (cf. Rubens's letter to
Olivares, p. 57).
Before proceeding to describe the work of the last and most
glorious period of the artistic career of Rubens, I will turn aside for
a moment to consider the renderings that he made, at various periods
of his life, of his own features. There will be some convenience in
removing these from their true chronological position, and placing
them as it were side by side.
Of the portraits that Rubens painted of himself, the earliest that is
known to us is that of the honey-suckle bower, where he appears with
his young bride (see p. 97). Not much later, perhaps, is the hatless
1 The same remark applies to the still more unfinished ' Capture of Tunis by Cham.es v.,
at Berlin.
158

PARIS AND MADRID
portrait in the Uffizi (1602 according to Rosenberg, while Rooses gives
it to the year 1628 — let the reader note the discrepancy !), a replica of
which has been 'painted into' the Lipsius group of the Pitti (p. 91).
But it is in the Windsor portrait of 1623 that all subsequent genera
tions have agreed to find the typical representation of the man. This
portrait was painted at the urgent request of Lord Danvers, and it
was destined for the gallery of the Prince of Wales. Writing to
Valaves (June 1625) Rubens says : — ' Le prince de Galles est le prince
le plus amateur de peinture qui soit au monde ... II m'a demande
. . . avec telle instance mon pourtraict qu'il n'y eut aucun moyen de
le pouvoir refuzer, encore qu'il ne me semblait convenable d'envoyer mon
pourtraict a un prince de telle quality, mais il forca ma modestie.'
The version of this portrait now in the Uffizi is equally fine ; it is pro
bably of the same date or even earlier ; the replica or rather copy,
now at Aix, was sent by Rubens to his friend Peiresc in 1628. Its
world-wide fame the Windsor portrait owes above all to the fine en
graving of Pontius. In the later impressions of this engraving, the
severe and even bitter expression noticeable in the rare early states
(traces of which may indeed be seen in the Windsor portrait itself)
has been replaced by the suave and self-possessed air that has come
to be indelibly associated with the artist. This famous engraving is
dated 1630, and it is evident that a version of the portrait, or at least
some careful drawings, must have been preserved at Antwerp.
Much weaker, but more genial in expression, is the portrait now in
the Arenberg collection. We may perhaps regard it as a study for
the figure in the ' Morning Walk ' ; this would place it about the year
1631. With the Arenberg portrait we may again connect a fine
drawing in the Albertina.
Few portraits surpass in psychological interest that which Rubens
painted of himself a few years before his death. It is now at Vienna ;
the photograph should be carefully compared with that of the Windsor
portrait. There is little colour in this picture ; the hair, scanty on the
face, is still of a brownish tint ; but physical suffering, mental anxiety,
constant pressure of work, perhaps over-indulgence in more than one
direction, have left their mark on the pinched features. Notice above
all the shape of the nose, now thin and pointed. In the Louvre is a
chalk sketch for this late portrait, essentially a study of drapery.

159

CHAPTER XIII
Portraits of the Fourment Family — Susanna — Helen — The Final Triumph of
Rubens's Art — The Kermesse— The Later Martyrdoms — Designs for the ' Happy
Entry ' — Later Portraits — Later Mythological Pieces.
THE most important event in the life of Rubens after his return
to Antwerp in the spring of 1630 was doubtless his marriage
in the following December to Helen Fourment. Twelve
years earlier, when Helen was a child of four, he had painted her eldest
sister Clara, already the wife of Peter van Hecke ; the husband he
painted at the same time, and both these fine portraits belong now to
Baron Edmond de Rothschild (see above p. 128). But it was the third
daughter of Daniel Fourment, the rabbit-eyed Susanna (see p. 61) who
had most frequently sat to Rubens— as many as seven portraits of her
are catalogued in the inventory of the succession. Her quaint features
may often be recognised in the pictures of Rubens's middle period, just
as at an earlier .time we find those of Isabella Brant, and during the last
ten years of his life those of Helen. Susanna was born in 1599 ; she
was married for the first time in 1617, and since 1622 she had been the
wife of Arnold Lunden. M. Rooses repudiates the old story that
Susanna was the mistress of Rubens (she is so entitled on an old en
graving), and will have it that she was a woman of some culture in
whose society the artist found much intellectual pleasure. ' Eile dtait
sa bien-aime'e, hdro'ine d'un petit roman vdcu par Rubens en tout bien,
toute honneur.' Her face is well known to us from the ' Chapeau
de Paille,'1 in the National Gallery. This masterly piece of work,
carefully and elaborately carried out, but fresh and brilliant as a sketch,
was probably painted shortly before her second marriage. The power
ful drawing of Susanna in red chalk in the Albertina may have been
made somewhat later ; in this the large eyes, placed wide apart beneath
a preternaturally tall arched forehead, are even more marked than in
the National Gallery picture. The portrait of Susanna in the Louvre
is probably of about the same time as this drawing. Rubens was then
1 The hat, of course, is not of straw but of felt. The original title was perhaps ' Chapesu
d'Espagne ' and the Flemish word Spaansch (Spanish) was confused with Spanen (straw).
160

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
occupied with the Medici canvases, and in these Susanna's face may
perhaps here and there be recognised (see especially the left-hand
nymph in the : Education ofthe Queen '). Of quite a different character
is the full-length portrait of Susanna now in the Hermitage ; if we give
five years to the archly smiling little girl who stands by her mother's
side, this must have been painted in 1630, for her daughter Catherine
was born in 1625. This picture has sometimes been attributed to
Vandyke ; it certainly does not fit in well with the other work of
Rubens at this period — indeed, the costume seems to point to an earlier
date.1 To give a list of all the pictures in which the features of Helen
Fourment may be recognised would be almost equivalent to making
a catalogue of the work produced by Rubens during the last ten years
of his life. We may pass from the definite portrait on the one hand,
to an allegorical or mythological composition on the other, or again to
a garden scene or a landscape, but it is seldom that the well-known
figure is not to be recognised. What is to be noted is that with the
year of his marriage begins what, for my part, I regard as the greatest
and most significant part of Rubens's career. When one calls to
mind one of the master's earlier works what one pictures is the
beauty or the bravura painting of a passage here and there ; but in
the case of the great canvases of the latest period the whole scene
presents itself to the mind's eye, so subtly and intimately are the
lines and hues Woven, so subject is every detail to the total vision of
the artist.2 In spite of increasing infirmities, this wonderful man, all
his political ambitions thrown aside, was now about to enter a final
period of production, and to turn out works on the basis of which we
are for the first time justified in finding him a place beside his younger
contemporaries Rembrandt and Velazquez, as one of the three great
artists of the seventeenth century. I do not think that in his marriage
to a young and beautiful wife, any more than in the renewed study of
the great Venetians, of which I have already spoken, a satisfactory and
complete explanation is to be found for this late flaring up of genius.
1 Apart from her ruff, Susanna here wears the same dress as the Isabella Brant of about 1623,
also in the Hermitage. Not only that, but an identical triple chain hangs from the neck in both
portraits. I must confess that I do not understand the relation of Susanna to Rubens. On the
drawing of her in the Albertina, a contemporary hand has written 'Suster van Herr Rubbens.'
Again, in an inventory of the possessions of the Lunden family, made before 1650, three portraits,
undoubtedly ofthe same lady, are entered as ' Susanna Rubens.'
' This unity we may indeed often find in the oil sketches of the earlier period. It is perhaps
significant that these sketches are for the most part wanting in the case of the later pictures.
R.-11 161

RUBENS
These were no doubt elements that had a bearing on the change, but, as
I have more than once hinted, there were other more subtle influences.
at work, psychological perhaps or even physiological in nature, that
obstinately defy our powers of analysis. The marriage, the Venetian
studies, these may have been elements that gave to some deeply rooted
stimulus a direction along a favourable path. But whence that stimulus
had its origin — from what subliminal depths where it had so long lain
dormant or had only imperfectly found means of directing the hand of
the artist — that is a question that I do not think can be answered by any
theory of the artistic milieu, any more than the nature of the stimulus
itself can be explained by an analysis of the mental or physical equipment
of the artist himself. The full expression of Rubens's genius had no
doubt long been, to some degree, hampered by his subjugation to what
may be called the shibboleths of the day, by his acceptance of the con
ventions of the seventeenth- century antiquaries and theologians. But
there is no evidence that Rubens had, at the period we have now
reached, to any great extent shaken himself free from these shackles —
his love of allegory and a certain rhetorical spirit continued, it would
seem, to the end. No doubt as time went on the hand answered more
readily to the direction that proceeded from the brain, or shall I say
from some deeply seated consciousness hardly recognised by the artist
himself. All this, of course, is no explanation. But what I want to
accentuate is, that we have no explanation of such phenomena, and that
in spite of much elaborate teaching to the contrary, the source and
conditions of the inspiration of the superlatively great painter or poet
or musician are as unknown to us as they were to the contemporaries
of Homer or of Pheidias. To me the commanding interest of Rubens's
artistic career is to be found, above all, in the clear evidence that it
presents of this limitation of our knowledge.
Portraits of Helen Fourment. Of the many renderings of
Helen, but few are treated as mere portraits : some are to be regarded
as studies, in others she takes her place in a composition. In the full-
length seated figure at Munich, she is decked out as a bride ; a black
outer robe is thrown open to show a skirt of white silk brocaded with
gold ; in her hands is a sprig of orange-blossom ; the heavy gold chain
that she wears had once belonged to Isabella Brant. She has thrown
herself down on a chair, cheerful and contented, but glad of a moment's
rest from the whirl of the festivities. For the head of this portrait
Mr. Heseltine has a large careful study in black chalk, and this has
served also for the bust of Helen now at Amsterdam. There is at
162

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
Windsor a portrait of a lady very similarly attired, but the features, I
think, are not, as some have imagined, those of Helen.1
The girlish head of Helen, looking round with arch smile, slightly
painted on panel (in the collection of the late Consul Weber at
Hamburg) may very likely have been made before her marriage. In
the half-length at Munich her smile is quite of another kind, and in
keeping with the expression is the bravura execution of the portrait.
Nowhere does Helen better succeed in assuming the self-possessed air
of a grande dame than in the full-length at St. Petersburg ; this fine
work is painted with great refinement ; the hands above all are worthy
of notice. Of Helen as a young mother we have two delightful renderings.
At Munich we see her embracing her first-born Frans, who sits on her
knee, hat on head, but otherwise nude. In this picture, slight in
execution and painted d'un coup, a peculiar touch of the brush may be
noted, to be found in one or two other works of this time — the dabs of
paint are placed side by side, and the result is an effect of great
brilliancy. A little later, and perhaps even more beautiful, is the panel
that for so long found a place of honour in the Salon carre of the
Louvre. In this only the heads are finished ; to that of Helen Rubens
has given a concentrated expression of maternal regard rare with the
painter — the children are bright and espiegles. The unfinished parts
are swiftly drawn with a brush dipped in sepia and a few ' sweeps ' of
colour are added here and there. There is no reason to regret that
this picture was never finished.
We now pass to the pictures where Helen takes her place in a more
or less elaborated composition. At Blenheim were two superb works
of this class ; when the Marlborough collection was broken up they
were sold together for £55,000, and are now in Paris in the possession
of the Rothschild family. In the first, Helen leans on her husband's
arm ; in front, in leading strings which the mother holds, toddles the
little lad, their first-born, his head encircled by a bourrelet (to preserve
him from a broken crown should he fall) ; behind by a fountain a
gorgeous parrot perches beside some gay flowers. Surely never wras
1 It may possibly represent her sister, Elizabeth Fourment, who, in 1627, was married to
Nicolas Picquery. M. Rooses sees in it a likeness to Isabella Brant, and dates it as early as 1614
( Vie de Rubens, pp. 120-121)— the costume alone would surely make this impossible. The fact, he
thinks, that it comes from the Lunden family, and has always passed as Rubens's first wife, makes
any other attribution out of the question. But family traditions are notoriously inaccurate and
the very fact that the picture passed with the ' Chapeau de Paille ' (Susanna Fourment) to a member
of the family of his second wife points distinctly the other way. There is a slight chalk drawing
for this picture in the National Gallery (ex Peel collection). See also note, p. 187.
163

RUBENS
more happy and refined expression given to a well-worn theme than in
this delicious rendering of conjugal felicity. Here, for the first time, we ,
may note some signs of the ageing that overtook Rubens at this period,
and it will be seen that, though himself a man of but medium stature,
he is a full head taller than his young wife. In the other Blenheim
picture Helen is represented, with black toque on head, passing out to
her carriage. There is here evidence of increasing embonpoint, and if
in the boy who follows her so demurely we are to recognise her
eldest-born Frans, this portrait can hardly have been painted before
1639. Of great interest to us is the ' Morning Walk ' in the Pinakothek,
where we see the young mistress conducted by her husband through
the grounds of his town house ; behind walks her step-son Nicolas, now
a lad of twelve or thirteen. Here we have what is doubtless an
accurate rendering of Rubens's garden ; to the left we see the pavilion
that he had designed many years before, and which indeed stands
unaltered at the present day. The general colour of the landscape is
of an olive green, perhaps kept low in tone to give relief to the
comparatively small figures. The animals in the foreground — a pea
cock, a turkey, and a swiftly racing dog — are rubbed in loosely but
in a masterly way, unmistakably by Rubens himself.
I shall not attempt any strict chronological arrangement of the
works of the last ten years ; there is indeed little change of style,
and from pictures like the last we may pass to the beautiful little
Park Scene at Vienna, where we have a merry party romping in the
grounds of the artist's new country home.1 The figure to the left,
leaning on a stick, has been identified with Rubens ; the distance and
the sky are thinly rubbed in with a charming gradation of colour.
We have indeed in this slight but exquisite work a suggestion both of
Watteau and of Turner.
Some of the figures in this little panel occur again in the picture, or
series of pictures, known as the ' Conversation a la Mode,' the
' Garden of Love,' and by other names. Of the many versions of this
conception only two can be regarded as by the hand of Rubens. The
best probably is that painted on canvas, now in the Prado ; this is no
doubt the picture that hung in the bedroom of Philip iv. alongside of
Holy Families by Raphael and other great masters. The other version,
painted on panel, now belongs to Baron Edmond de Rothschild, and
1 The Chateau here assumes a very mediaeval aspect, but the path in the foreground that winds
round the back of the sheet of water may still be traced at Steen.
164

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
is probably the one that remained in the possession of Rubens's widow ;
in this the figures are smaller. There are not a few old copies of both
these versions — no work of Rubens has been more popular. Quite a
number of chalk studies for the various figures, many highly elaborated
and of great beauty, may be found in the various cabinets, above all
in the Musde Fodor at Amsterdam. The elaborate sepia drawing in
pen and wash of the whole composition that formerly belonged to Sir
Charles Robinson was apparently made for the large woodcut, in two
parts, engraved by Christoffel Jegher. We have in these pictures the
starting-point of the Conversations galantes of Watteau and his school,
but, in spite of the fluttering cupids, in Rubens's hands we are more in
touch with reality. M. Rooses will indeed have it that in this gay
assemblage the many brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the artist
may be recognised : Helen is doubtless to be identified ; her figure is
•perhaps repeated in more than one group. Are we to find in the
' Garden of Love ' and in the ' Park Scene ' an illustration of the
manners of the haute bourgeoisie of the day ?
I will now rapidly pass in review a few of the large mythological
pieces, essentially studies of the nude, that Rubens painted at this
time. In nearly all of them at least a reminiscence of Helen may be
discovered ; for many she must actually have stood as a model.
This series may well be introduced by the famous nude portrait
that Rubens painted of his wife shortly after their marriage. In the
will, ' Het Pelsken ' — so it was known at the time, from the robe of
fur that indeed hides so little — was left to Helen by a special clause.
M. Rooses gives no countenance to the story that the widow — she was
indeed now the wife of a person of position — although she expressed
her disapprobation of this picture and did not wish it to be seen, was
at length by an increased offer induced to part with it. For us the
work is of interest as a comparatively early example of the method of
flesh-painting adopted henceforth by Rubens. The glazings of warm
and cool tints on an enamel-like ground are now abandoned in favour
of a more direct method of work. The pose and expression are
original and striking ; but for all that, the general composition is, it
would seem, founded on a picture by Titian (like ' Het Pelsken ' now in
Vienna) of which we know that Rubens made a copy.
We may recognise the opulent figure of Helen in not a few pictures
painted soon after 1630. These are as a group earlier than the series
of mythological subjects painted for Philip's hunting-lodge. In these
last indeed we shall find that another type of female beauty was, if not
165

RUBENS
dominant, at least competing in Rubens's brain. The ' Bathsheba ' of
the Dresden Gallery came from the succession. The ' Susanna ' at
Munich, so masterly in its brush-work, has suffered from the restorer's
hands : M. Rooses claims to be the fortunate possessor of an even
finer version of this work, and of this he gives a photogravure in his
great life of the artist. The Berlin 'Andromeda,' which came frpm
Blenheim, is a splendid study of a nude figure. This picture was in the
succession, and there can be little doubt that Helen in this case served
as a model ; it seems to be a little earlier than the ' Andromeda ' in
the Prado, which may indeed be in part founded on it. The back
ground is rudely sketched in, and the wood-grain-like markings given
by the rapid sweep of a big, well-loaded brush should be noted. The
texture thus obtained was purposely aimed at by Rubens as a
' suggestive ' ground on which to base his future work. The Madrid
picture was commissioned by Philip as late as 1639 ; left unfinished
at the death of Rubens, it is said to have been completed by
Jordaens. It . is impossible not to recognise the features of Helen in the
shepherdess of that extraordinary panel now in the Pinakothek, whose
subject is well expressed by the familiar title, ' Le Croc en Jambe ' ; I
can, however, see but little likeness to Rubens in the amorous shepherd.
A more triumphant exposition of the artist's mastery in the wielding
of the brush at this period it would be difficult to find ; in the rich
colour-scheme, obtained by what are apparently such simple means, we
have the result of years of experience. This picture, again, comes from
the succession ; like the ' Pelsken,' it was painted for ' home consump
tion,' for the painter's own enjoyment. It is difficult now to enter into
the spirit, the mental frame, that called forth such a work as this from
a courtly, elderly gentleman who had settled down to a quiet family
life as a country squire. And then Helen, the good housewife, the
fond and careful mother, what had she to say ? But it is not for us to
find fault ; it is to this ' healthy animalism ' that we are indebted for
some of the most superb and most characteristic of the master's works.
Rubens, indeed, during the years that followed his second marriage,
seems to have been possessed at times by an orgiastic or corybantic
fury, resulting in a few masterpieces where the rapid, rhythmic move
ments of the dance have found an expression unapproached by painter
before or since. This expression, too, is given in a delightful vehicle ;
the brush-work, the. very paint is in itself a source of enjoyment.
The 'Sacrifice to Venus' now in the Hofmuseum belongs pro-
166

STUDY FOR THE FLEMISH KERMESSE
UKIT1SH MUSEUM, LONDON

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
bably to this time.1 In this gigantic sketch Rubens has returned to
the famous picture by Titian that he had copied at Rome many years
before. The colour-scheme is delicious ; the figures are relieved against
a pearly green landscape ; there are passages of subdued crimson here
and there, and a patch of Titianesque blue on the drapery of the woman
offering the sacrifice takes us back to the palette of the Venetian
master. But in quite another spirit is the group of fauns, satyrs, and
nymphs — one of the latter certainly Helen — that we see to the left,
threading the paces of a wild, not to say frantic, dance : a magnificent
conception, painted straight off, con amore, but at the same time one
that has little relation to the calm Venetian atmosphere of the rest of
the picture.
It is indeed an easy transition from such a passage as this to what
is one of the superlatively great works of the master — the ' Kermesse '
of the Louvre. Compared with the overflowing life of this picture, the
dancing peasants of Teniers appear lifeless and mechanical. In the
Print-Room of the British Museum, on both sides of a large sheet of
paper, may be seen a series of rapid pen outlines, in which Rubens has
attempted to seize the very spirit of the dance ; over and over again he
'ias jotted down the merest schematic lines of a dancing couple (the one
under the tree in the centre of the ' Kermesse,' I think). This group of
ketches is as a Rubens document a work of the greatest interest. On
1 13 same sheet are notes for the figures seated at the table : these are
merely blocked out ; indeed in the picture itself some of the figures are
only indicated by a few strokes of the brush. As M. Rooses puts it,
Rubens here turns from the loves of classic fauns and nymphs to cele
brate the orgies of the peasant and the rustic Venus of Flanders. The
quiet landscape background contrasts with the wild scene ^portrayed.
Not the least interesting point about this picture is the fact that it was
bought for the private collection of the Boi Soldi.
Only once again has Rubens given us a similar scene. The ' Rondo '
or ' Dance of Italian Peasants ' was bought by Philip iv., and is now in
the Prado. Here the composition is more concentrated and studied,
but nothing is lost by this ; there is an irresistible impetus in the chain
of swirling figures. There is a sketch for the ' Rondo ' in the Academy
at Vienna ; in this little gem the green background is only indicated.
The large work at Madrid is disfigured by some strange, coarse colour-
1 The catalogue of the Museum, indeed, says that it was painted for the Duke of Buckingham,
which would place it several years earlier. If this be so (but the identification, I think, rests on a
misunderstanding), the group of dancing figures to the left must undoubtedly be a later addition.
167

RUBENS
ing ; the patches of blue in the drapery are an unpleasant and unusual
addition to Rubens's palette.
I propose now to pass rapidly in review the works that Rubens
painted for churches during the last ten years of his career. This is a
long series — I have notes of some twenty-five important pictures — and
it is on the whole one of much less interest than the more or less
domestic group that I have lately been considering. The first on my list,
however, takes rank among the most complete and successful works of
the master — the great altar-piece of St. Ildefonso is one of the glories
ofthe gallery at Vienna. This picture was commissioned, in 1630, by the
Infanta for the Caudenberg church at Brussels, where the confraternity
of St. Ildefonso had a chapel. The Archduke Albert had taken much
interest in the confraternity, and his widow no doubt felt that she was
carrying out his wishes in commemorating the miracle of the saint — a
gift from the Virgin of a chasuble. There is an interesting oil sketch
for this triptych at St. Petersburg, where the kneeling figures of the
archdukes with their patron saints form an integral part of the com
position. A surprisingly rich but rather hot effect is given to the
finished work by the frame of crimson — curtains, cover of prie-dieu,
etc. — in which the central group is set; there is also much golden
yellow in the draperies. It is certainly strange that this picture, which
has all the characteristics of Rubens's later work, should, before its
history had been worked out, have been uniformly given to the earlier
Antwerp period of the artist. In the same gallery may be seen the
' Holy Family under an Apple-tree ' that Rubens painted on the
back of the wings of the Ildefonso picture (the wings have been sawn
through and the two back panels joined together). This is a pleasing
composition, only in part indeed by Rubens, but redeemed from com
monplace by the charming figure of the boy Christ. The subsequent
repainting may account for the fact that this picture has the air of
being earlier in date than the main altar-piece.
The 'Holy Family with St. Francis,' that has passed from the
Leigh Court collection to the Metropolitan Museum of New York,
has many points of resemblance to the last picture. It is somewhat of
a surprise to find M. Rooses giving this work to the year 1618 ; surely
this is by far too early a date, though it may not be of so late a period —
1635-36 — as that assigned to it by Herr Rosenberg. There is a
very inferior ' touched ' replica of this picture at Windsor.
Of Rubens's late Holy Families I will only mention two other
168

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
examples. In the ' Virgin and Child with a Goldfinch,' now at
Cologne, the infant Christ is almost a repetition of Helen's firstborn,
who sits naked on her lap in the picture at Munich. The ' Holy
Family with Saints ' (known also as the ' Repose in Egypt ') in the
Prado is a pleasant composition, almost a landscape, with points of
resemblance both to the ' Jardin d'Amour ' and to the altar-piece that
hangs over Rubens's grave. There is a replica of this picture, much
blackened, in the National Gallery. In the large woodcut by Jegher
the composition is reversed.
The ' St. Teresa Praying for the Souls in Purgatory ' was, we
know, painted about this time (circa 16{34). It is one of the few late
pictures in the Antwerp Gallery ; the vermilion robes of Christ and
the tame treatment of the nude take us back to the pictures of an
earlier period, many of which hang near it ; but this portion may well
be by Van Thulden. Rubens's broader touch may be seen in the souls
in purgatory below. The contrast of the two parts is indeed very
marked in this work.
The ' Crowning of St. Catherine ' was painted in 1633 for a church
at Malines. This picture, warm in tone and carefully painted, has long
been the property of the Dukes of Rutland.
The ' Last Supper,' the only version by Rubens of this subject and
the only work by him in the Brera at Milan, was, as we now know,
painted in 1632 for a chapel of the Cathedral of Malines. There it was
seen by Reynolds, who objected to the realistic incident of the dog and
bone in the foreground. By a strange misconception this picture was
long attributed to a much earlier time. A sketch by Rubens's hand is
in the Hermitage.
Rubens painted, in 1632, an 'Adoration of the Kings ' for a con
vent at Louvain — this was the last time the subject was treated by
him. Sir Joshua, who saw it when in Flanders, calls it a slight work,
awkwardly composed. The picture was bought in 1806 by the then
Marquis of Westminster. There is a vigorous sketch for this work at
Hertford House.
I do not know why the ' Judith and Holophernes ' now in the
Brunswick Gallery is given by M. Rooses and others to this time. It is
essentially a study of candlelight after the manner of Honthorst, and
seems to me to be closely allied to the Dresden ' Old Woman with a"
Brazier ' of 1622. That vigorous work ' Samson taken Prisoner,' now
in the Pinakothek, is again an effect of artificial light ; like the Ildefonso
altar-piece, it is encircled by a frame of crimson drapery. I should be
169

RUBENS
inclined to place it rather before than after 1630 ; M. Rooses, however,
gives it a later date.1 There is a good mezzotint of thjs picture by
Valentine Green.
Rubens has thrown his whole soul, that is his soul as an artist, into
the ' Massacre of the Innocents,' now at Munich, a work painted
about 1635 for the Bishop of Ghent, and one of several pictures that at
a later date the Duke of Richelieu sold to the Elector of Bavaria. In
composition and general effect it belongs to the same class as our
' Rape of the Sabines,' but while the action is even more energetic, the
colour is in this case colder. Rubens has here heaped up horror upon
horror, but for all that we feel that he cares as little for what is going
on as the sun that shines upon the scene.
As a result of some obscure psychological working of the artist's
brain, Rubens about this time seems to have found especial pleasure in
scenes of torture and physical distress, and this is the case above all
where he is treating devotional subjects ; so that now the very ' blood
of the martyrs ' provides the patches of crimson that still play an
important part in his colour-scheme. This piling up of horrors takes
the place in the case of sacred subjects of the ' orgiastic spirit ' that
at the same period we have found to prevail in the treatment of subjects
taken from profane history and domestic life. The ' Martyrdom of
St. Lievin' was painted about 1635 for the high altar of the Jesuit
church at Ghent ; on the suppression of the order in 1777 the picture
came into the hands of the French king. By a strange inversion of the
usual course, in the time of Napoleon it was transferred from Paris
to Brussels, the latter city being then reckoned as a provincial town, and
there it has remained ever since. A gay scheme of colour reigns in
this work, not only in the heavenly vision above, but in the ghastly
scene enacted in the foreground ; but as usual, only the latter part is
entirely by the master's hand.
In the same bravura spirit Rubens has treated the ' Christ bear
ing the Cross ' which now hangs as a companion to the last picture in
the gallery at Brussels. This altar-piece was painted in 1636 for the
monks of the Abbey of Afflighem in Brabant. We have here a
dramatically, not to say sensationally, conceived scene, broadly and
thinly painted with many beautiful passages of a silvery grey relieved
by patches of vermilion. The centre of interest is the group of St.
Veronica and Christ. Behind this are the figures of St. John and
1 The ' Samson ' was formerly universally attributed to the early Antwerp period (1612-15), and
by some critics this early attribution is still upheld.
170

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
the Virgin ; the dolours are here dark and sunk, and this part appears
1 to have been added as an afterthought. There are two important
sketches for this work, one at Amsterdam and the other in the Academy
1 at Vienna — they differ much from the finished picture.
About the same time Rubens painted the 'Beheading of St. Paul'
1 for another Belgian convent. This picture, no doubt closely allied in
1 treatment to the two last mentioned, was burnt in 1695 when the
! French bombarded Brussels. There is a powerful sketch for this work
at Dorchester House, as well as a carefully finished drawing (scarcely
by the master's hand) in the National Gallery.
In the museum at Prague may be seen the ' Martyrdom of St.
Thomas.' Here the scene of horror in the foreground is wrapped in
gloom, and contrasts with the flight of boy angels descending from
a bright opening in the sky above. In the same museum hangs the
' St. Augustine on the Sea-shore ' ; both pictures were commissioned
as late as 1637 by a noble Bohemian lady for a convent at
Prague. The 'Crucifixion of St. Andrew' still hangs in the church ofthe
Flemish hospital at Madrid, to which it was bequeathed in 1639 by one
Jan van Vucht, a friend of Rubens and Moretus. A head of St.
Andrew of this time, now in Vienna, differs considerably from that in
this picture. Closely allied in treatment is the ' Crucifixion of St.
Peter ' painted for the church of that name at Cologne. There has
been preserved a remark of Rubens, a propos of this picture : he
declares that he is overwhelmed with other work, but that the subject
of this altar-piece pleased him more than that of any other picture upon
which he was then occupied. The interpretation of this ' hard saying '
seems to be that in the nude figure of the old apostle, heels in air
and with outstretched arms, the painter was provided with a new,
unworn pattern. That this is what appealed to Rubens in the subject
is significant. This picture was ordered in 1637 by Jabach the banker,
one of the most active collectors of the day. Although the elder
Jabach died before its completion, the work ultimately reached its
original destination, and it still hangs in the church at Cologne where
the artist's father was buried.
When a painter in treating a tragic incident unintentionally pro
vokes the spectator to uncontrollable mirth, we may perhaps infer
that he is himself deficient in the sense of humour. This was
undoubtedly the case with Rubens, and no better proof could be
found of this deficiency than the ' St. Justus ' now at Bordeaux, a
171

RUBENS
picture praised by Reynolds, that was painted for his friend the
printer Moretus and destined for an Antwerp church.
With such a work as this, for the composition at least of which
Rubens was responsible, we may pass from these ghastly scenes to a
few late devotional works of a more peaceful nature.
The ' Pieta ' in the Prado is a late work that long hung in the
Escorial. The composition, the head of the Virgin above all, takes
us back to the time when the young Vandyke was working in Rubens's
studio, but the handling is now a very different one. In the sketchily
treated ' Supper at Emm aus ' there are some reminiscences of a well-
known work of Titian ; it is essentially an effect of warm evening
light. Rubens had treated this subject in an early picture (circa
1611), painted in the manner of the Bolognese school. Both these
pictures are now in Madrid, the later work in the Prado and the
other in the private chapel of the Duke of Alva.
The ' Madonna and Saints ' that stands over Rubens's tomb in the
apsidal chapel of St. Jacob's church was placed there according to
the terms of the artist's will. He selected this picture as a repre
sentative work of his final ripe period ; we must not look here for
any portraits of himself or of his family — we cannot even identify the
saints. The colour is rich, the distribution of the main lights masterly,
and in the figures in the foreground there is something that reminds
one of a late Titian. What may, perhaps, be regarded as a replica or
a clever contemporary copy of this picture is in the gallery of Sir
Frederick Cook at Richmond.
The ' St. Cecilia' now in Berlin, takes us back again to Helen and
to the rich silk robes of the ' Jardin d'Amour.' The picture has
suffered much, but it is still a masterly example of Rubens's subtle
handling of colour in the last years of his life. The work was in the
painter's house at his death.
The 'Brazen Serpent' of our National Gallery came from a Genoese
collection. The striking composition is accentuated by the contrast
of light and shade. It is now so much darkened that the merits of
the colouring can only be appreciated on a very fine day.
The 'Rudolph of Habsburg and the Priest' was already at Madrid
in 1636. This is a scene in a country lane, quietly painted, the low-
toned landscape probably by Wildens. Count Rudolph has yielded
his horse to the priest who carries the consecrated elements, and the
sacristan clings on as best he can to that of the attendant. Rubens
for once has found a humorous motive in the obvious embarrassment
172

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
of the poor acolyte. This is indeed a picture that stands quite apart
among the master's works.
There is no need to say much of a series of pictures that centre
round the young Archduke Ferdinand who arrived in the Low
Countries towards the end of 1634, flushed with the victory of Nord
lingen. Rubens while at Madrid had already painted him as a pale
youth in Cardinal's robes. In the portrait belonging now to Mr.
Pierpont Morgan, he appears as the successful general, standing with
resolute air, a red sash bound over his glittering armour. At
Madrid we see him on his black charger, leading his troops to victory
— always the same pale face, framed in auburn hair.
The pictures designed, and in part painted by Rubens, on the occa
sion of the triumphal entry of Ferdinand into Antwerp in the spring
of 1635 were subsequently presented to the Archduke in place of a
payment of money that the town professed itself too poor to provide.
They are now scattered through the galleries of Europe. The ' Ferdi
nand leaving Spain ' or ' Neptune ' (Quos ego) now at Dresden, and
the ' Meeting of the two Ferdinands' after the victory of Nordlingen
at Vienna (the composition here inevitably calls to mind the ' Lanzas '
of Velazquez) decorated one of the ' Theatres ' by which the young
prince was to pass. From other theatres or triumphal arches came
the ' Battle of Nordlingen ' 1 now at Windsor, the huge ' Commerce
deserting Antwerp' in the Royal Gallery at Stockholm, the
Ferdinands, the Maximilian and the Charles v. now at Vienna (the
last two in the Academy of that city), the portraits of the Archdukes
Albert, Isabella, and Ernest at Brussels, and finally two tall alle
gorical figures at Lille. More interesting to us, as more directly
from the hand of Rubens, are the sketches for these huge works, and
still more the designs for the theatres and the arches themselves ; of
these last the finest are now in the Hermitage. Two panels with the
designs for the ' Arc de la Monnaie ' have, however, remained at
Antwerp. These are of special interest, as showing the manner in
which Rubens felt his way to the final effect and the use that he
made of mere suggestions of colour.2 We have not a few of these
sketches in England in private collections (Duke of Grafton, Marquis
of Bute, others formerly belonging to Sir Abraham Hume). If in
1 M. Rooses thinks that this picture was laid in by Gaspar van der Hoecke or his son Jean, and
finished or at least ' touched ' by Jordaens rather than by Rubens.
2 Rubens's method is nowhere better exemplified than in the design made three years later for
a Triumphal Car, on the occasion of the celebration of the victory gained by Ferdinand at Calloo.
On this fine sketch, now in the Antwerp Gallery, are many notes by his hand as to colour, etc.
173

RUBENS
these sketches we recognise the conception as it came fresh from
the artist's brain, at the very other end of the scale there are the
engravings of Van Thulden ; in these, while the baroque element is
exaggerated, all the spirit and charm of the original design have
evaporated. These engravings, indeed, are chiefly of interest as show
ing that Rubens's architectural ideas were unchanged : he still adhered
to the rhetorical and over-loaded treatment of facade-designing that
he developed out of his early Italian studies.
I must now mention a few more portraits that Rubens painted
during these last years. These are masterly works, firmly modelled
and painted with decision, but in no less degree than the portraits of
earlier days, they are in a measure uninteresting, and this is perhaps due
to a certain lack of ' intimacy ' and of psychological insight. I will take
first the portraits of the two ancestors of the reigning houses of Austria
and Spain, Charles the Bold and Maximilian, now in the Hof-
museum at Vienna ; these are highly finished pictures, warm in tone,
the armour painted with evident gusto. Here, curiously enough, just
when Rubens was not painting from a living model, there is more
endeavour than usual at the expression of character.
The portrait of Matthaeus Yrsselius was painted for his tomb in
the old convent of St. Michel of which he was Abbot ; it is now in
Copenhagen. The portrait of Rubens's confessor, the Dominican
monk Ophorius, who but barely escaped ' martyrdom ' at the hands of
the Dutch, is now at the Hague ; this is a typical Rubens portrait ;
an energetic head, somewhat roughly painted — the outside of the man
seen with a painter's eye. The Frederic de Marselaer, burgo
master of Brussels, has quite lately passed through the auction room at
Berlin (Konigswarter sale) ; it was sold for over £4000 to a Paris dealer.
These three last portraits date from the first years after Rubens's
return from England. Somewhat later and of more interest is the
portrait of Rubens's father-in-law, Jan Brant, the learned commen
tator of Cicero and Caesar, at the age of 75, which is to be found in the
Gallery at Munich.
I have now to pass summarily in review the vast series of classical,
mythological and allegorical pictures that came from Rubens's studio
during the last ten years of his life. The series includes several super
lative works, as well as much of which the design only and at most a
few final touches can be attributed to the master's hand.
Not long after 1630, Rubens received a commission for eight
174

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
large designs to be executed in tapestry — the subject chosen was the
' History of Achilles.' It is uncertain whether the order came from
Philip iv. or from Charles i.1 Indeed, an unusual mystery hangs over
this series ; there is a total want of documentary evidence concerning
it. The tapestry is known to us by five pieces now in the Museum of
Decorative Art at Brussels ; in these the hand of Van Thulden may
perhaps be traced — he may well have executed the canvases that
served as patterns ; but of the canvases themselves, apart from two
that have found their way to the castle at Pau, there is now no trace.
Of the original sketches a set of six belongs to Lord Barrymore (Mr.
Smith Barry), and others are in Berlin. The architectural framework
again plays an important part in the composition, but the favourite
torque and belted columns are here replaced by female caryatides.
When in 1637 Rubens received through his friend Justus Sutter-
mans, a commission from the Grand Duke of Tuscany for an important
picture, he chose as his subject 'The Horrors of War.' This is an
elaborate allegory, and for once in a way Rubens has provided a key.
In a letter to Suttermans he explains in detail how it has been his aim
to exemplify the ruin and destruction in war time of all that ennobles
the life of man. The passage is of extreme interest as an illustration
of the thought that was uppermost in the mind of Rubens ; it is the
passionate expression of his detestation of that endless war for the
cessation of which he had for so many years vainly striven. Into
the picture (it is now in the Pitti) Rubens has thrown his whole heart
— it is a magnificent example of his later manner. It is well known
to us by the powerful sketch — or rather early version — that has passed
from the Rogers collection to the National Gallery.2
Of the larger works of Rubens in the National Gallery, there is
perhaps only one that has not suffered from our English climate, or
become dark from repeated varnishing. This is the ' Abduction of
the Sabine Women,' a picture thinly painted in a light key ; a pre
vailing rosy light binds together a complicated design, made up, like
the ' Massacre of the Innocents ' at Munich, of a tangle of struggling
figures. Only the more prominent figures are by the master, but, for
all that, this is one of the finest examples that we have in England,
both of the dynamic force and of the beautiful quality of the paint to
1 M. Muntz declares that the tapestry was executed at Mortlake.
2 This little masterpiece now hangs as a companion to that wonderful ' Sunset ' of which
I shall have something to say shortly. Let those who would understand what Rubens was capable
of in his last years carefully examine these two pictures. Those who cannot appreciate their
superlative merit need not trouble themselves further with the study of Rubens.
175

RUBENS
be found in Rubens's later works. It may be compared and contrasted
under both these heads with that superb example of what I regard as
the end ofthe middle period, the ' Thomyris ' of Lord Darnley (p. 151).
The other pictures that Rubens painted of the Sabine Women, both
in early and late days (Alfred de Rothschild, Munich, etc.), are on the
whole inferior in interest. Here may be mentioned the brilliant little
' Finding of Romulus and Remus ' at Sanssouci, a ' finished sketch '
remarkable both for colour and composition.
The 'Abundance,' with three nymphs, half robed in silken gowns,
was purchased some time since from the Duke of Marlborough by
Baron Edmond de Rothschild, it is said for £20,000 ; a large sum for a
work that has perhaps received little more than the final touches from
Rubens. The treatment of the rich silk drapery recalls, however,
certain passages in the ' Jardin d Amour,' and this may have appealed
to one who was already the owner of one version of the latter picture.
In the unfinished and sketchy ' Bathers ' at Sanssouci, the top part
has been cleverly added, probably by some French painter at the time
of Frederick the Great. The group of the three girls unrobing should
be compared with the above-mentioned two pictures of M. Edmond de
Rothschild, and again with the ' Diana and Satyrs ' of Berlin. We
may find in it a connecting link between two otherwise divergent
groups of pictures.
There is a small group of pictures mostly of very late date, in
which Rubens gave full vent to the erotic tendencies that seem to
have at times possessed him. Here, in the wild rush of nymphs,
satyrs and centaurs through the woodland glades, there is an abandon
and a verve that are only to be found in the works of the artist's
final years and to be found nowhere else.
The ' Loves of the Centaurs ' was bought by Lord Rosebery at
the Hamilton sale for £2000. In this little panel the half-classical
spirit calls to mind the work of some of the Italians of the sixteenth
century ; the skilful scheming of the lines has in no way interfered with
the freedom of the movement. It is an example of a motive that has
found favour of late days with painters in France and elsewhere.
But perhaps the most characteristic picture of this group is the
' Nymphs of Diana Pursued by Satyrs' in the Prado, that was bought
by Philip from Rubens's studio after his death — a marvellous frieze-like
composition, in which the 'pattern' of struggling figures is carried
through the whole ten feet of its length.
The 'Diana surprised by Satyrs,' now at Cassel, though a picture
176

LATER ANTWERP PERIOD
of this period straight from the master's hand, none the less carries us
back to an earlier time, for many of the figures are to be seen in the
' Diana returning from the Chase ' at Dresden, a work of 1616. But
contrast the swing and the directness of the Cassel canvas with the
tame restraint of the earlier work.
The superb ' Diana and Satyrs ' of the Berlin Gallery belongs to
the latest years. Titianesque indeed in colour and conception, in
this great work there is a fire and a spontaneity that belong to no one
but Rubens. The figure of the goddess, encircled by crimson drapery,
dominates the canvas. The dark-haired nymphs are of a type that
prevails in the latest Spanish pictures.
The ' Diana and Actaeon ' was bought by the Due de Richelieu
for 3000 dollars at the sale after Rubens's death. The Duke was so
well contented with his purchase that he presented the widowed
Helen with a gold watch. The Duke's picture is doubtless to be
identified with the fine canvas, which, although shorn of its left-hand
side (including the figure of Actaeon), fetched over £6000 at the
Schubart sale in 1899. The Diana closely resembles the goddess
of the Berlin picture, and the nymphs recall both the Sanssouci
' Bathers ' and the Marlborough ' Abundance.'
The ' Judgment of Paris ' in the National Gallery has been carried
by Rubens to a higher finish than was usual in these later times. The
work bears the mark of the master's hand throughout, but, for all that,
the composition is identical with that of the small panel at Dresden, a
work which, if Rubens had any share in it at all, must be referred to a
much earlier time. On the other hand, the Prado picture of the same
subject, painted very shortly after, differs in composition and is carried
out in a completely different spirit.
The little ' Mercury and Argus ' of Dresden is a charming com
position, with something about it reminiscent of Tintoretto. The
figure of Argus is repeated in the later picture at Madrid. In the
very late 'Bacchus' of the Hermitage, we have the fat sensuous god of
the Romans treated in a spirit of complete abandon. This picture was
sold by Rubens's nephew Philip to the Due de Richelieu ; there is a
studio copy at Dresden.
I have yet to speak of the canvases turned out post-haste for the
Spanish king during the last few years of Rubens's life. These, with
the late landscapes still to be described, are the final words of the great
artist. 177
1).— 12 i ' '

CHAPTER XIV
Last Pictures for the Spanish King— The Landscapes of Rubens.
OF the earlier pictures painted for the King of Spain, I have
spoken in more than one place. A considerable interval
divides them from the last batch (or rather series of batches)
which forms by itself a compact group. Closely connected, however,
with the Madrid series are a few of the pictures lately passed in review
—the ' Baths ' and ' Huntings of Diana ' for example. Some of these,
although they were in Rubens's studio at his death, for one reason
or another escaped the eager bidding of Philip's agents.
It was to no less a personage than the Archduke Ferdinand that it
fell to urge on the over-harassed painter. Writing to his brother the
King, he says that he is ready to proceed to Antwerp for that very
purpose. Rubens, he writes later, will not bind himself — ' but I spur
him on as much as I am able, and I will go to see him myself as soon
as the works are a little more advanced.' One would think that the
King had some presagement that the days of the great master were
drawing to a close. He would get all he could while the hand could
still wield the magic brush, regardless of the strain that he thus put
upon the overtaxed and gout-racked painter.
By March, 1638, as many as one hundred and twelve pictures were
sent off by way of France ; not all by Rubens, of course, but in the
fifty-six subjects taken from the Metamorphoses of Ovid Rubens had a
greater or less part — the design at least was his in every case. These
pictures were destined both for the royal hunting lodge of the Torre
de la Parada and for the palace at Madrid ; thirty -one of them may
now be seen in the Prado. There are eight large pictures, above all, in
which the work of Rubens is prominent. These are the ' Centaurs
and the Lapithae,' the ' Banquet of Tereus,' the ' Orpheus and
Eurydice,' the ' Milky Way,'. the ' Mercury and Argus,' the ' Rape
of Proserpine,' the ' Saturn,' and the ' Ganymede.'1
1 I follow in this the analysis of M. Rooses (Vie de Rubens, p. 598). For an appreciation of
the later pictures of the master, see the chapter on Rubens in Mr. Ricketts's work on the
Prado.
178

PICTURES FOR SPAIN AND LANDSCAPES
Rubens had a hand too in three smaller pictures — the ' Flora,' the
* Fortune,' and the ' Mercury.' The others were in the main painted,
from Rubens's designs, of course, by one or other of his assistants — by
Jan van Eyck, by Erasmus Quellin, Theodor van Thulden, Matthias
Borrekens, Jan Cossiers, Cornells de Vos and Jacob Peter Gouwi. This
is a list of names that suggests many curious reflections. The first three,
indeed, are well known as workers in the great studio. Cossiers was a
painter of some distinction, whose work, however, lies for the most part
outside of the realm of Rubens. As for Cornells de Vos, it is a surprise
to find the name of the great Antwerp portrait painter on the list.
Gouwi is a painter of whom we might wish to know more. Mr.
Ricketts finds his hand in some of the pictures that seem to me
to bear the stamp of the later style of the master himself.1
It is at this point that I am brought face to face with certain of
the characteristics of the final phases of Rubens's art.
I fancy I can see in some of these late Prado pictures 2 as well as in
a few others — in that beautiful wreck, the ' Tournament ' at Paris, for
instance (a subject suggested perhaps by the feudal associations of his
new castle), and again in one or two of the late landscapes — a new
emotional element, some approach to the romantic spirit, a suggestion,
that is to say, of something beyond what is obviously presented. This
is a thing so apart from the general spirit of Rubens's work, that one
hesitates to accept it as anything more than a merely subjective inter
pretation of certain casual arrangements of chiaroscuro, or, again, of
gestures and facial types that may depend upon the model employed.
And this brings me to another characteristic of these later pictures.
Helen no longer stands alone as the dominating influence ; whether for
face, for figure, or for gesture, she is at times replaced by another type
of female beauty that we see best exemplified in the ' Eurydice,' but
which may be found also in the Minerva of the Madrid ' Judgment of
Paris,'3 and perhaps in the foremost female saint in the picture that
hangs over the tomb of Rubens. From many points of view, these
wonderful last years of the great master's life are of so profound an
1 The sketches for most of these pictures were formerly at Madrid, in the Pastrana collection
which is now dispersed. The only ones I know of that have so far found their way to public
galleries are those which are to be seen at Brussels— the 'Fall op the Titans,' the 'Mercury
and Argus' and the ' Hippodamia '—rapid sketches on panel in tones of silver and pink. The
slightly painted little ' Fortuna,' at Berlin, possibly belongs to this series.
2 I speak with hesitation, as it is some time since I have seen the originals, and I am here
chiefly guided by photographs.
3 I do not know on what ground Mr. Ricketts sees in the first picture nothing but the hand of
Gouwi and in the second that of Cornelis de Vos.
179

RUBENS
interest that one would like to have some more certain light upon such
points as these.
But Philip was still eager for new pictures. In 1639 the Archduke
was again spurring on the painter and his assistants ; but it is doubtful
whether more than one or two of the last batch were completed before
the master's death ; in any case these were the pictures that for the
most part were delivered by his executors in 1640 and 1641. Of this
last batch the ' Hercules ' and the fine ' Perseus and Andromeda' —
Perseus clad in plate armour, and Andromeda repeated from the single
figure that has passed from Blenheim to Berlin — are, as already
mentioned, stated to have been finished by Jordaens.
The 'Judgment of Paris ' of the Prado, which was sent off in 1639,
was indeed a belated member of an earlier batch ; it was found to be
too large (it is twelve feet in length) to go with the other pictures by
ordinary post. Ferdinand, writing of this picture to his brother, says
that there was only one fault to be found with it — the nudity of the
goddesses ; but the painter could not be induced to change this ; upon
it, he maintained, depended the beauty of the picture. The Arch
duke mentions incidentally that the Venus in the centre was' a
successful portrait of the artist's wife, who was regarded as the most
beautiful woman in the country. The picture has suffered much, as
indeed have all those that have survived of the series painted for the
Torre de la Parada. Many were destroyed when this hunting lodge
was sacked by the troops of the Austrian pretender to the Spanish
throne in 1710. The head of Venus appears to have been repainted ;
but I think that the new type to which I have referred above may be
recognised in the goddess to the left.
By the death of Rubens, which followed so shortly after, the supply
came to an end. But Philip was not yet content. He gave orders for
large purchases when Rubens's property came to be sold. He then
acquired seventeen works by the master as well as a few pictures by
other artists. Some of the Rubenses then bought are earlier works
which have been already mentioned — the ' Nymph and Satyrs ' of the
Prado, for example, I have classed with a small series of similar
subjects. The ' Three Graces ' probably came at this time— a triumph
of Rubens's final handling in the rendering of the nude, and one of the
gems of the Prado gallery.
Rubens as a Landscape Painter. Before proceeding to consider
the grand series of late landscapes, let me sum up briefly the
180

PICTURES FOR SPAIN AND LANDSCAPES
various influences that had affected the earlier landscape work of
Rubens.1 As might have been expected, Rubens's earliest landscapes, those
painted before and after his return from Italy, have in the main
affinities with the schematised, classical treatment of the Carracci ; the
typical example is the 'Palatine Hill' in the Louvre. In the 'Rain
bow ' of the same gallery we see the influence of the school of Flemish
artists then working in Rome ; of these Paul Bril was the chief, and
indeed the background of such a work as the ' Romulus and Remus,'
now in the Capitoline Museum, might well have been painted by Bril
himself. The 'Prodigal Son' of the Antwerp Gallery, and the
' Winter ' at Windsor (so far as the latter is by the master) are studies
from nature ; noticeable as early instances of Rubens's interest in the
farm life of his own country (see p. 119). On the other hand, the
so-called ' Summer ' (also at Windsor) belongs essentially to that
panoramic, all-comprehending school of landscape that we know
so well from the numberless works by Van Valckenborch, Coninxlo
and de Momper — painters who enjoyed a great popularity at
the end of the sixteenth century. This picture indeed is probably
in the main by Van Uden, whose career as a landscape painter
from about 1615 onwards shadows that of the great master.
The ' Summer ' should be compared with the little landscape,
formerly attributed to Rubens, belonging to the Duke of West
minster — this is a typical example of the school of the late sixteenth
century. In this connection, it should not be forgotten that van Uden was
not born till 1595. His name, however, has been brought into relation
with a certain type of more or less panoramic landscape, founded on
the rich rolling Brabant country and on the Antwerp polders, with
meadows divided by rows of pollard willows. But surely the
name of Van Uden and that of Wildens also have been used too freely
by M. Rooses and others, and the part of Rubens in many wooded
backgrounds, and still more in rugged foregrounds with gnarled roots
and trailing creepers, has been unduly minimised. At any rate, much
work of this latter kind, if carried out by the assistants, was based
upon studies that have been preserved, and which are undoubtedly by
the hand of the master. The woodland backgrounds (and the fore
grounds too) of the hunting scenes might be arranged in a chronological
series, culminating in such a work as the gloomy, broadly-painted land-
1 These earlier landscapes have alreadv been described in chapters ix. and x.
181

RUBENS
scape at Brussels, where the Atalanta in vermilion robe and the
autumn tints of some trees to the left are the only passages of warm
colour. Through the whole of his middle career we can point to two types
in the landscape backgrounds of Rubens. In the one we find a con
tinuation of the sombre, schematical treatment that in the earlier
works we have associated with the influence of the Bolognese school —
the trees are conventionally drawn, and with little local colour — such
work I find is usually attributed to Wildens ; the other is the type
already indicated, more homebred and literal, and this is for the most
part associated with Van Uden. It would perhaps be safe to consider
these two treatments of landscape as merely carrying on, in one case
the Italian, in the other the Flemish tradition. The latter is the more
important to us, for out of it the glorious late landscape of Rubens was
developed. But meantime Rubens fell under the influence, or rather, I should
say, made experiments in the manner of some of his contemporaries
whose landscapes had appealed to him. Although he painted several
pictures in colloboration with his friend Jan Breughel, the delicate
vistas of his popular contemporary, executed like miniatures in con
ventional tones of blue and green^ appealed little to him. Perhaps
Rubens may have had more sympathy with the landscape work (so
superb of its kind, though so little appreciated at the present day) of
his friend's father, old Peter Breughel ; we know that he bought more
than one of his pictures.
Rubens, at a comparatively early date, must have seen some of the
little landscapes — often so wonderfully modern in sentiment — that the
Frankfort artist Elsheimer (1575- c. 1620) was painting in Rome during
the years that preceded his death. In these we recognise at times the
spirit of classical romance as expounded by Virgil, or perhaps rather
read into his poems. Rubens we know bought Elsheimer's pictures,
and assisted him in his distress. I can give two instances of the
direct influence of Elsheimer on a picture by our master. The ' Flight
into Egypt ' is a subject that the Frankfort master had made especially
his own. Rubens, in the little panel at Cassel, follows closely in his
steps. Then, again, there is the ' Shipwreck of Aeneas ' (De Piles, who
saw it in the Duke of Richelieu's collection, calls it a view of Porto
Venere, near Spezzia) that has passed to Berlin from an English
collection. The left-hand part of this romantic little work, with
the beacon tower on a rocky promontory, appears to be founded on
182

STUDY OF TREES
LOUVKIC, PARIS

PICTURES FOR SPAIN AND LANDSCAPES
Elsheimer's ' Shipwreck of St. Paul,' now in the collection of Lord
Methuen.1 It is perhaps the influence of Paul Bril rather than that of Elsheimer
that can be seen in the fantastic landscape at Vienna known, from the
figures in the extreme right of the picture, as 'Philemon and Baucis.'
We have here an effect of rain, storm, and approaching flood, painted
with a masterly brush in silvery tones of blue and green. The weeds
and branches and the passage with the rainbow in the foreground
should not be overlooked ; these are treated in a manner that calls
up recollections of some similar passages in the works of Turner.
The same spirit of classical romance reigns in the ' Ulysses and
Nausicaa' in the Pitti Gallery. In this, as in the last-mentioned picture,
we may still perhaps find some recollections of the fantastic composi
tions of Van Valckenborch and others, so much in favour at an earlier
period, even more perhaps of the spirit of Paul Bril. M. Rooses, I
should note, thinks that Van Uden had a hand in both these pictures.
Although on the ground, no doubt, of the loose yet masterly handling,
they are usually attributed to the last period, neither the ' Philemon ' nor
the 'Ulysses' has much in common with the 'Steen' series of landscapes.
Indeed, such pictures as these lie apart from the typical landscape
work of Rubens — the work that has placed him among the greatest
landscape painters of all times. In the series of home-bred scenes, yet
to be described, the painter comes into direct contact with mother
earth as exhibited in the flat, willow-lined polders of Antwerp, and the
rich corn-fields that cover the gently swelling hills of Brabant. Here
we have muddy lanes with country carts, and peasants on their way to
market or returning from their labour, wayside pools and ditches with
wading cattle and scrambling ducks. To such scenes as these Rubens
turned in his last years, rendering them with the same vigorous and
flowing brush that had served him for his nymphs and goddesses and
satyrs. That this glorious series of Flemish landscapes belongs to the last
years of Rubens's life, we know, apart from technical grounds, by the
presence in more than one of them of his country residence, the castle
of Steen. These late landscapes are, on the face of them, entirely the
work of his own hand. But here a curious problem presents itself.
There are certain pictures which, though poorer in colour and less
1 The 'Jupiter aud Mercury in the house of Philemon and Baucis' (in the Hofmuseum)
follows very closely in composition the little picture of Elsheimer in the Dresden Gallery. But the
Viennese interior caii only rank as a school piece, in which the hand of Jordaens may possibly
be traced.
183

RUBENS
opulent in style, belong, as far as the elements go of which they are
built up, essentially to the same family as the great ' Steen ' land
scapes. They are certainly earlier in date, and it is usual to find in
them the hand of the young Van Uden, and, if this be so, we arrive at
the curious result that Rubens late in life founded his style in land
scape, or at least his choice of subject, upon the earlier work of his
assistant. Let us take the 'Dairy Farm at Laeken ' (see above,
p. 119). M. Rooses thinks that this picture was painted before 1618,.
and maintains that Rubens for nearly twenty years after this time never
turned his hand to landscape work. Other critics, I should mention,
have placed the Laeken Farm as late as 1635, and see in the foliage the
hand of Van Uden. There are several other small landscapes of varying
merit, in which the farm-girls and the cows have been painted, it would
seem, from the same models as in the Laeken picture. The ' Milking
Scene ' at Munich, with the eleven lean kine, and the reeds and willow
stumps thinly painted, in so masterly a style, over a dull green back
ground, is perhaps the most brilliant example of this series. It would
be safer, probably, to place this group about the year 1625, when we
know that Rubens was stopping at Laeken, and to find in it a link
between the earlier and the later groups of landscape. To it also
would belong the ' Watering Place ' in the Liechtenstein gallery —
here the contrast between the poor conventional landscape (perhaps in
this case by Wildens) and the crisply painted milk-girls is very strik
ing — as well as one or two other pictures in which the cattle and figures
of peasants in the foreground help to redeem a dull and ill-drawn
landscape. The Duke of Buccleuch has another 'Watering Place,'
a striking composition, with a mass of trees on a rocky eminence sur
rounded by water ; this picture is best known from the large line-
engraving by John Browne. The ' Forest Scene' at dawn, with hunts
men and dogs, belonging to the Wynn family, is one of the series
engraved by Schelte a Bolswert. The 'Atalanta' at Brussels is again
a forest scene ; a dark, loosely handled work, to which I have already
referred, painted in subdued tones. There is a replica or 'touched'
copy of this picture at Madrid.
The ' Charrette Embourbee ' at St. Petersburg has been highly
praised. But here we have the same difficulty as with what I
have called the Laeken group. If the landscape is to be given to
Rubens, it must belong to an earlier time than the ' Steen ' pictures.
A work of much the same class is the little ' Woodland-road with
a Cart,' belonging to Lord Northbrook.
184

• to *£

8 a
b b
o °
P D
S 0
H I

-

PICTURES FOR SPAIN AND LANDSCAPES
There is in the National Gallery a picture that I will call the
'Autumn Sunset.' In this little work the merits, and some may perhaps
think the demerits, of the master's later landscape style are well summed
up. It will form a good introduction to the great ' Steen ' landscapes.
Rubens has here thrown aside the restraint that confined his brush to
shades of olive-green and brown. He has not feared to reproduce the
rich autumnal foliage and the vivid sunset sky. And yet it is not the
local colour exactly that is rendered ; the eye is caught at once by the
globe of the setting sun, which by a bold licence appears to set in
front of the hill. Dazzled by this we are left uncertain how far the
brilliant chromatic effect in sky and landscape may not in part be the
result of the action of the bright light on the spectator's retina.
Never, not even by the great landscape painters of the nineteenth
century, early and late, has this truly subjective, momentary impression
been so marvellously rendered. In the foreground a shepherd pipes to
his sheep ; this is a favourite motive with Claude. But what a contrast
to the calm, restful spirit of the painter of the Roman Campagna !
Here everything speaks of life and motion ; the effect itself is but a
momentary one ; a minute later and the sun will be gone and a total
change will have come over the scene.
The great ' Landscape with the Chateau of Steen ' is the imper-
sonification of autumn. Rubens has indeed here thrown too many
incidents into the foreground ; it is full of passages of interest which it
takes some time to search out — the fowler, the partridges, the market-
cart, the wonderful confusion of brambles and weeds ; again, away by
the castle, Rubens himself with wife and child may be discovered ; all
these are lost when one retires far enough from the picture to take in
at a glance the rich autumn scene. Like Turner, Rubens was here so
interested in the world of life before him that in the rendering of it
he scarcely knew where to stop. How far, in the case of either master,
has this heaping up of superfluous incidents interfered with the general
pictorial effect ? By the answer to this question the critics of the
present day might be arrayed in two divergent schools.
The 'Rainbow' at Hertford House is by some regarded as the finest
landscape of Rubens. As at present hung it is very difficult to see the
picture as a whole, but the composition is here more concentrated than
in the companion landscape in the National Gallery.1 Rubens painted
cattle superbly ; he made them the subject of a number of detailed
sketches, many of which have been preserved. They are rather lean
'.The two hung for long as companions in the Balbi Palace at Genoa.
185

RUBENS
beasts, as reckoned by our modern standard ; but the sharply defined
contours gave better opportunities for careful drawing. They are in any
case the ancestors of the cows both of Gainsborough and Turner. The
ducks, too, in the corner ofthe ' Rainbow ' landscape should not be over
looked ; they take their place in a delicious passage of foreground
painting, a passage of all the greater interest as just such a piece of
water, half stream, half ditch, with muddy bank and tall weeds may be
seen to-day close by the trim shrubberies of the Chateau of Steen,
where all else is now so changed in character. There, in summer, the
cattle still stand about among the ducks and geese from the neighbour
ing mill. There is a smaller, and perhaps somewhat earlier, version of
this ' Rainbow ' landscape at Munich, much tamer in colour than the
beautiful picture at Hertford House.
The 'Return from the Fields ' in the Pitti is essentially a picture
of the same class, though in this case some have found in the landscape
the hand of Van Uden. Here, in the distance, may be seen the towers
of Malines, a town which lies only some six or seven miles from Rubens's
chateau at Steen. For the figures of the Pitti picture — they are of
some importance — there are careful studies in the Albertina.
Finally, I must call attention to the little picture in the Louvre,
with windmill and men sawing — a picture worthy to be classed with the
' Autumn Sunset ' in our National Gallery. This I will call the
' Autumn Sunrise ' ; the sun is struggling through the opalescent mist
that hangs over the middle distance. This little work, so Turneresque
in conception, makes, however, little impression at the first glance, and
is often overlooked.1
But no account of the later work of Rubens as a landscape painter
would be complete without some notice of the landscape ' back
grounds ' that take so important a place in many of the later figure
subjects. In work of this kind the influence of Titian and of some
of Titian's successors is very prominent — nowhere more than in that
magnificent canvas (so strangely depreciated by Rooses and others), the
1 The following curious passage is quoted by Horace Walpole from a MS. work of Edward Norgate
(d. 1650) on Miniatures, or the Art of Limning — ' Landscape,' says Norgate, ' is an art so new in Eng
land, and so lately come ashore, as all the language within our four seas cannot find it a name,
but a borrowed one, and that from a people that are no great lenders, but upon good security — the
Dutch. For, to say the truthe, the art is theirs, and the best, that, wherewithal, Sir P. P. Rubens
was soe delighted, in his latter time, as he quitted all his other practice in picture and story,
whereby he got a vast estate (150,000 crowns), to studie this, whereof he hath left the worlde, the
best that are to be seene, some whereof were at York House, but now unhappily transplanted.
The principal whereof was an Aurora, indeed a rare piece as done by the life, as he himself told
me — " Un poco adjutata." '
186

PICTURES FOR SPAIN AND LANDSCAPES
' Repentant Magdalene,' that has lately been removed from Sans
souci to the New Museum at Berlin, where it now hangs as a worthy
pendant to the superb and masterly ' Diana Surprised by Satyrs.'
I have now sketched the life history of Rubens, and traced the
course of his artistic development. In following the busy, well-filled
career ofthe many-sided man of the world, I have attempted to bring out
what seems to me the noblest direction of his energies — his unremitting
devotion to the welfare of his country as summed up by his efforts in
the cause of peace. As an artist, what has interested me most has been
the gradual development of the power to give full expression to that
inner impulse which must have been an obsession with him from an early
period — the impulse, I mean, to render the dynamic forces of nature —
the fury and the rapid onrush of the battle or the chase, or again the
rhythmic movements of the dance. As a colourist we have seen that
the effect of richness, which in early days was obtained by somewhat
crude devices, was in later times brought about, with greater complete
ness and less conscious straining, by methods apparently more direct
and spontaneous. It is Rubens's great principle of economy of pig
ment that has given him a place as the most learned if not as the
greatest colourist of all times. additional notes
P. 107, note. — Sandrart has a gossiping story which is further worked up by De Piles to the
effect that Rubens, fearing that Jordaens might surpass him as a colourist, occupied him for
a long time in making cartoons. Special mention is made of those for the ' King of Spain's
Tapestry,' after sketches by Rubens's hand.
• P. 163, note. — In the catalogue of the 'Succession' there is mention of a portrait of ' MadeUe
Picquery ' that fell to the share of the widow. On the other hand the presence of a sketch for
Rubens's * Continence of Scipio ' (burnt 1636) on the back of the Windsor panel has been held
to point to an earlier date. But the Windsor portrait has the air of a work of the 'twenties
— far too late for Isabella (as a bride) and a little too early for Helen.

187

LISTS OF PICTURES
The following lists include all or nearly all the pictures, wholly or in part by Rubens, now in Public
Galleries. In the case of Private Collections no claim is made for completeness.
*)(* The Dimensions are given in inches — the height preceding the width.
PART I.— PRINCIPAL PUBLIC GALLERIES
ANTWERP Museum
1. Nicolas Rockox.
Panel, 11 x 16J. Very early, perhaps before 1600. Formerly attributed to Vandyke.
2. Baptism of Christ.
Canvas, 162 x 265. Painted, about 1605, for the Jesuit Church at Mantua. See p. 87,
Plate xv.
3. Christ on the Cross.
Canvas, 86 x 48. About 1610. See p. 108, Plate xlvii.
4. The Prodigal Son.
Panel, 42x61. About 1612. From the Fountaine Collection. See pp. 120, 181,
Plate lxxviii.
5. Venus Frigida.
Panel, 56£ x 73. Signed and dated 1614. Enlarged at top and side. See p. 113,
Plate lxxii.
6. The Dead Saviour wept by St. John and the Holy Women.
Panel, 2l£ x 29. Painted 1614. See p. 121, Plate lxxiv.
7. The Holy Family with the Parrot.
Panel, 64|x75£. Painted, about 1614, for the Guild of St. Luke. See p. Ill,
Plate lxxvii.
8-10. The Incredulity of St. Thomas.
Panel, 55 x 48. Centre of triptych. On the wings the portraits of Nicolas Rockox,
and his wife Adriana Perez, each 57 x 22. Painted, 1613-15, for the Rockox tomb in the
Re'collet Church, Antwerp. See p. 108, Plates lxvi. and lxvii.
11-15. The Dead Saviour (' Christ a la Paille ^
Panel, 55x39. Centre of triptych. On the wings, right— The Virgin and Child,
54 x 16£ ; left— St. John the Evangelist, 54 x 16. On the back of the wings, in grisaille,
The Saviour and the Virgin Mary. Painted, about 1618, for the Michielsen tomb in the
Cathedral, Antwerp. See p. 130, Plates clxiv. and clxv.
16. The Last Communion of St. Francis.
Panel, 164x88. Painted, 1619, for the Re'collet Church, Antwerp. See p. 129,
Plate ci.xxiv.
189

RUBENS
17. The Crucifixion (' Le Coup de Lance ').
Panel, 166x122. Presented, 1620, by the Burgomaster Rockox to the Re'collet
Church, Antwerp. See pp. 38 n., 129, 130, Plate clxxvii.
18. The Trinity. Panel, 63 x 60. Painted, 1620-21, for the Carmelite Church, Antwerp. See p. 130,
Plate ecu.
1 9. The Adoration of the Kings.
Panel, 174x132. Painted, 1624, for the Abbey Church of St. Michel, Antwerp.
See pp. 136 ra., 146, 147, 148, Plate ccxxxvm.
20. The Education of the Virgin.
Panel, 76 x 55. Painted, about 1625, for the Church of the Barefooted Carmelites,
Antwerp. See p. 147, Plate cclxxviii.
21. Portrait of a Man.
Panel, 40 x 28£. About 1625. Bought, 1878, from a Belgian Collection. See p. 152,
Plate cclxxvi.
22. Caspar Gevartius, Town-Secretary, Antwerp.
Panel, 47 x 39. About 1628. See pp. 152, 153, Plate ccxem.
23. Minerva repelling Discord.
Canvas, 25| x 20|. Finished sketch for Whitehall ceiling. Doubtful. 1630-33.
24. Sta. Teresa praying for Souls in Purgatory.
Panel, 76 x 54. Painted, about 1634, for the Church of the Barefooted Carmelites,
Antwerp. See p. 169, Plate cccxciv.
25. Two Sketches for the Triumphal Arch of the Mint, Antwerp, erected in 1635.
Panel, each 40£ x 28. See p. 173, Plates ccclxxviii. and ccclxxix.
26. Design for a Triumphal Car for the Celebration of the Victory of Calloo, 1638.
Panel, 40£ x 28. See p. 173 n., Plate ccccli.
BERLIN
Kaiser-Fiuedrich Museum
1. Mary and the Magdalen Weeping over the Body of Christ.
Sketch on panel, 13$ x 10§. Date very uncertain, 1616? From the Demidoff
Collection. Plate xc.
2. St. Sebastian. Canvas, 78| x 50§. Probably about 1614. From the Munro Collection. Plate lvii.
3. Isabella Brant.
Panel. About 1612. Acquired, 1903, from a private Collection. Plate l.
4. Venus and Adonis.
Panel, 44 x 38. About 1615. Crude from over-cleaning. Came, 1906, from the Royal
Collections.
5. Neptune and Amphitrite.
Canvas, 90£ x 120. 1615-18. From the Schonborn Collection. See p. 118, Plate
ccxxvi.
6. Perseus and Andromeda.
Panel, 39 x 54. About 1615. In part unfinished. From the Royal Prussian
Collections. See p. 113, Plate xcm.
190

LISTS OF PICTURES
7. Bust of St. Peter.
Panel, 24 x 19£. Study for .head of Peter in the St. Petersburg 'Christ in the House
of Simon.' 1615-20. From the Suermondt Collection. Perhaps rather by Vandyke.
Plate cxxxvin.
8. The Conversion of St. Paul.
Canvas, 102 x 146. About 1617- Only central group finished by Rubens. From the
Leigh Court Collection. See p. 116, Plate cxii.
9. The Capture of Tunis by the Emperor Charles v.
Panel, 30J x 47J. About 1618 (perhaps later). Rapidly sketched in with little colour.
See p. 158 n., Plate clxiii.
10. Virgin and Child with Illuminated Missal and Flowers.
Canvas, 59J x 42£. About 1620. The accessories by other artists. Plate cc.
11. The March of Silenus.
Canvas, 83J x 104£. About 1620. From the Marlborough Collection. See pp. 138,
139, Plate ccxxi.
12. Infant Christ with St. John, Lamb, etc.
Panel, 37Jx49j. Damaged in parts. School-piece or ' touched' work of about 1620.
See p. 123.
13. The Shipwreck of Aeneas (otherwise ' View of Porto Venere ').
Canvas, 24 x 39. 1620-25 (or perhaps later). From the Hope Collection. See pp.
120, 182, Plate ccxxx.
14. Boy Playing with Bird (probably Rubens's son Nicolas).
Rapid study on panel, 19| x 15f. About 1620. See Plate cxxvn.
15. The Resurrection of Lazarus.
Canvas, 103| x 77. About 1624, but perhaps earlier. See p. 149, Plate ccxl.
16. Madonna Enthroned with St. Catherine and other Saints.
Panel, 31 x 21J. Sketch or rather small ' touched ' replica of the picture in St.
Augustin's, Antwerp. 1627-28. See p. 149, Plate cccix.
17. The Coronation of the Virgin.
Canvas, 104 x 7lJ. About 1630. Pupil's work 'touched' in places by Rubens.
Plate cccxxvni.
18. Capture of Paris by Henri iv.
Panel, 9§ x 17j. About 1630. Sketch for picture never executed. See p. 158,
Plate cccxxxvi.
19. The Death of Achilles.
Canvas, 18 x 18. About 1630. Sketch for cartoon to be executed in tapestry. From
the Thiem Collection, 1904. See p. 175, Plate cccxxxn.
20. Fortune. Panel, 13f x9. Very slight. Probably painted about 1636, as a sketch for the
picture at Madrid. From the Suermondt Collection. See p. 179 n., Plate
ccccxxvu.
21. Mars and Venus with Cupid.
12jx9. Sketch on panel. 1629-30. From the Suermondt Collection. Plate
cccxvm.
22. Diana Hunting a Stag.
Canvas, 69 x 188|. Figures to right ' touched ' by Rubens. Animals hy Snyders.
Landscape by Wildens. About 1630. See p. 117, Plate cccxxxm. 191

RUBENS
23. Diana Bathing, surprised by Satyrs.
Panel, 75x99. All by Rubens; only figure of Diana finished. 1635-38. From
Sanssouci. See pp. 176, 177, Plate ccccxxv.
24. The Repentant Magdalen.
Canvas, 83x111. About 1635. All by Rubens. Came, 1906, from the Royal
Palaces. See pp. 186, 187, Plate cccci.
25. Andromeda. Panel, 74jx37. 1635-38. Background roughly sketched in. All by Rubens.
From the Marlborough Collection. See p. 166, Plate ccccxxni.
26. St. Cecilia. Panel, 69| x 54|. About 1638. Probably all by Rubens, but has suffered in cleaning.
See p. 172, Plate ccccliii.
27. Landscape with the Tower of the Chateau of Steen.
Panel, 9x12. Study for the Louvre 'Tournament' 1636-39. From the Clinton
Hope Collection. Plate cccclxv.
BRUSSELS
Musee Royal
1. Jesus instructing Nicodemus.
Canvas, 44 x 32|. Perhaps before 1600. From the van Parys Collection.
2. The Woman taken in Adultery.
Panel, 56 x 87|. From the Leigh Court Collection. About 1612. See p. 108,
Plate liv.
3. Adoration of the Kings.
Canvas, 147J x 108J. Painted, about 1618, for the Capuchin Church, Tournai. See p. 136.
4. Jean Charles de Cordes.
Panel, 28 x 22. 1617-18. See p. 128, Plate cxxiv.
5. Jacqueline van Caestre, Wife of Charles de Cordes.
Panel, 28 x 22. 1617-18. See pp. 128, 129. Plate cxxv.
6. Studies of Head of Negro.
Panel, 18$ x 24. About 1618. Possibly by Vandyke. See p. 129, Plate clxvhi.
7. Paracelsus. Panel, 27£x21|. 1615-20. Copy of an old picture. From the Marlborough
Collection. See p. 121, Plate cxxxv.
8. Assumption of the Virgin.
Canvas, 193 x 130. Commissioned by Archduke Albert, 1618-20, for the Carmelite
Church, Brussels. Only the figures below by Rubens. See p. 135, Plate clxxviii.
9. Head of Man with blond Beard.
In feigned oval. Dated 1619.
10. Martyrdom of St. Ursula.
Sketch on panel, 19f x 14£. About 1620. Plate clxxxi.
11. Dead Christ on Knees of Virgin.
Canvas, 161$ x 126. Painted, about 1620, for the Capuchin Church, Brussels.
12. Virgin and Child with Roses.
Panel, 25$ x 19. About 1620. Plate cc.
192

LISTS OF PICTURES
13. Venus at the Forge of Vulcan.
Panel, 70 x 78. About 1622. Figure of Vulcan added later. The left-hand portion
('Old Woman with Brazier'), at Dresden. See p. 151, Plate ccxxxiv.
14. Coronation of the Virgin.
Canvas, 157$ x 98$. About 1625. From the Re'collet Church, Antwerp. Only
design and final touches by Rubens. Plate cclxxxiii.
15. Wisdom Victorious over Discord.
Canvas, 27$ x 33$. 1630-33. Sketch for ceiling of Whitehall. See p. 157.
16. St. Francis Protecting the World.
Canvas, 159$ x 108J. Painted, about 1633, for the Recollet Church, Ghent. Only
design and final touches by Rubens.
17. The Archduke Albert.
Canvas, 51 x 41$. Painted on occasion of ' Joyous Entry ' of Ferdinand in 1635.
See p. 173, Plate ccclxxxv.
18. The Archduchess Isabella.
Canvas, 51 x 41$. Painted on occasion of ' Joyous Entry ' of Ferdinand in 1635.
See p. 173, Plate ccclxxxv.
19. The Martyrdom of St. Lievin.
Canvas, 177 x 132. Painted about 1635 for the Jesuit Church, Ghent. See p. 170,
Plate cccclxx.
20. Fall of the Titans.
Sketch on panel, 10J x 16J. About 1636. From the Pastrana Collection. See
p. 179 «., Plate ccccxvni.
21. Mercury and Argus.
Sketch on panel, 10J x 17J. About 1636. From the Pastrana Collection. See
p. 179 ra., Plate ccccxxxiv.
22. Hippodamia and the Centaurs.
Sketch on panel, 10x15$. About 1636. From the Pastrana Collection. See
p. 179 n., Plate ccccxvm.
23. Christ Bearing the Cross.
Canvas, 220$ x 138. Painted, about 1636, for the Abbey of Afflighem. See pp. 170,
171, Plate ccccix.
24. Wooded Landscape. Atalanta hunting the Calydonian Boar.
Canvas, 43J x 66. About 1636-39. See pp. 181, 182, 184, Plate cccclxvi.
CASSEL
Royal Gallery
1. The Drunken Hercules.
Canvas, 26 x 33$. 1605-8, but perhaps later. Touched replica of the picture at
Dresden.
2. Venus, Ceres, Bacchus, and Cupid.
Canvas, 54 x 76. About 1613. Studio-piece, perhaps not even touched by Rubens.
See p. 112.
3. Jupiter and Callisto.
Panel, 49 x 73. Signed and dated 1613. See p. 112, Plate lxx.
4. The Flight into Egypt.
Panel, 15j x 21. Signed and dated 1614. See pp. 120, 182, Plate lxxvi.
193

RUBENS
5. Bust of Man with Right Hand on Breast.
Panel, 21| x 17$. 1612-15. Plate lxxxii.
6. Meleager presenting the Boar's Head to Atalanta.
Panel, 49 x 43. About 1615. Animals by Snyders. Plate xcvi.
7. Hero Crowned by Victory.
Panel, 69 x 103. About 1619. Painted for Serment de l'Arc, Antwerp. See p. 132,
Plate clviii.
8. The March of Silenus.
Panel, 54$ x 46$. About 1618. Pupil's work touched in places by Rubens.
9. Portrait of Nicolas Respaigne in Oriental Dress.
Canvas, 81 x 46. 1623-24. See p. 148 ra., Plate ccxxxv.
10. Young Woman with Mirror.
Panel, 30 x 24$. 1620-25. Plate ccxliv.
11. Holy Family Adored by Saints.
Canvas on panel, 101 x 80. 1620-25. Plate ccxxxix.
12. Diana and Nymphs surprised while hunting by Satyrs.
Canvas, 97 x 77. About 1632. See pp. 176, 177, Plate ccclvi.

DRESDEN
Royal Gallery
1. Hero crowned by Victory.
Canvas, 80 x 87$. Perhaps painted before 1609. From the Gallery at Mantua. See
pp. 82, 83, 94, 113, 132, Plate xxxv.
2. The Drunken Hercules.
Canvas, 80£ x 80£. Perhaps painted before 1609. From the Gallery at Mantua. See
pp. 82, 83, 94, Plate xxxiv.
3. St. Jerome in the Desert.
Canvas, 92$ x 64. Perhaps painted before 1609. From the Modena Gallery. See p. 94,
Plate xxxm.
4. Wild-boar Hunt.
Panel, 54 x 661. 1614-15. Bought by Leopold Wilhelm at the Buckingham sale in
Antwerp, 1648. See pp. 116, 117, Plate cvm.
5. The Return of Diana from the Chase. (Figures only to knees.)
Canvas, 641x71$. About 1615. Accessories by Snyders. See pp. 114, 138,
Plate xcvm.
6. Portrait of Man standing by Table.
Panel, 40$ x 28$. 1615-18. Attributed to Vandyke by Bode. Plate cxxvi.
7. The Last Judgment.
Panel, 47} x 37f . Finished sketch for Munich picture, but perhaps not by Rubens.
About 1618. See p. 126, Plate clxxi.
8. Lion Hunt. Canvas, 94$ x 125. About 1618. Studio-piece, largely touched by Rubens. See
p. 116.
194

LISTS OF PICTURES
9. The Return of Diana from the Chase. (Figures full-length.)
Canvas, 86$ x 93. About 1615. Studio work largely touched. Accessories by Snyders.
See pp. 138, 177, Plate xcix.
10. Faun with Grapes. (Known also as ' Tiger and Satyr.')
Canvas, 87} x 581. About 1620. Damaged by bullets in 1849.
11. Old Woman with Brazier.
Panel, 45$ x 361. About 1622. Left-hand portion of the ' Forge of Vulcan ' at
Brussels. See p. 151, Plate ccxxxv.
12. Judgment of Paris.
Panel, 191 x 24f • About 1625. From the Due de Richelieu's Collection. Studio-
piece, touched by Rubens. See pp. 150, 177, Plate cclxxxviii.
13. The Miracle of St. Francois de Paul.
Panel, 25$ x 29 j. Sketch made, about 1632, for an unknown picture. See p. 147,
Plate ccclviii.
14. Young Woman with Crimped Hair.
Panel, 251 x 19|- About 1635. Plate cccxcii.
15. Bust of an Aged Bishop.
Panel, 23$ x 20f. Initials and date (1634) perhaps added later. Plate ccclxxxix.
16. Meleager and Atalanta.
Canvas, 661 x 47$. About 1635. Studio- work, figures finished by Rubens.
17. The Cardinal Infante Ferdinand leaving Spain ('Quos Ego').
Canvas, 128 x 152. Painted for the ' Joyous Entry ' of 1635. Chiefly by Van Thulden.
See p. 173, Plate ccclxxxiii.
18. Bathsheba at the Fountain.
Panel, 69 x 49$. About 1635. All by Rubens. See p. 166, Plate cccxcvm.
19. Mercury and Argus.
Panel, 24f x 34$. About 1638. All by Rubens. See p. 177, Plate ccccxxxvii.

LONDON
National Gallery
1. The Triumph of Julius Caesar.
Canvas attached to wood. 35$ x 65. Probably painted in Mantua from the Cartoons
of Mantegna, before 1607. See pp. 16, 94, 95, Plate xxn.
2. The Conversion of St. Bavon.
Finished Sketch on Panel, 41$ x 65$. About 1612. Ex Carrega Palace, Genoa.
See pp. 121, 146, Plate lvi.
3. Apotheosis of Buckingham. (Called in catalogue William the Silent.)
Panel, circular, 25 diam. About 1629. See pp. 145, 157, Plate cccxxiv.
4. Portrait of Susanna Fourment (The ' Chapeau de Paille ').
Panel, 30$ x 21. About 1620. Ex Lunden family and Peel Collection. See p. 160,
Plate ccix.
5. War and Peace.
Panel, 78 x 117. Painted in London, 1629-30. Ex Charles i. and the Doria family ;
presented by Duke of Sutherland, 1828. See pp. 155, 156, Plate ccexx.
195

RUBENS
6. The March of Silenus.
Canvas, 54 x 77$. 1625-1630. Ex Cardinal Richelieu and Peel Collection. See p. 139,
Plate ccxcn.
7. The Abduction of the Sabine Women.
Panel, 67 x 93. About 1635. Angerstein Collection. See pp. 175, 176, Plate ccccm.
8. The Holy Family in Landscape with St. George.
Canvas, 49 x 64. About 1636. Replica of picture at Madrid. Angerstein Collection.
See p. 169.
9. The Judgment of Paris.
Panel, 57x75. About 1636. From the Orleans Collection. See pp. 150, 177,
Plate ccccxix.
10. The Horrors of War.
Paper attached to Canvas, 19$ x 301- 1637-38. Sketch for picture in Pitti. See
p. 175, Plate ccccxvu.
11. The Brazen Serpent.
Canvas, 74x105. About 1637. From the Marana Palace, Genoa. See p. 172,
Plate ccccxn.
12. Autumn Sunset.
Panel, 19x33. About 1636. Ex Lord Farnborough. See pp. 175 n., 185, Plate cccclxii.
13. The Chateau de Steen, Autumn.
Panel, 53x93. About 1636. From the Balbi Palace, Genoa. See p. 185,
Plate cccclx.
14. The Birth of Venus.
Panel, oval, 23 x 29f. Design for Salver made for Charles i., 1629-1630. See p. 156,
Plate cccxxm. Wallace Collection
1. The Crucified Saviour.
41$ x 27. About 1612. See p. 108.
2. Christ's Charge to Peter (' Feed my Sheep ').
55 x 44$. About 1616. From St. Gudule, Brussels. See p. 109.
3. The Holy Family with the Baptist and St. Elizabeth.
53$ x 39. Painted, about 1617, for the Oratory of the Archduke Albert. See p. 122,
Plate exxxm.
4. Isabella Brant.
39$ x 28$. Circa 1620. Enlarged replica of Portrait at the Hague.
5. Defeat of Maxentius.
Panel, 14$ x 25. Sketch for ' History of Constantine ' series, 1622. See p. 124.
6. The Adoration of the Kings.
Panel, 24f x 18f . Sketch for the Antwerp picture. 1624.
7. Triumphal Entry of Henri iv. into Paris.
Panel, 8 x 3}. About 1630. Sketch for unfinished picture in the Uffizi. See p. 158.
8. Birth of Henri iv.
Panel, 81 x 14. About 1630. Sketch for unexecuted picture. See p. 158.
9. Marriage of Henri iv.
Panel, 9x4$. About 1630. Sketch for unexecuted picture. See p. 158.
196

LISTS OF PICTURES
10. Adoration of the Kings.
Panel, 19J x 13 j. Sketch for picture at Grosvenor House, 1632. See p. 169.
11. Harvest Landscape with Rainbow.
Panel, 52} x 91. About 1636. From the Balbi Palace, Genoa. See pp. 63, 185, 186,
Plate cccclix.
MADRID Prado
1. Heraclitus, the Weeping Philosopher.
Canvas, 711 x 24}. Painted in Spain, 1603. See pp. 21, 89, Plate vi.
2. Democritus, the Laughing Philosopher.
Canvas, 711 x 251. Painted in Spain, 1603. See pp. 21, 89, Plate vi.
3. Archimedes with a Globe in his Hand.
Canvas, 70$ x 26. Probably painted in Spain, 1603, but perhaps a later work. Much
damaged. See p. 89, Plate vii.
4-15. The Twelve Apostles.
Panel, each 42$ x 33. Painted for the Duke of Lerma in 1603. See p. 90,
Plates viii. -xin.
16. St. George Slaying the Dragon.
Canvas, 120 x 100}. Probably before 1608. Sold to Philip iv. after Rubens's death.
See p. 93, Plate xxvi.
17. The Adoration of the Kings.
Canvas, 136 x 192. Painted for the Town Hall, Antwerp, 1610. The right-hand part
perhaps added when Rubens was at Madrid, 1628-29. See pp. 98, 99, Plate xliii.
18. Achilles and the Daughters of Lycomedes.
Canvas, 97 x 104$. Offered to Sir Dudley Carleton in 1618. Probably in great part by
Vandyke. See pp. 131, 153, Plate xcvii.
19. The Brazen Serpent.
Canvas, 81 x 92$. Painted probably in part or wholly by Vandyke, 1617-20.
Plate clxxxiii.
20. The Archduke Albert, with the Castle of Tervueren.
Canvas, 44 x 68. 1615-20. Only face and hands by Rubens. See p. 128, Plate cxxvm.
21. The Archduchess Isabella, with the Castle of Mariemont.
Canvas, 44 x 68. 1615-20. Only face and hands by Rubens. See p. 128, Plate .cxxix.
22. The Virgin and Child surrounded by Angels and Flowers.
Panel, 13} x 9. About 1620. The flowers by Breughel.
23. Marie de Medicis.
Canvas, 51 x 42$. Unfinished. Probably painted in Paris about 1623, but perhaps
later. See p. 145, Plate ccxlvi.
24. Anne of Austria.
Canvas, 61 x 42. Painted in Paris, 1625. See p. 145, Plate cclxxi.
25. Three Nymphs with Cornucopia (' Ceres and Pomona ').
Canvas, 87} x 64. 1625-27. Bought by Philip iv. after the death of Rubens. See
p. 151, Plate cclxxxix.
197

RUBENS
26-33. The Triumphs and Protectors of the Eucharist.
Eight sketches in colour for the Cartoons of the tapestry weavers. Each 34x36.
1627. 1. The Triumph over Ignorance. 2. The Triumph over Heresy. 3. The Triumph
over Paganism (this one not in the Cambridge series of grisailles). 4. The Triumph of
Divine Love. 5. The Triumph over Worldly Wisdom. 6. The Four Evangelists. 7. The
Fathers of the Church. 8. The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek. See p. 150,
Plates cccn.-cccvu.
34. The Holy Family with St. Joseph and St. Anne.
Canvas, 451 x 35$. 1625-28. Plate ccxcvm.
35. Philip n. on Horseback.
Canvas, 123$ x 89}. Touched work, painted in Madrid, 1628-29, after an old picture
(Companion of lost 'Philip iv.'). Plate cccxiv.
36. Adam and Eve.
Canvas, 931 x ?2i- Free C0Py> made in Madridj 1628-29, from the Titian now in the
Prado. See p. 154, Plate cccxvi.
37. Rape of Europa.
Canvas, 711 x 78}. Free copy, made in Madrid, 1628-29, from a picture by Titian.
See p. 154, Plate cccxvu.
38. Ceres and Pan.
Canvas, 69} x 110. Perhaps the ' Ceres ' brought by Rubens to Madrid in 1628, or
possibly a work of 1630. The accessories probably by Wildens. See p. 153.
39. Sir Thomas More.
Panel, 41$ x 28}. 1630-34. Copy of a portrait by Holbein.
40. Rudolph of Habsburg and the Priest.
Canvas, 78 x 111$. Painted for Philip iv., about 1636. See pp. 172, 173, Plate ccccv.
41. The Dead Christ on the Lap of the Virgin.
Canvas, 79 x 67$. About 1636. From the Escurial. See p. 172, Plate ccccx.
42. The Infante Ferdinand at the Battle of Nordlingen.
Canvas, 132 x 101$. About 1635. Bought by Philip iv. after the death of Rubens.
See p. 173, Plate cccxci.
43. Centaurs and Lapithae.
Canvas, 71$ x 114. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
This and the following ten pictures designed and largely touched by Rubens. See p. 178.
44. Rape of Proserpine.
Canvas, 71 x 1061. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See pp. 112, 178, Plate ccccxxxix.
45. The Banquet of Tereus.
Canvas, 77 x 104$. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses '
Series. See p. 178, Plate ccccxl.
46. Orpheus and Eurydice.
Canvas, 76 x 961. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses' Series.
See p. 178, Plate ccccxxxm.
47. The Milky Way.
Canvas, 71 x 96. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See p. 178, Plate ccccxxxn.
198

LISTS OF PICTURES
48. Mercury and Argus.
Canvas, 70$ x 117. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See pp. 177, 178, Plate ccccxxxvi.
49. Saturn. Canvas, 71 x 341- Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses' Series.
See p. 178, Plate ccccxxviii.
50. Mercury. Canvas, 71 x 27. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See p. 179, Plate ccccxxxv.
51. Ganymede. Canvas, 711 x 34. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See p. 178, Plate ccccxxviii.
52. Flora. Canvas, 66 x 37$. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See p. 179, Plate ccccxxx.
53. Fortune. Canvas, 70$ x 37$. Painted, 1637, for the Torre de la Parada, ' Metamorphoses ' Series.
See p. 179, Plate ccccxxvu.
54. The Supper at Emmaus.
Canvas, 561 x 61$. About 1638. From the Escurial. Bought by Philip iv. after the
j death of Rubens. See p. 172, Plate cccclii.
55/ Conversation a la Mode (' The Garden of Love ').
* Canvas, 78 x 111$. 1633-35. Bought by Philip iv. after the death of Rubens. See
pp. 62, 164, Plate ccclxi.
56. Holy Family in Landscape with St. George (' Le Repos en Egypte ')
Panel, 34J x 491. 1635-38. Bought by Philip iv. after the death of Rubens. See
p. 169, Plate ccccxiv.
57. Diana and her Nymphs pursued by Satyrs.
Canvas, 50 x 124. About 1638. See pp. 176, 180, Plate ccccxli.
58. The Judgment of Paris.
Canvas, 78 x 149. Ordered by Philip iv., 1638. See pp. 177, 179, 180, Plate ccccxxxviii.
59. Diana and Callisto.
Canvas, 79$ x 127. Bought by Philip iv. after the artist's death. 1636-38. See
Plate ccccxx.
60. Nymphs and Satyrs plucking Fruit.
Canvas, 53$ x 65. Bought by Philip iv. after the artist's death. 1636-38. See
Plate ccccxv.
61. The Rondo. Dance of Italian Peasants.
Panel, 28} x 43$. Bought by Philip iv. after the artist's death. About 1639. See
pp. 167, 168, Plate cccclv.
62. The Three Graces.
Panel, 87 x 71. Bought by Philip iv. after the artist's death. About 1639. See
p. 180, Plate ccccxliii.
63. Perseus and Andromeda.
Canvas, 104 x 63. Bought by Philip iv. after the artist's death. About 1639. See
pp. 166, 180, Plate ccccxxii.
199

RUBENS
64. Landscape with the Calydonian Boar.
Canvas, 63 x 102$. Landscape by Van Uden (?), touched by Rubens. About 1639.
See p. 184.
MUNICH
Pinakothek
1. The Dying Seneca.
Panel, 7lJ x 60. Italian period, 1603-1606. See pp. 19, 92, Plate xvii.
2. Hero Crowned by Victory.
Canvas, 85 x 77. Italian period, or perhaps later. Replica of picture at Dresden.
S. Two Satyrs. Panel, 30 x 26. 1606-10. See pp. 94, 113, Plate xxxi.
4. Rubens and Isabella Brant under Honeysuckle Bower.
Canvas mounted on panel, 68$ x 52. 1609. See pp. 82, 97, 158, Plate xxxvn.
5. Male Portrait (sometimes called Philip Rubens).
Panel, 22 x 17. About 1611.
6. St. Christopher and the Hermit.
Panel, 30 x 26. Sketch for shutters of Antwerp ' Deposition.' 1612-14. See p. 102 n.,
Plate lxiv.
7. The Assumption of the Righteous.
Panel, 46$ x 361- Sketch, or unfinished picture. Date very uncertain. See pp. 125,
126, Plate c.
8. The Apocalyptic Woman.
Canvas, 218 x 145. Painted, before 1612, for the Cathedral of Freising. See p. 126,
Plate xnv.
9. Christ on the Cross.
Panel, 57 x 36.' About 1612. See p. 108, Plate xlviii.
10. The Conversion of St. Paul.
Panel, 37$ x 47$. About 1614. See p. 115, Plate lxxx.
11. The Defeat of Sennacherib.
Panel, 37$ x 47$. About 1614. See p. 115, Plate lxxxi.
12. Boar Hunt. Canvas, 79$ x 118$. Animals by Snyders. 1612-15.
13. Male Portrait (sometimes called, Grotius).
Canvas mounted on panel, 21$ x 17}. About 1615. Plate lxxxiv.
14. The Little Last Judgment.
Panel, 17$ x 471 > t"16 toP added later by Rubens. About 1615. On the back an
unfinished landscape. See p. 126, Plate ci.
15. The Great Last Judgment.
Canvas, 238$ x 186$. Painted, 1618, for the Duke of Neuburg. See p. 126,
Plate clxx.
16. The Fall of the Damned.
Panel, 112$ x 881. 1614-18. Ex Due de Richelieu. See p. 125, Plate cu.
17. Christ and the Repentant Sinners.
Panel, 57 x 50. About 1615. Plate lxxxix.
200

LISTS OF PICTURES
18. Head of an Old Woman (sometimes called Rubens's Mother).
Panel, 18 x 12$. About 1615. Plate lxxxiv.
19. The Battle of the Amazons (Battle of Thermodon).
Panel, 47$ x 65. Painted about 1615 (perhaps earlier) for C. van der Geest. See
pp. 123, 124, Plate civ.
20. St. Peter and St. Paul.
Canvas, 94 x 73. 1615-20 (perhaps later). ' Touched ' studio-piece. Plate cxxxvu.
21 . The Entombment. Panel, 32} x 26. Sketch, or unfinished picture. 1615-20. Plate cxxxvni.
22. The Madonna surrounded by Garland and Boy Angels.
Panel, 71 x 82. Flowers by Breughel. About 1616. See pp. 122, 123, Plate cxvn.
23. The Lion Hunt.
Canvas, 97x148. Painted, about 1616, for Maximilian of Bavaria. See p. 116,
Plate ex.
24. Bust of Young Man.
Panel, 16 x 13. About 1616. Free copy of a picture by Joost van Cleef. From the
Marlborough Collection. See p. 121, Plate cvn.
25. Children bearing Garland of Fruit.
Canvas, 46 x 80. 1617-18. See p. 123, Plate cxlii.
26. Doctor van Thulden.
Panel, 47$ x 41. About 1620. See p. 128, Plate cexn.
27. The Obsequies of Decius Mus.
Panel, 33$ x 471- Sketch for the Liechtenstein canvas. About 1618. See p. 131.
28. The Reconciliation of Esau and Jacob.
Canvas, 130 x 110. About 1618. See pp. 132, 133, 153, Plate clvi.
29. The Reconciliation of the Romans and the Sabines.
Canvas, 98 x 133. ' Touched ' studio-piece. About 1618. See p. 176, Plate clxi.
30. The Holy Trinity.
Canvas, 124 x 96. From the Augustin Church, Munich. About 1619. Plate cci.
31. Castor and Pollux seizing the Daughters of Leucippus.
Canvas, 87$ x 821. About 1619. Plate ccxxiv.
32. The March of Silenus.
Panel, 80 x 83. About 1619 (perhaps later). See p. 138, Plate ccxix.
33. The Fall of the Rebel Angels.
Canvas, 171 x 114. Painted, 1619, for the Duke of Neuburg. 'Touched' studio- piece.
See p. 126, Plate clxxiii.
84. The Adoration of the Shepherds.
Canvas, 107x106. Painted, 1619, for the Jesuit Church at Neuburg. 'Touched'
studio-piece. See pp. 137, 138, Plate clxxv.
35. The Descent of the Holy Spirit.
Canvas, 185 x 107$. Painted, 1619, for the Jesuit Church at Neuburg. ' Touched '
studio-piece. See Plate clxxvi.
36. The Earl and Countess of Arundel.
Canvas, 102} x 104£. 1620. (The figure of the Earl added later by Rubens.)
Plate cevm.
201

RUBENS
37. Diana Sleeping after the Chase.
Panel, 26 x 43. The landscape and game by Breughel. 1615-20. Plate cxlvi.
38. Martyrdom of St. Laurence.
Panel, 96 x 68$. ' Touched ' studio-piece. About 1620. Plate cci.
39-54. Sketches for the History of Marie de Medicis.
Made about 1622. On panel— 1. The Education of Marie. 191 x 15f- 2- Henri IV-
receiving the Portrait of Marie. 191 x l4i 3- The Marriage. 25$ x 19f . 4. The
Reception at Marseilles. 251 x l9f • 5- The Coronation of Marie. 211 x 36i- 6. The
Departure of Henri iv. for the War. 16$ x 121. 7. The Apotheosis of Henri iv.
211 x 361- 8. The Journey to Pont de Ce. 251 x 19§- 9- The Prosperous Rule ofthe
Queen. 18$ x 19§ . 10. The Marriage of the Princesses. 28} x 191- 11. The Gods in
Olympus and the Regency. 211 x 361- 12. The Majority of Louis xm. 251 x 19f •
13. The Queen quitting Paris for Blois. 251 x 19f ¦ (Sketch for subject ultimately
rejected.) Plate ccxlvii. 14. The Escape of the Queen from Blois. 25lxl9f.
15. The Conclusion of Peace. 251 x 19§- 1G- The Reconciliation of the Queen with
her Son. 251 x 19f- See P- U2-
55. Franciscan Friar holding Skull.
Canvas, 40$ x 30}. About 1625. Plate cclxxxiii.
56. Philip iv.
Canvas, 44 x 33. Painted in Madrid, 1628-29. See p. 153, Plate cccxii.
57. Elizabeth of Bourbon, Wife of Philip iv.
Canvas, 44 x 33. Painted in Madrid, 1628-29. See p. 153, Plate cccxni.
58. The Infante Don Ferdinand in Cardinal's Robes.
Canvas, 46$ x 33. Painted in Madrid, 1628-29. See pp. 153-154, Plate cccxii.
59-. Samson Taken Prisoner.
Canvas, 46 x 52. 1625-30 (perhaps earlier). See pp. 169-170, Plate ccxcix.
60. War and Peace.
Canvas, 89} x 132. About 1629. Figures touched by Rubens ; the rest by Snyders
and Wildens. See p. 156, Plate cccxxi.
61. Helen Fourment as a Bride.
Panel, 63 x 52}. 1630. All by Rubens. See p. 162, Plate cccxliv.
62. The Morning Walk : or The Promenade in the Garden.
Panel, 381 x 51$. 1631. All by Rubens. See p. 164, Plate cccxlvi.
63. St. Francis de Paul floating in the Air.
Panel, 251 x 19&- Grisaille sketch with little colour for lost picture. See p. 147.
64. Landscape with Cows and Milkmaid.
Panel, 28 x 40$. About 1625 or perhaps later. See p. 184, Plate cclxxxi.
65. Helen Fourment, with White Feather in Hat.
Panel, 37} x 27£. About 1634. See p. 163, Plate cccxlviii.
66. Helen Fourment, with naked Boy on Lap.
Panel, 65 x 45$. About 1635. All by Rubens. See p. 163, Frontispiece.
67. Jan Brant, Father of Rubens's first Wife.
Panel, 43 x 37. Painted 1635. See p. 174, Plate cccxcn.
68. The Massacre of the Innocents.
\J Panel, 78 x 119. About 1635. From the Due de Richelieu's Collection. See p. 170,
Plate cccciv.
202

LISTS OF PICTURES
69. Susanna and the Elders.
Panel, 30$ x 43. About 1635. See p. 166, Plate cccxcvn.
70. Meleager presents the Boar's Head to Atalanta.
Canvas, 78 x 119. Landscape to right subsequently added. Dogs y De Vos, and
landscape by Wildens. About 1635. Plate ccccn.
71. Harvest Landscape with Rainbow.
Panel, 361 x 48. About 1636. See p. 186, Plate cccclviii.
72. The Infante Don Ferdinand on Horseback.
Canvas, 103$ x 85$. About 1636.
73. Shepherd embracing Shepherdess (' Le Croc en Jambe ').
Panel, 62$ x 52$. About 1637. See p. 166, Plate ccccxxi.
74. Helen Fourment with Black Cap.
Canvas, 29$ x 24. 1636-39. Plate ccclii.

PARISLouvre
1. Landscape with Ruins (Palatine Hill).
Panel, 30 x 40. Painted in Rome, about 1606. See pp. 92, 181, Plate xxi.
2. Landscape with Rainbow and Shepherd playing Flute.
Canvas, 48 x 68. Probably painted in Italy, but perhaps worked on later. See pp. 92,
93, 181, Plate xxxix.
3. Christ on the Cross, with the Virgin, the Magdalen, and St. John.
Canvas, 131 x 112. Painted, 1615, for Church at Bergues-St. Winocq. See pp. 110,
111, Plate lxxxviii.
4. Madonna surrounded by the Holy Innocents.
Canvas, 54 x 39. About 1615. See p. 122, Plate cm.
5. Resurrection of Lazarus.
22 x 1 1. About 1618. Finished sketch for Berlin picture.
6. Philopoemen recognised by an Old Woman.
Panel, 19} x26. Sketch for a lost picture. See p. 119, Plate cxlvih.
7. Study of Head.
Panel, 19} x 15$. 1619. Sketch for figure in picture at Lyons (Plate clxxxii.).
Plate ccxiv.
8-11. Four Sketches for the Ceiling of the Jesuit Church at Antwerp. 1620.
1. Abraham and Melchizedek. Panel, 19 x 25$. Plate cxc. 2. Elevation of the Cross.
Panel, 13 x 15. Plate cxcm. 3. The Sacrifice of Abraham. Panel, 19} x 25$. Plate
cxc. 4. The Coronation of the Virgin. Panel, 13 x 19. Plate clxxxviii. See p. 134.
12. Virgin and Child within Garland of Flowers.
Panel, 33$ x 25$. Flowers by Breughel. 1621. Painted for the Archbishop of Milan.
See p. 122, Plate ccxvi.
13. Anne of Austria. (Formerly known as ' Elizabeth of Bourbon.')
Panel, 42 x 36$, 1622-25. See p. 145, Plate cclxx.
14. Marie de Medicis as Bellona. <
108 x 58. About 1625. ' Touched ' studio work.
203

RUBENS
15. Marie de Medicis.
71 x 49. About 1625. ' Touched ' studio-work.
16-36. The History of Marie de Medicis.
Twenty-one pictures, painted on canvas, 1621-25, for the Luxembourg Palace. See
pp. .141-145, Plates ccxjlvhi. to cclxviii.
1. The Fates Spinning her Destiny ; 156x61. 2. The Birth of Marie ; 156x116. 3.
Her Education; 156x116 (see p. 161). 4. Henri iv. receiving her Portrait ; 156x116.
5. Her Marriage by procuration with Henri iv. ; 156 x 116 (see p. 17). 6. The Landing
at Marseilles; 156x116. 7. The Marriage at Lyons; 156x116. 8. The Birth of
Louis xm. ; 156x116. 9. Henri iv. leaves for the War ; 156x116. 10. Coronation of
the Queen; 156x287. 11. Apotheosis of Henri iv. ; 156x287. 12. The Scene in
Olympus ; 156 x 278. 13. The Queen at Pont-de-Ce' : 156 x 116. 14. The Exchange of
the Princesses ; 156 x 116. 15. The Prosperous Regency ; 156-116. 16. Majority of
Louis xm. ; 156x116. 17. The Flight from Blois ; 156x116. 18. The Reconciliation;
156 x 116. 19. The Conclusion of Peace ; 156 x 116. 20. The Interview with her Son ;
156 x 116. 21. Triumph of Truth ; 156 x 63.
37. Triumph of Truth, and The Fates.
19} x 25$. About 1623. Sketches on one panel for two of the above canvases. See p. 142.
38. Francesco de' Medici, Father of Marie.
Canvas, 97 x 46. About 1624. Painted for Luxembourg Gallery. Plate ccxlv.
39. Joanna of Austria, Mother of Marie.
Canvas, 97 x 46. About 1624. Painted for Luxembourg Gallery. Plate ccxlv.
40. The Baron Henri de Vicq.
Panel, 29 x 21$. Probably painted in Paris, 1625. See p. 142, Plate cclxxiv.
41. Lot departing from Sodom.
Panel, 29$ x 47. Signed and dated 1625. See p. 149, Plate cclxxxiv.
42. Susanna Fourment. (Formerly known as ' A Lady of the Boonen family.')
Panel, 24$ x 18$. About 1623. See p. 160, Plate ccxli.
43. The Prophet Elijah in the Desert. ('Eucharist' series.)
Canvas, 185 x 163. 1627. See p. 150.
44. The Triumph of the Eucharist over Philosophy. (' Eucharist ' series.)
Canvas, 188 x 235. 1627- See p. 150.
45. Adoration of the Kings.
Canvas, 110 x 85. Painted, 1627-28, for a church in Brussels. See p. 148, Plate
CCCXI.
46. Thomyris and Cyrus.
Canvas, 103 x 78. 1630-32. See p. 152, Plate cccxlii.
47. Religion crowned by a Genius : Study for the Whitehall Ceiling.
Panel, 161 x 191- 1630-34. See p. 157.
48. Helen Fourment and her two Children.
Panel, 44 x 32*. About 1636. Unfinished, all by Rubens. See p. 163, Plate cccli.
49. The Flemish Kermesse.
Panel, 59 x 102. About 1636. Bought by Louis xiv., 1685. All by Rubens. See
p. 167, Plate ccccliv.
50. Tournament by the Moat of a Castle (Steen).
Panel, 29 x42. 1636-39. All by Rubens. Damaged in 1824. See pp. 63, 79, Plate
CCCCLXIV.
204

LISTS OF PICTURES
51. Autumn Morning.
Panel, 17$ x 33. 1636-39. All by Rubens. See p. 186, Plate cccclxxii.

ST. PETERSBURG Hermitage
1. Coronation of the Virgin.
Canvas, 42 x 30$. Probably very early work. Held by some as a copy.
2. Landscape with Rainbow and Shepherd Playing Flute.
Canvas, 32 x 51$. Probably painted in Italy, but perhaps worked on later. See p. 93,
Plate xxxviii.
3. Dismissal of Hagar.
Panel, 24} x 30$. About 1612. From Crozat Collection. All by Rubens. Plate lv.
4. Statue of Ceres.
Panel, 35f x 26. 1612-15. The Garlands by Breughel, the rest all by Rubens. See
p. 113, Plate lxix.
5. Caritas Romana (' Cimon and Perus ').
Canvas, 55 x 71. 1612-15. Pupil's work, touched by Rubens. See p. 151.
6. Deposition from the Cross. y
Canvas, 117$ x 79$. Painted, about 1611-14, for Capuchin Church at Lierre See
p. 104, Plate lviii.
7. Bust of Man in Armour with Fur Cap.
Canvas, 26$ x 20. 1615-20. Plate cvn.
8. Bust of Man grasping Mantle with Hand.
Canvas, 23$ x 191. About 1615. Plate lxxxv.
9. Bust of Young Woman.
Panel, oval, 23$ x 19}. About 1615. Plate lxxxii.
10. Venus and Adonis.
Panel, 33x36. About 1615. Landscape by Wildens. See p. 113, Plate xciv.
11. Bust of Franciscan Friar.
Canvas, 20$ x 171. About 1615. Plate lxxxvi.
12. Bust of Franciscan Friar, looking up.
Canvas, 251x20$. About 1616. Study for ' Stigmatization ' at Cologne. Plate
LXXXVII.
13. The Alliance of Earth and Water. (Otherwise called ' Neptune and Cybele,' or
' River Tigris and Abundance.')
Canvas, 881 * 711- About 1615. See p. 118, Plate xcn.
14. Old Lady Seated.
Canvas, 491 x 36$. About 1615. Plate lxxxvi.
15. Virgin and Child.
Canvas, 43 x 33. About 1615. From the Crozat Collection. Plate cvi.
16. The March of Silenus.
Canvas, 36 x 42. 1615-20. From the Walpole Collection. Plate ccxx.
17. Perseus and Andromeda.
Canvas, 39$ x 54$. 1615-20. All by Rubens. See p. 113, Plate clx.
205

RUBENS
18. Jesus at the House of Simon the Pharisee.
Canvas, 74$ x 100. 1615-20. From the Walpole Collection. Plate cxxxix.
19. Charles de Longueval, General in Spanish Service.
Panel, 24$ x 19$. 1615-20. Plate cxl.
20. Lion Hunt. Sketch on panel for the Munich picture. 17 x 25$. About 1616. Plate cxi.
21. Virgin and Child (Child standing on table).
Canvas, 18$ x 25. 1615-18.
22. Triumphant Return of Roman General.
Canvas, 33 x 27. About 1618. (Perhaps sketch for an unexecuted cartoon of the
'Decius Mus' series.)
23. Adoration of the Kings.
Canvas, 93 x 109. Touched pupil's work. About 1620. See p. 137.
24-27. Four Sketches on Panel for the Luxembourg Series.
1. The Marriage of Henri iv. ; 13x9§. 2. The Birth of Louis xm. ; 12fx9.
3. The Coronation of Marie de Me'dicis; 191x24}. 4. Apotheosis of Henri iv. and
Regency of Marie ; 191 x 2±i- About 1623. From the Crozat Collection. See p. 142.
28. Marie de Medicis as Bellona.
Panel, 9 x 5f. About 1625. Sketch for the picture in the Louvre.
29. Isabella Brant.
Canvas, 601 x 30$. 1623-25. From the Crozat Collection. Possibly by Vandyke.
See pp. 97, 161 n., Plate ccxliii.
30. Lady-in-waiting to the Archduchess Isabella.
Panel, 24} x 18$. About 1625. Plate cclxix.
31. Philip iv.
Canvas, 45 x 32}. Replica of Munich portrait. 1628-29. ,
32. Elizabeth de Bourbon, Queen of France.
Canvas, 44 x 32 j. Replica of Munich portrait. 1628-29.
33. Apotheosis of James i.
Panel, 35$ x 22. Sketch for the Whitehall Ceiling. 1630-34. See p. 157, Plate
CCCLXIX.
34. James i. designating his son as King of Scotland.
Panel, 251 x 191- Sketch for the Whitehall Ceiling. 1630-34. See p. 157, Plate
CCCLXXI.
35. Susanna Fourment and her daughter Catherine (?).
Canvas, 69 x 46. About 1630. Possibly by Vandyke. See p. 161, Plate cccxxv.
36. The Miracle of St. Ildefonso.
21 x 33. Sketch on one canvas for the triptych at Vienna. About 1630. See p. 168,
Plate cccxli.
37. The Virgin presenting Rosary to St. Dominic and other Saints.
Canvas, 81 x 61. Pupil's work, touched by Rubens. 1630-32.
38. Head of Aged Man.
Canvas, 20$ x 16£. 1630-35. Plate ccclv.
39. Helen Fourment ; full-length, holding fan.
Panel, 73$ x 34. 1632-35. From the Walpole Collection. See p. 163, Plate cccl.
206

LISTS OF PICTURES
40. The Last Supper.
Sketch on panel, 18 x 16, for the picture at Milan. About 1632. See p. 169.
41-47. Sketches for the Triumphal Arches, etc., erected for the 'Joyous Entry' of
the Archduke Ferdinand into Antwerp, in 1635.
1. Ferdinand taking leave of Philip iv. and Apotheosis of Isabella. Sketch for
Gateway. Panel, 27$ x 27$. 2. The Victories of Ferdinand. Sketch for Triumphal
Arch. Panel, 28} x 30}. 3. The Victories of Ferdinand. Sketch for Triumphal Arch
of Hercules. Panel, 59 x 28}. 4. Triumph of Ferdinand. Panel, 59 x 29}. Sketch for
Triumphal Arch. 5. Design for Five Statues of Habsburg Princes. Grisaille on panel,
15§ x 44$. 6. The Temple of Janus. Panel, 27$ x 27$. 8. Mercury Departing from
Antwerp. Sketch for Triumphal Arch. Panel, 30f x 31$.
These sketches were formerly in the Walpole Collection. See pp. 64, 65, 173, Plates
CCCLXXIII.-CCCLXXVII., CCCLXXX., CCCLXXXI.
48. Combat of Centaurs and Lapithae.
Panel, 26} x 38$. Sketch for picture at Madrid. About 1636.
49. Landscape with Carrier's Cart on Stony Road (La Charrette Embourbee).
Canvas, 341x50}. 1625-35. From the Walpole Collection. See p. 184, Plate
CCCCLVI.
50. Bacchus Seated on Wine-Cask.
Canvas, 751x63. 1635-39. Perhaps in part by Jordaens. See p. 177, Plate
CCCCXLII.
51. Christ before Pilate.
Finished sketch, 19 x 12$. Date uncertain.
52. Shepherd embracing Shepherdess (' Le Croc en Jambe ').
45$ x 36. About 1637. Replica of Munich picture with variations.
VIENNA
HOFMUSEUM
1. The Annunciation.
Canvas, 87} x 79. Painted before 1600. See pp. 81, 82, Plate i.
2. Lady with Fan.
Canvas, 37$ x 28. Copy from Titian. Probably Italian period (1600-8).
3. Isabella d'Este.
Canvas, 40 x 321. CoPv from Titian. Probably. Italian period (1600-8). See p. 95.
4. The Dead Saviour with Mary and John.
Panel, 41$ x 45. About 1611. Plate xlvi.
5. Man in Fur Coat.
Panel, 22$ x 231- 1610-15. Plate lxv. '
6. The Dead Saviour with John and the Holy Women.
Panel, 161 x 21i- Signed and dated 1614. See p. 121, Plate lxxv.
7. Philemon and Baucis entertaining Jupiter and Mercury.
Canvas, 65 x 74. Probably not by Rubens. 1618-20. See p. 12Q, Plate cxlvii.
8. Hero Crowned by Victory.
Panel, 18$ x 25$. About 1619. See p. 132, Plate clix.
207

RUBENS
9. Infant Christ with John the Baptist and Two Children.
Panel, 30 x 48. 1616-20. See p. 123, Plate cxliii.
10. St. Ambrosius and the Emperor Theodosius.
Canvas, arched at top, 143 x 97. About 1619. See p. 131, Plate clxxii.
11. The Miracles of St. Francis Xavier.
Canvas, 210$ x 155$. Painted, 1619-20, for the High Altar of the Jesuit Church at
Antwerp. See pp. 134, 135, Plate clxxxiv.
12. The Miracles of St. Francis Xavier.
Panel, 40$ x 28$. Sketch for above. See pp. 134, 135, Plate clxxxv.
13. The Miracles of St. Ignatius Loyola.
Canvas, 211 x 155$. Painted, 1619-20, for the High Altar of the Jesuit Church at
Antwerp. See pp. 134, 135, Plate clxxxvi.
14. The Miracles of St. Ignatius Loyola.
Panel, 40} x 28$. Sketch for above. See pp. 134-135, Plate clxxxvii.
15. The Assumption. Panel, 1801 x 117. Painted, 1620, for the Jesuit Church at Antwerp. See pp. 134,
135, 136, Plate clxxx.
16. The Repentant Magdalen.
Canvas 80$ x 62. About 1620. From the Nostitz Gallery, Prague. Plate cciv.
17. Head of Elderly Man, with Fur Coat and White Ruff.
Panel, 19$ x 16. About 1620. See Plate ccxin.
18. The Four Quarters ofthe Globe ('The Four Rivers').
Canvas, 82 x 112. About 1620. See p. 118, Plate ccxxvii.
19. Atalanta shooting the Calydonian Boar.
Canvas, 129 x 164. About 1620. See p. 117, Plate ccxxv.
20. The Head of Medusa.
Canvas, 27x46$. 1620-25. From the Duke of Buckingham's Collection. Plate
ccxxix.
21. The Sleeping Angelica and the Hermit.
Panel 19x26. About 1625. From the Duke of Buckingham's Collection. See
p. 151, Plate cclxxxv.
22. Cimon and Ifigenia.
Canvas, 82x111. About 1625. From the Duke of Buckingham's Collection. See
pp. 150, 151, Plate cclxxxvii.
23. St. Pepin and St. Bega.
Panel, 361 x 30- About 1625. From the Duke of Buckingham's Collection. See
p. 121, Plate cclxxvii.
24. Bust of Elderly Man, with shallow Ruff.
Panel, 19J x 16. About 1625. Plate cclxxiv.
25. Half-Length Portrait of Lady with Spreading Collar.
Panel, oval, 32 x 231. 1625-30. Plate ccxciv.
26. Elizabeth of Bourbon, First Wife of Philip iv.
Panel, 19 x 16. Painted, 1628-29, in Madrid. See p. 163, Plate cccxiii
208

LISTS OF PICTURES
27. The Miracle of St. Ildefonso. Centre of triptych.
Panel, 139 x 93. Painted, 1630-31, for the church ofthe Caudenberg, Brussels. See
p. 168, Plate cccxl.
28a. and b. Wings ofthe above.
Panel, each 139 x 43. 1. Archduke Albert with his Patron Saint. 2. Archduchess
Isabella with her Patron Saint. See p. 168, Plate cccxl.
29. The Holy Family under the Apple Tree.
Panel, 139 x92, formed by joining the back of the two wings of the Ildefonso altar-piece.
See p. 168, Plate cccxxxix.
30. The Sacrifice to Venus.
Canvas, 85$ x 137. 1630-31, and therefore not from the Duke of Buckingham's Col
lection as stated in catalogue of Hofmuseum. See pp. 166, 167, Plate ccclix.
31. Helen Fourment in a Fur-Cloak (' La Courte Pelisse' or ' Het Pelsken ').
Panel, 69 x 38. 1631. All by Rubens. See p. 165, Plate cccxlv.
32. Bust of Elderly Man with Bald Head and Large Ruff".
Panel, 19$ x 16. About 1635. Plate cccxcm.
33. The Two Ferdinands at the Battle of Nordlingen.
Canvas, 129 x 152$ . Painted for the ' Joyous Entry' of the Infante Ferdinand in 1635.
Touched by Rubens. See p. 173, Plate ccclxxxiv.
34. The Emperor Maximilian in Armour.
Panel, 55 x 39}. About 1634. See pp. 173, 174, Plate ccclxxxviii.
85. Charles the Bold in Armour.
Panel, 46} x 40. About 1634. See p. 174, Plate ccclxxxviii.
36. In the Castle Park, Steen.
Panel, 20$ x 30$. About 1635. All by Rubens. See pp. 62, 156, 164, Plate ccclxv.
87. Ferdinand King of Hungary.
Full-length. Canvas, 1021 x 45. Painted for the ' Joyous Entry ' of the Infante Fer
dinand in 1635. Touched by Rubens. See p. 173. Plate ccclxxxvii.
38. The Infante Ferdinand.
Full-length. Canvas, 1021 x 44£- Painted for the ' Joyous Entry ' of 1635. Touched
by Rubens. See p. 173, Plate ccclxxxvii.
39. Head of an Old Priest.
Panel, 19} x 22$. 1635-38. Plate ccccxliv.
40. Bust of Man with Red Beard and Gold Chain.
Panel, 19 x 15$. About 1635. Plate cccxcm.
41. Head of St. Andrew.
Panel, 22 x 23. 1635-38. See p. 171, Plate ccccxliv.
42. Bust of St. Jerome as Cardinal.
Panel, 24$ x 21$. About 1638. Plate ccccxlv.
43. Bust of Aged Man with Long Beard.
Panel, 254 x 21$. About 1638. Plate ccccxlv.
44. Peter Paul Rubens as an Elderly Man.
Canvas, 43 x 32$. About 1638. See p. 159, Plate ccccl.
45. Stormy Landscape with Philemon and Baucis.
Panel, 58 x 82. About 1638. See p. 183, Plate cccclxvii.
„ ,. 209

PART II.— MINOR COLLECTIONS,
INCLUDING PICTURES IN CHURCHES AND IN PRIVATE COLLECTIONS
ON THE CONTINENT AND IN AMERICA
AlX-LA-CHAPELLE. SuEllMONDT MUSEUM.
The Cock and the Diamond.
Panel, 39 x 26$. Painted at Rome, 1606, for Dr. Faber. See pp. 24, 93. Plate xxm.
The Fall of the Damned.
Panel, about 46 x 36. 1615-18, or perhaps earlier. See p. 125.
Isabella Brant.
38 x 28. About 1623. Near to the Hermitage Portrait. From an English Collection.
Sketch for Statues of Albert u. and Ferdinand i. for the 'Joyous Entry' of the
Infante Ferdinand in 1635.
Grisaille on panel, 15$ x 16$. See Plate ccclxxxii.
Aix-la-Chapelle. A. Creutzer (ex Steengracht zu Moyland). Return of Diana
from the Chase.
Aix-en-Provence. Private Collection. Peter Paul Rubens.
Replica of Windsor Portrait. 'Touched' work. 1628. See p. 159.
Alost. Cathedral. St. Roch and the Plague-stricken.
Painted about 1623. Lower part all by Rubens. Predella below and oval above with
Madonna only 'touched' by him. See p. 146.
Amsterdam. Rijksmuseum.
Anne of Austria.
Panel, 41 x 29. 1625. ' Touched ' replica of the portrait in the Louvre.
Caritas Romana (' Cimon and Perus ').
Canvas, 62 x 75. ' Touched ' pupil's-work. About 1625. See p. 151. Plate cclxxxii.
Helen Fourment.
Panel, 29 x 22. About 1631. Ex Lucien Bonaparte. See p. 162. Plate cccxlvhi.
Christ Bearing the Cross.
Panel, 30x21$. Sketch for the Brussels picture. About 1636. See p. 171. Plate
CCCCVIII.
Antwerp. St. Antony. St. Francis receives Infant Jesus from Hands of Virgin.
91 x 69. Seen by Reynolds in Capuchin Church. Principal figures by Rubens.
Antwerp. St. Augustine. Virgin on Lofty Throne surrounded by Saints (' Marriage
of St. Catherine ').
Canvas, 224 x 168. 1628. See p. 149. Plate cccvm.
210

LISTS OF PICTURES
Antwerp. Cathedral.
The Resurrection of Christ, with portrait of Jean Moretus.
Triptych. Panel, 73 x 43. Only two figures by Rubens. See p. 108.
The Elevation of the Cross.
Triptych. Panel, centre 182 x 1341, and wings 182 x 59 ; St. Eloi and St. Walburga
(outside of left wing); St. Catherine and St. Amand (outside of right wing). 1610-11.
See pp. 99-101, 105, Plate xlii.
The Descent from the Cross.
Triptych, Panel. 1. Centre, 165$ x 122. 2. Left wing, 165$x59, The Visitation.
3. Right wing, 167 x 59, Presentation at Temple. 4. and 5. Outside of wings,
St. Christopher and Hermit. 1612-14. See pp. 99 «., 101-103, Plates lix.
and lx.
Antwerp. High Altar of Cathedral. Assumption of the Virgin.
Panel, 193 x 128. About 1626. See pp. 148, 172, Plate ccxc.
Antwerp. St. Jacciues. Rubens Mortuary Chapel. Virgin with Saints.
Panel, 87 x 76}. About 1637. See pp. 67, 68, 172, Plate cccclxxi.
Antwerp. St. Paul's.
The Dispute on the Sacrament.
146 x 96. About 1609. See pp. 98, 105.
The Flagellation.
Panel, 861 x 63f. Painted 1617. Plate cxix.
Antwerp. Museum. (See separate list, p. 189.)
Antwerp. Kums Collection. The Conde-Duca Olivares.
Elaborate framing painted in grisaille, 24 x 17. About 1626. The figure, founded on
Velazquez, only indicated. From the Hamilton Collection.
Antwerp. Menke Collection.
Fauns and Nymphs picking Fruit.
38 x 40. Italian period. From the Collection of the Duke of Kent.
Beheading of Baptist.
40 x 30. All by Rubens.
Antwerp. M. Max Rooses. Susanna and the Elders.
28 x 40. About 1635. See p. 166.
Antwerp. Scrips Collection. David and Abigail.
69 x 98. About 1618. Ex Due de Richelieu and Secretan Collections.
Arras. Church of St. John the Baptist. Descent from Cross.
110x81. 'Touched' studio-piece. 1612-15.
Arras. Cathedral. Descent from Cross.
105 x 73. 'Touched' replica of the St. Petersburg 'Descent,' much repainted. 1612-15.
See p. 104.
Augsburg. Heiijg-Kreuz Kirche. Assumption of the Virgin.
Canvas, 144$ x 90$. About 1626. 'Touched' studio-piece. See p. 148, Plate ccxci.
Augsburg. Royal Gallery. Crocodile and Hippopotamus Hunt.
Canvas, 93x122. 1615-18. Studio-piece, 'touched' by Rubens. See p. 118, Plate
cxm. 211

RUBENS
Berlin. Museum. (See separate list, p. 190.)
Berlin. Prof. Ludwig Knaus. Bust of Man with Ruff.
Panel, 15$ x 12. 1615-18. See Plate cxxvi.
Bordeaux. Museum.
Martyrdom of St. George.
Centre of Triptych, 75x59. Painted for church at Lierre. 'Touched' pupil's work;
overpainted.
St. Justus carrying his Head in his Hands.
Canvas 75 x 52. Painted, about 1636, for a church at Antwerp. See pp. 171, 172, Plate
ccccvu.
Boston. Mrs. Gardner. The Earl of Arundel.
Canvas, 54 x 45. 1629-30. Ex the Earl of Warwick (O. M. 1889. ) Plate cccxv.
Brunswick. Museum.
Ambrogio Spinola.
Panel, 46f x 33§. 1625. See p. 152, Plate cclxxii.
Man holding Gloves.
Panel, 42 x 29. 1625-30. See p. 152, Plate ccxcvi.
Judith holding the Head of Holofernes.
Panel, 471 x 43f . About 1630 or perhaps earlier. All by Rubens. See p. 169, Plate cccx.
Brussels. Museum. (See separate list, p. 192.)
Brussels. Collection of H.M. the King of the Belgians.
Christ Triumphant over Death and Sin.
28 x 18. Brought from Spain by Joseph Bonaparte. Ex Bredell Collection. All by
Rubens. 1615-20.
Two Young Lions.
23$ x 29. Duke of Bedford's sale, 1827.
The Miracles of St. Benedict.
62 x 93. About 1639. Not finished. From Abbey of Afllighem.
Brussels. Senator Allard. Chevalier Corneille de Lantschott.
Panel, 44 x 35. 1615-18. Plate cxxn.
Brussels. Prince Antoine D'Arenberg. Pieter Pecquius, Chancellor of Brabant.
Canvas, 55 x 47. About 1612. See p. 128, Plate xlix.
Brussels. Duke of Arenberg.
Young Woman with Crimped Hair.
25 x 21. Replicas or Copies at Dresden and St. Petersburg. (Sometimes called Helen
Fourment.) About 1635.
Jan Woverius.
Panel, 17 x 14. About 1603. See p. 91, Plate xviii.
Peter Paul Rubens.
Panel 25$ x 21 j. About 1631. See p. 159, Plate cccxlvii.
Bust of Man with Ruff.
Panel, 24$ x 191. 1630-36. Plate cccliv.
Head of a Monk.
Panel, 221 x 17- 1630-35. Plate cccliv.
212

LISTS OF PICTURES
Brussels (?). Comte de Bloudoff (Russian Minister). Bacchus upheld by a Satyr
and a Faun.
21 x 31. Probably all Rubens.
Brussels. F. M. Phillipson. St. Peter and St. Paul.
Panel, 20x25. From an English Collection (O.M. 1885, Capt. Hankey). Sketch for
Picture at Munich. 1615-20. Plate cxxxvi.
Brussels. Prof. Willems. The Fall of the Rebel Angels.
Panel, 18 x 201. About 1620. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church. See p. 134, Plate
CXCIV.
Budapest. National Gallery.
Mucius Scaevola before Porsenna.
Canvas, 74 x 61$. Perhaps a copy of lost original. 1620-25. Plate ccvu.
Portrait of Man with Pointed Beard and Ruff.
Panel, 26 x 20.
The Last Judgment.
Sketch on panel, 21$ x 16$.
Soldiers carousing.
Canvas, 46} x 59.

Caen. Abraham and Melchizedek.
80 x 97. Work of feeble pupil, touched by Rubens.
Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum.
Alliance of Earth and Water.
14 x 12. Sketch on panel.
The Four Evangelists.
Grisaille sketch on panel, 61 x 61, for the Duke of Westminster's picture. 1627. See
p. 150.
The Fathers of the Church.
Grisaille sketch on panel, 6$ x 6$, for the Duke of Westminster's picture. 1627. See
p. 150.
Triumph of the Eucharist over Philosophy.
6 x 8$, sketch on panel for picture in Louvre. 1627. See p. 150.
Triumph of the Eucharist over Ignorance.
Sketch on panel for lost picture, 6$ x 9|. 1627. See p. 150.
Triumph of the Eucharist over Heresy.
Sketch on panel for lost picture, 6x8. 1627. See p. 150.
Triumph of Divine Love in the Eucharist.
Sketch on panel for lost picture, 6x6. 1627. See p. 150.
Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek.
Sketch on panel for Duke of Westminster's picture, 6x6. 1627. See p. 150.
Doorway with Pediment.
Design for ' Pompa Introitus ' (?) Panel, 20$ x 14$.
Cannstatt. Julius Unger. The Sacrifice of Abraham.
Panel, 55 x 47. 1609-12. Perhaps a copy of lost original.
213

RUBENS
Cassel. Royal Gallery. (See separate list, p. 193.)
Cassel. Museum Fredericianum. St. Francis with a Rosary.
Panel, 33$ x 26. About 1620. See Plate ccxv.
Cologne. St. Peter's. Crucifixion of St. Peter.
Canvas, 122 x 67. About 1638. See p. 171. Plate ccccxlviii.
Cologne. Wallraf-Richartz Museum.
Juno and Argus.
Canvas, 100 x 137. 1611. Ex Palazzo Durazzo, Genoa, and Dudley Collections. See p. 112,
Plate lu.
St. Francis receiving the Stigmata.
Canvas, 148 x 94. About 1617. See pp. 90, 110, Plate cxxxiv.
Holy Family with St. Elizabeth (' La Vierge au Chardonneret ').
Canvas, 46$x39. About 1635. See p. 169, Plate cccxcvi.
Cologne. Freiherr A. von Oppenheim.
Apollo in his Car.
Panel, 29 x 39. Design for Ceiling. From English Collections. About 1620. Plate ccxxii.
The Wise Government of James i. taming Rebellion.
19x16. Sketch on panel for the Whitehall Ceiling. 1631-34. Plate ccclxxii.
Copenhagen. Christiansborg Gallery.
Judgment of Solomon.
Canvas, 92 x 118. 1618-20. Painted for Town Hall, Brussels. Good pupil's work, much
touched by Rubens. Plate ccv.
Matthaus Yrsselius.
Panel, 47 x 41. About 1630. See p. 174, Plate cccxxvu.
Copenhagen. J. Hage. Man with large Ruff holding Glove.
Panel, 40 x 28$. 1615-20. Plate cxxm.
Copenhagen. Moltke Collection. Head of a Monk.
22 x 19$. About 1635. All by Rubens.
Darmstadt. Return of Diana from Chase.
91x110. About 1620. ' Touched ' by Rubens ; animals by Snyders.
Dijon. Christ's Entry into Jerusalem.
Panel, 30 x 32. 1630-32. Predella ofthe Milan ' Last Supper.'
Christ Washing the Apostles' Feet.
Panel, 30 x 32. 1630-32. Predella of the Milan ' Last Supper. '
Dresden. Royal Gallery. (See separate list, p. 194.)
Dublin. National Gallery.
The Annunciation.
Panel, 88 x 59. Near to the early work at Vienna, but perhaps from the engraving. From
the Marquess of Bristol's Collection.
St. Peter finding the Tribute Money.
Canvas, 78$ x 86. ' Touched ' studio-piece.
St. Dominic.
72 x 36. From the Marquess of Bristol's Collection.
214

LISTS OF PICTURES
Dublin. National Gallery — continued.
St. Francis receiving the Stigmata.
72 x 36. Companion to the St. Dominic.
The Vision of St. Ignatius.
Sketch on panel, 25 x 22. (Called 'Flemish School' in catalogue.)
Christ at the House of Martha and Mary.
Panel, 25 x 24. Ex Pourtales, Novar and Barron Collections.
.Dulwich College Gallery.
St. Barbara. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church.
Panel, 12f x 18. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcvi.
The Three Graces Dancing.
Grisaille on panel, 15 x 15.
Three Nymphs with Fruit.
Panel, ll£ x 9f . Sketch for Madrid picture. About 1628. See p. 151.
Helen Fourment as the Magdalen in a Landscape.
Panel, 28$ x 28$. About 1635.
Venus, Mars and Cupid.
Canvas, 76$ x 51$. Probably painted in London, 1629-30. See p. 156, Plate cccxvin.
Dusseldorf. Academy. Assumption of the Virgin.
Panel, 166$ x 110$. ' Touched ' work. About 1620. See p. 136, Plate clxxix.

Florence. Pitti.
St. Francis in Adoration.
Canvas, 58 x 41. Italian or early Antwerp Period. Plate xxxm.
Justus Lipsius and his Pupils (' The Four Philosophers ').
Panel, 66 x 56. Probably begun in 1602, and completed later. See pp. 19, 31, 91, 92,
159, Plate xx.
Holy Family (Jesus in Cradle caressing St. John).
Panel, 44$ x 35. About 1620. See p. 123, Plate cxcix.
Duke of Buckingham.
Panel, 24 x 19. 1625. See p. 145, Plate cclxx.
Ulysses and Nausicaa ; Landscape.
Panel, 50 x 81$. 1625-35. See p. 183, Plate cccclvh.
The Return from the Fields.
Panel, 48 x 77. 1635-38. See p. 186, Plate cccclxi.
The Horrors of War.
Canvas, 81 x 135. Painted, about 1638, for Grand Duke through agency of Suttermans.
See p. 175, Plate ccccxvi.
Florence. Uffizi.
The Three Graces.
Canvas, 18 x 13. Grisaille of Italian period. Plate xxx.
Peter Paul Rubens (without hat).
About 1615 (Rosenberg, 1602, Rooses, 1628-29). See p. 92, Plate lxxxiii.
215

RUBENS
Florence. Uffizi — continued.
The Choice of Hercules.
Canvas, 57 x 75. Perhaps rather by Vandyke. Plate cccxxix.
Venus and Adonis.
Panel, 26$ x 38$. About 1620. Probably not by Rubens.
Peter Paul Rubens.
33$ x 24. Replica or original of the Windsor portrait. About 1624. See p. 159.
Isabella Brant.
Panel, 33$ x 24. 1623-25. Plate ccxuv.
Entry of Henri iv. into Paris.
Canvas, 149 x 273. About 1630. Unfinished Canvas for the Henri iv. Series. All by
Rubens. See pp. 157, 158, Plate cccxxxiv.
The Battle of Ivry.
Canvas, 149$ x 274. About 1630. Unfinished Canvas for the Henri iv. Series. All by
Rubens. See pp. 157, 158, Plate cccxxxv.
Frankfort. Staedel Institute.
King David.
Panel, 34 x 28. 1610-15. Plate lxv.
Diogenes seeking for an honest Man.
Panel, 12$x20. Painted 1610-15. Sketch for the studio-piece in the Louvre. Perhaps
not by Rubens. See Plate un.
Sketch of ' Virgin Enthroned ' in St. Augustine, Antwerp.
Panel, 25 x 16. 1627-28. Plate cccix.

Genoa. St. Ambrogio.
The Circumcision.
Canvas, about 160 x 120. Italian period. In bad condition. See pp. 88, 91, Plate xxv.
Miracle of St. Ignatius.
Canvas, 158 x 109. Painted 1620. See p. 135, Plate clxxxix.
Genoa. Palazzo Balbi Senarega.
The Last Judgment.
If by Rubens, probably painted in Italy.
Infant Jesus and John with Lamb.
Genoa. Palazzo Bianco. Love and Wine (Man in Armour, Nymph and Satyr).
51x55. Date very uncertain. (Galliera bequest. )
Genoa. Palazzo Durazzo Pallavicini.
1. Hercules. 2. Deianira.
Each 95 x 64. Italian period.
Wladislas-Sigismund, Prince of Poland.
40 x 32. 1624.
Philip iv.
99 x 59. 1629. Full length.
Ghent. St. Bavon. Conversion of St. Bavon.
186 x 110. 1624. All lower part by Rubens. See p. 146, Plate ccxxxvi.
216

LISTS OF PICTURES
Ghent. Museum. St. Francis receiving the Stigmata.
104 x 76. Painted, about 1633, for the Re'collet Church. Good pupil's work, touched
all over by Rubens.
Glasgow. Corporation Art Gallery.
Battle of the Amazons.
Panel, 24$ x 41. Sketch.
Nature Attired by the Graces.
Panel, 41 x 28. Flowers by Breughel. 1615-20. See p. 122, Plate cxli.
Wild-Boar Hunt.
Canvas, 54 x 66. 1612-15. Ex Hope Collection, and King of Holland. See p. 117.
Gotha. Museum.
Ascension of Elijah. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church.
Panel, 12} x 16}. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxci.
St. Athanasius. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church.
Panel, 18} x 24$. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcv.
St. Augustine. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church.
Panel, 18} x 24$. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcvn.
St. Basil. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church.
Panel, 18} x 24$. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxciv.
St. Gregory Nazianzen. Sketch for Ceiling of Jesuit Church.
Panel, 18} x 24$. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcv.
Grasse. Chapel of the Hospital.
1. The Invention of the True Cross. Panel, 991x74$. 2. The Crown of Thorns.
Panel, 88 x 71. 3. The Erection of the Cross. Panel, 88 x 71. Pictures painted in
1602, for Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome. See pp. 18, 86. Plates n. and m.
Grenoble. Museum. The Madonna adored by St. Gregory and other Saints.
186x112. Painted, 1607, for the Chiesa Nuova, Rome. See pp. 24-26, 87, 88, 93,
Plate xxvii.

The Hague. Mauritshuis. »
Nymphs and Cupids plucking Fruit.
Panel, 26$ x 42. 1615-20. A damaged work, formerly attributed to Van Balen. The
fruit, etc., by Breughel. See p. 122, Plate cxuv.
Adam and Eve in Paradise.
Panel, 30x61. 1615-20. Landscape and animals by Breughel. See p. 121, Plate cxlv.
Isabella Brant.
Panel, 37 x 28. About 1620. Plate ccxm.
Venus and Adonis.
Panel, 23 x 32. Perhaps copy of picture in Hermitage. About 1620.
Michel Ophovius.
Canvas, 44x32. About 1630. From the Dominican Convent, Antwerp. See p. 174,
Plate cccxxvm.
Helen Fourment.
Panel, 39 x 30. . About 1634. Plate ccclii.
217

RUBENS
Hamburg. Philippi Collection.
Statue of Ceres.
35 x 27. Close to the Hermitage picture. Flowers probably by Breughel. About 1625.
(Bought in England, 1882.)
Hamburg. The late Consul Weber.
The Apocalyptic Woman.
Panel, 25$ x 19}. 1610-11. Sketch for the picture in the Pinakothek. Plate xlv.
Roman Charity (' Cimon and Perus ').
Canvas, 72 x 72. From the Marlborough Collection. About 1625. See p. 151.
Helen Fourment.
Panel, 25 x 19$. About 1630. From the Clark Sale, 1840. See p. 163, Plate cccxlvii.
The Rondo.
Panel, 29 x 40. Sketch for Picture in Prado.
Hampton Court. The Repose of Diana.
Canvas, 85 x 122. Much rubbed. About 1614. See p. 114.
Hanover. Museum. Nessus and Deianira.
Panel, 27 x 43. 1630-35. Perhaps not by Rubens. Plate ccclxiv.

Lille. Church of St. Catherine. Martyrdom of St. Catherine.
Life-size figures. About 1622. See p. 146, Plate ccxxxvn.
Lille. Church of Madeleine. Adoration of the Shepherds.
110 x 78. Lately restored. See p. 137.
Lille. Museum.
St. Francis receiving the Infant Jesus from the Virgin.
Canvas, 92$ x 72§. Painted, 1615-18, for Capuchin Church. Largely gone over by]
Rubens. See pp. 90, 110, Plate cxxx.
Deposition from Cross.
168 x 116. Painted for the Capuchin Church. 1611-14. See p. 104, Plate lxi.
St. Bonaventura.
58 x 32. Painted for the Capuchin Church. ' Touched ' in parts by Rubens.
St. Francis in ecstasy.
58 x 33. ' Touched ' in parts by Rubens. Companion to the St. Bonaventura.
The Magdalen in Ecstasy, Supported by Angels.
117x87. Painted, after 1630, for the Recollet Church, Ghent. 'Touched' in parts byj
Rubens.
1. The Liberality of the King. 2. The Foresight of the King.
' Touched ' by Rubens. For the ' Joyous Entry ' of Ferdinand, 1635. See p. 173.
London. National Gallery. (See separate list, p. 195.)
London. Private Collections. (See separate list, p. 230.)
London. Buckingham Palace.
Pan and Syrinx.
Panel, 24 x 35. All by Rubens. About 1620. Plate ccxvm.
The Assumption of the Virgin.
40 x 26. Bought by the Regent, 1802. ' Touched ' by Rubens. About 1620. See p. 136.'
218

LISTS OF PICTURES
London. Buckingham Palace — continued.
St. George in Landscape.
Canvas, 601 x 89. Painted for Charles i. 1629-30. See p. 156, Plate cccxxn.
The Dairy Farm at Laeken.
Panel, 33$ x 50. About 1625. See pp. 119, 184, Plate cclxxx.
Jean Malderus, Bishop of Antwerp.
Panel, 22 x 18$. Doubtful, perhaps by Vandyke.
Pythagoras. If by Rubens at all, a late work, very black.
London. Royal College of Medicine. Portrait of Mayernius.
Ex Dr. Mead.
London. Wallace Collection. (See separate list, p. 196.)
London. Whitehall. Ceiling of Banqueting House.
Finished, 1635. See pp. 41, 156, 157, Plate ccclxviii.
Lyons. Museum.
Adoration of Kings.
Canvas, 96$ x 128. About 1618. From Schleissheim. See p. 137, Plate clxix.
The Virgin and Saints interceding for the World.
Canvas, 218$ x 142$. Painted, about 1620, for St. Paul's, Antwerp. Lower part all
Rubens. Plate clxxxii.

Madrid. Duke of Alva's Collection. The Supper at Emmaus.
About 1611. See p. 172.
Madrid. Academy of St. Fernando.
The Two St. Johns.
25 x 20. Probably 1607. All by Rubens.
Susanna and the Elders.
Panel, 68 x 89$. 1610, or perhaps earlier. See p. 109, Plate xl.
St. Augustine Between Christ and the Virgin.
Canvas, 96 x 74. About 1618, or perhaps earlier. See p. 90, Plate cxxxi.
Madrid. Flemish Hospital. Martyrdom of St. Andrew.
Canvas, 118 x 85. 1637. Principal figures by Rubens. See p. 171, Plate ccccxin.
Madrid. Prado. (See separate list, p. 197.)
Formerly Madrid. Osuna Collection. (Bought by Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi.)
1. Hippomenes and Atalanta. Panel, 7$ x 9f (Sketch for Prado picture). 2. Rape of
Proserpine. Panel, 9£ x 15} (Sketch for picture in Prado). 3. Venus and Adonis.
Panel, 121 x lsh 4- Orpheus and Eurydice. Panel, 11 x 15 (Sketch for picture in
Prado). 5. Diana Hunting. Panel, 101 x 22- 6- Perseus and Andromeda. Panel,
7$ x 8£. All, 1636-37- Plates ccccxxix. and ccccxxxi.
Formerly Madrid. Pastrana Collection. (Sold 1888-90.)
Decius Mortally Wounded.
Sketch on panel for the ' Decius Mus ' tapestry series. 1617.
219

RUBENS
Formerly Madrid. Pastrana Collection — continued.
Sketches on panel for the 'Metamorphoses' series. All about 1636.
1. Apollo and Python. 2. Atlas. 3. Cephalus and Procris. 4. Abduction of Deianira.
5. Deucalion and Pyrrha. 6. Death of Dido. 7. Rape of Europa. 8. Hercules
and Cerberus. 9. Death of Hyacinthus. 10. Polyphemus. 11. Prometheus. 12.
Vertumnus and Pomona.
Designs for the ' Achilles ' series, about 1630.
1. Achilles plunged into Styx. 2. Achilles and Chiron. 3. Achilles and the Daughters
of Lycomedes. 4. Briseis returned to Achilles. These only 'touched' by Rubens.
See p. 175. See also — Paris, Dreyfus Sale.
Madrid. Count of Valdelagrana. Equestrian Portrait of Duke of Lerma.
By inheritance from Duke of Medinaceli.
Malines. Museum. Christ on the Cross.
41 x 30. From the Church of the Oratory. All Rubens. See p. 108.
Malines. Notre Dame. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes.
Centre panel, 118$ x 92$. Left wing — The Tribute Money; 118$ x 41}. Right wing —
Tobias and the Angel ; 118$ x 41}. Outside of shutters, St. Peter and St. Andrew.
1618-19. See p. 133, Plate clxvi.
Malines. Church of St. Jean. Adoration of the Kings.
Centre panel, 94 x 81. Right wing, inside — St. John boiled in Oil ; outside — Baptism of
Christ. Left wing, inside — Beheading of the Baptist ; outside — St. John in Patmos.
Painted 1619. See p. 137.
Mantua. Liceo. The Gonzaga Family adoring the Trinity.
Canvas divided into two parts. 1. The Trinity ; 74^ x 98f . 2. The Gonzaga Family ;
75 x 98$. About 1605. See pp. 86, 87, Plate xiv.
Marseilles. Museum.
Wild-Boar Hunt.
Canvas, 97 x 125. About 1614-17. Figures ' touched ' by Rubens. The rest by Paul de
Vos and Wildens. See p. 117, Plate cix.
The Resurrection.
Canvas, 25$ x 39$. 1619. Predella of the ' Adoration ' in St. Jean, Malines. See p. 137,
Plate com.
Adoration of Shepherds.
Canvas, 25$ x 39$. 1619. Predella of the ' Adoration ' in St. Jean, Malines. See. pp. 137,
138, Plate com.
Milan. Brera. The Last Supper.
Panel, 120 x 98. 1632. Painted for a church at Malines. See p. 169, Plate cccxliii.
Montpellier. Museum. Martyrdom of St. Ursula.
20 x 26. (As 'Episode d'une Guerre de Religion.')
Munich. Pinakothek. (See separate list, p. 200.)
Formerly Munich. Schubart Collection. (Sale 1899.)
Christ Descending upon Earth.
Panel, 22$ x 16$. About 1615. Plate xci.
The Bath of Diana.
Canvas, 59 x 46$. Part of larger picture (Diana and Actaeon) inspired by Titian, formerly
belonging to the Due de Richelieu. About 1637. See p. 177, Plate cccoxxvi.
220

LISTS OF PICTURES
Nancy. Museum.
The Transfiguration.
Canvas, 163x227. Painted 1604-6, for the Jesuit Church at Mantua. See p. 87,
Plate xvi.
Jonah Thrown into the Sea. <
Panel, 29$ x 29$. Predella of the Malines ' Miraculous Draught,' 1618-19. See p. 133,
Plate clxvii.
Christ Walking on the Water.
Panel, 29$x29$. Predella of the Malines 'Miraculous Draught.' Both pupils' work
'touched' by Rubens. See p. 133, Plate clxvii.
Nantes. Museum. Judas Maccabaeus praying for the Dead.
• Canvas, 122 x 90. From Cathedral, Tournai. About 1618-20. Damaged. Plate clvii.
New York. Metropolitan Museum.
Virgin and Child with St. Elizabeth, surrounded by Flowers.
(Flowers by Breughel). Octagonal. Ex Schonborn Collection. See p. 122.
The Return from Egypt.
98} x 69. Painted, about 1620, for Jesuits' Church at Antwerp. Transferred to canvas.
Damaged and overpainted.
Holy Family and St. Francis.
68$x81$. 1625-35. From Leigh Court. (O. M. 1870.) See p. 168, Plate cccxxxi.
New York. E. R. Bacon. Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter.
Panel, 87 x 77$. Painted about 1613 for tomb of P. Breughel. ' Touched ' studio piece.
From the Northwick Collection. See p. 109, Plate lxiii.
New York. W. A. Clark.
The Repentant Magdalen.
Canvas, 69 x 45. About 1635. Magdalen by Rubens. Ex Hermann Linde and Herr
Preyer, Vienna. Smaller replica of Berlin picture. Plate cccc.
Apollo and Midas.
Panel, 28 x 54. From Edwards sale, Paris.
New York. Mr. Hermann Linde. The Feast of Herod.
28 x 40. Late work, all Rubens.
New York. Yerkes Collection.
Two Heads of Apostles.
Panel, 26$ x 20$. 1608-12. Plate xxxii.
Ixion Deceived by Juno.
Canvas, 65 x 96. 1610-15. Ex Duke of Westminster. (O. M. 1870 and 1895). See p. 112.
Nice. Private Collection. Judith Beheading Holofernes.
45 x 33. Hard, early work.

Oldenburg. Museum.
Nymphs, Fauns, etc. gathering Fruit.
Panel, 25 x 30. 1610-20. Fruit by Breughel. Plate xcv.
St. Francis holding Crucifix.
Panel, 43$x31$. Ex Pommersfelden Collection, sold Paris, 1867. About 1615. See
p. 110, Plate lxxxvii.
221

RUBENS
Oldenburg. Museum — continued.
Prometheus with the Eagle.
Canvas, 75 x 80. Eagle by Snyders. The picture offered to Carleton in 1617. See p. 112,
Plate lxxi.
Marie de Medicis.
About 1623. Study for Luxembourg series. With coronet of wheat-ears. All by Rubens.
Paris. Louvre. (See separate list, p. 203.)
Paris. Adolph Schloss. Arion Saved by Dolphins.
Panel, 22 x 31. 1610-15. Ex Demidoff Collection. Plate lxxiii.
Paris. Charles de Beistegni. The Death of Dido.
Canvas, 72 x 44. 1630-35. Plate ccclvii.
Paris. F. Bischoffsheim. The Baptism of Constantine.
Panel, 18$x21$. Sketch, from the Orleans Gallery, for one of the 'Constantine'
Series of 1622. Plate ccxxxm.
Paris. Messrs. Durand-Ruel. Ambrogio Spinola.
Bust. Study from life. About 1625. See p. 152, Plate cclxxiii.
Paris. Dreyfus Sale, 1889. 1. The Wrath of Achilles against Agamemnon.
2. The Death of Achilles.
Both from the Pastrana Collection. Designs on panel for the 'Achilles' series. About 1630.
Paris. M. Jules Feral. The Drunkenness of Lot. .
Canvas, 72x84. From Blenheim. 'Touched' work. About 1610. See pp. 109, 112,
151, Plate xli.
Paris. Leon Gauchez (Leroi) Collection (dispersed 1907).
Triptych. Panel, 26 x 20 and 26 x 10$. Finished sketch for ' Elevation of Cross.' Ex
Alfred Buckley (O.M. 1882).
Paris. Ex Kann Collection (dispersed 1908, now mostly at Messrs. Duveen).
Madonna (Child Embracing Mother).
Panel, 40 x 30. About 1615. Replica of Hermitage Madonna.
So-called Portrait of Prince Frederick Henry.
Panel, 28 x 20. About 1635. Plate cccxcv.
Thomas Parr.
Panel, 27$ x 19}. ' At age of 142 years. '
Meleager presents Boar to Atalanta.
Panel, 52 x 41. From Blenheim.
Paris. Baron Edmond de Rothschild.
Peter van Hecke. (This and the following perhaps rather by Vandyke.)
Panel, 45 x 36. 1618-20. See pp. 128, 160, Plate ccx.
Clara Fourment, wife of Peter van Hecke.
Panel, 45 x 36. 1618-20. See pp. 128, 160, Plate ccxi.
Three Girls gathering Fruit ('L'Abondance').
Canvas, 90 x 88. 1630-35. From the Blenheim Collection. Accessories by Wildens and
Snyders. See p. 176, Plate ccclxiii.
Conversation a la Mode.
Panel, 49 x 68. 1633-35. Bought, 1855, from the Duke of Pastrana. See pp. 164, 165,
176, Plate ccclx.
222

LISTS OF PICTURES
Paris. Baron Gustave de Rothschild. Lady with Veil over Head.
Panel, 30$ x 23}. About 1630, or perhaps earlier. Cf. the Vienna ' Repentant Magdalen.'
Plate ccxciv.
Paris. Heirs of Baron Alphonse de Rothschild.
Rubens and Helen in Garden with Child in Leading Strings.
Panel, 80 x 69. About 1635. From the Blenheim Collection. See pp. 163, 164,
Plate cccxlix.
Helen Fourment followed by her Page.
Panel, 78 x 48. 1636-39. From the Blenheim Collection. See pp. 163, 164, Plate cccliii.
Paris. Schneider Collection. Holy Family.
Canvas, 54 x 42.
Paris. Formerly Sedelmeyer Gallery.
Bust of Genoese Gentleman.
Panel, 24 x 191. Probably 1607. Plate xxxn.
Christ Triumphant over Death and Sin.
72 x 100. Painted for a tomb in St. Walburga. From an English Collection. 1615-20.
Alliance of Earth and Water (' Tiger and Abundance ').
80 x 62. Belonged formerly to Sir T. Lawrence. Italian period.
Paris. Bought at the Konigswarter Sale, 1906. Frederic de Marselaer.
Panel, 26 x 20. About 1630. See p. 174, Plate cccxxvi.
Pau. Museum. 1. Thetis receiving from Vulcan the Arms of Achilles. 2. Death of
Hector.
Presented by the Dowager Duchess of Pastrana. From the ' Achilles ' series. Probably
, 1630. Only ' touched ' by Rubens. See p. 175.
Philadelphia. J. G. Johnson. The Vision of the Monogram of Christ.
Panel, 17$x21$. Sketch for one of the 'Constantine' Series of 1622. From the
Orleans Gallery. Plate ccxxxn.
Philadelphia. Rodman Wanemaker. .
Marriage of St. Catherine.
Canvas, 301 x 44. Early work. Formerly belonged to the Duke of Sutherland. Ex Sir
Charles Robinson. See p. 94, Plate iv.
Two Boy Angels with a Garland of Fruit.
Canvas, 52 x 67. 1615-25. Attribution doubtful.
. Potsdam. Picture Gallery, Sanssouci.
Holy Family with Cradle.
About 70 x 60. 1612-15. Gone over in parts by Rubens.
The Birth of Venus.
Canvas, 88 x 98. About 1615. Studio-piece worked on by Rubens. Plate cv.
Orpheus and Eurydice.
Panel, 31$ x 22. 1630-40. Little by Rubens. Plate cccci.
The Dying Cleopatra (otherwise ' Sophonisba ').
Panel, 48 x 38. About 1615. Doubtful work, but Dr. Bode accepts it as by Rubens.
Plate xcvi.
Holy Family with Lamb and Basket.
Panel, 67 x 50. 1615-20. Essentially Rubens's work. Plate cxxxh. 223

RUBENS
Potsdam. Picture Gallery, Sanssouci — continued.
Head of Emperor Augustus.
Panel, 26$ x 20. Signed and dated 1619. Plate ccxiv.
Meleager and Atalanta.
1620-25. Gone over by Rubens.
Girls Bathing (Portion of a ' Diana and Callisto '). (
Panel, 32 x 23. About 1637. Upper part and sides added in eighteenth century. Seej
p. 176, Plate occcxxiv.
Discovery of Romulus and Remus.
About 1630. All by Rubens. See p. 176.
Prague. Nostitz Palace.
Ambrogio Spinola. (Armour on sleeves.)
Panel, 45} x 32$. About 1625. See p. 152.
Head of Apostle.
Panel, 26$ x 20. Italian period.
Prague. Rudolfinum.
Expulsion from Paradise.
Panel, 19$ x 25}. Sketch (not carried out) for Ceiling of Jesuits' Church, 1620.
Martyrdom of St. Thomas. (Removed from Augustine Church.)
Canvas, 149$ x 92$. Front figure by Rubens ; the rest ' touched.' About 1638. See p. 171,1
Plate ccccxlvii.
St. Augustine. (Removed from Augustine Church.)
Canvas, 100 x 69. About 1638. See p. 171, Plate ccccxlvi.
Prussian Royal Palaces.
Nessus and Deianira.
1612-15. Largely ' touched ' by Rubens.
The Triumph of Christ over Sin and Death.
About 1615.
The Four Evangelists.
87x99. About 1613 (according to Rooses, 1630). Largely ' touched ' by Rubens. Formerly
attributed to Vandyke.
Venus and Adonis.
About 1615. Near to the Hermitage picture.
Madonna and Child.
About 1615. The picture (with the Virgin squirting milk) copied in 1621 by Anna Roemer
Vischer.
Adoration of Kings.
Large early work in the Neues Palais, Potsdam. Largely ' touched ' by Rubens.
Madonna in Glory.
1620-25. Part of a large picture from a Brussels Church.
Mars and Venus. (Konigsberg Castle.)
1620-25.
224

LISTS OF PICTURES
Rome. Chiesa Nuova. 1. Angels Adoring Madonna. 2. St. Gregory and other
Saints. 3. St. Domitilla and other Saints.
On slate. Centre slab about 170 x 100. Painted in Rome, 1608. See pp. 26, 87-88,
Plates xxvm. and xxix.
Rome. Academy of St. Luke. Nymphs Crowning Goddess of Abundance.
Panel, 14$ x 20. Date uncertain. Thinly painted sketch. Plate xcu.
Rome. Gallery of the Capitol. Romulus and Remus.
Canvas, 82$ x 83$. About 1607, or perhaps later. See pp. 93, 94, 181. Plate xxxvi.
Rome. Villa Albani. Christ on the Cross.
About 48 x 30. Near to the Antwerp picture.
Rome. Borghese Gallery. The Visitation.
Panel, 38 x 29. Probably Italian period. See p. 103, Plate xxiv.
Rome. Palazzo Corsini. Lion and Tiger Hunt.
Perhaps before 1608. See p. 116.
Rome. Palazzo Rospigliosi. Christ and the Twelve Apostles.
Thirteen Panels, Studio work. 1618.
Rouen. Adoration of Shepherds.
134 x 90. About 1620. Pupils' work, 'touched' by Rubens. See p. 137.
St. Omer. Cathedral. Descent from Cross.
About 160 x 120. Repainted and spoilt. 1612-15. See p. 104.
St. Petersburg. Academy. Ecce Homo.
60 x-40. Italian period ; in style of Caravaggio.
St. Petersburg. Hermitage. (See separate list, p. 205.)
St. Petersburg. Leuchtenberg Collection. Ambrogio Spinola.
About 1625. See p. 152.
St. Petersburg. Stroganoff Collection. Rubens with his Young Son, who grasps
his righb hand.
About 1628. 50 x 43.
Schwerin. The Drunkenness of Lot.
About 1610.
Stockholm. Royal Museum.
Bacchanal.
Canvas, 79 x 85. Copy from Titian, made in Rome about 1607. See pp. 95, 154.
The Offering to Venus.
Canvas, 77 x 821- Copy from Titian, made in Rome about 1607. See pp. 95, 154.
Susanna and the Elders.
Panel, 26 x 20. Dated 1614. See p. 109, Plate lxviii.
Erichthonius in his Cradle.
121 x 13- Sketch on panel.
The Three Graces.
Canvas, 44 x 25. Figures by Rubens. Fruit by Breughel. About 1620. See p. 122,
Plate cccclxix.
Susanna and the Elders.
Canvas, 87 x 841- About 1620. Much repainted.
„ „ 225
R.— 15

RUBENS
Stockholm. Royal Museum — continued.
Samson and the Lion.
Sketch on panel, 13} x 18. About 1625. Plate cclxxxii. ^
Mercury quitting Antwerp.
Canvas, 114$ x 55. For the 'Joyous Entry' of Ferdinand in 1635. From design by
Rubens. See p. 173.
Strassburg. Collection Schrakner. Rape of Proserpine.
15 x 26. Sketch for the picture burnt at Blenheim in 1861.
Toulouse. Christ on the Cross between Two Thieves.
Panel, 115 x 75. About 1613. From Capuchin Church, Antwerp. Sketchy work, in bad
condition. Plate lxii.
Tournai. Cathedral. Purgatory.
About 120x90. 1618-20. Damaged work. (Companion to ' Maccabaeus' at Nantes.)
Tours. Alexandre Jean Goubau and his Wife kneeling before the Madonna.
48 x 32. Formerly in Antwerp Cathedral. Sent to Tours as a Portrait of Plantin.
About 1615.
Hero Crowned by Victory.
80 x 96. ' Touched ' work of about 1625. Ex Due de Richelieu.
Turin. Resurrection of Lazarus.
Probably of Italian period.
Valenciennes. Museum.
Descent from the Cross.
Much repainted. 1612-15. See p. 104.
Triptych of St. Stephen.
Centre panel, Martyrdom ofthe Saint; 174 x 111. Left wing — Stephen Preaching. Right
wing — Burial. Lower figures all by Rubens. 1619-20. From Abbey of St. Amand.
Venice. Prince Giovanelli. The Presentation in the Temple.
Sketch on panel for wing ofthe Antwerp 'Descent.'
Vienna. Academy.
Christ at the House of Simon.
Panel, 12 x 16. About 1618. Sketch for the picture in the Hermitage.
The Three Graces.
Panel, 47 x 39. 1618-20. The flowers by Breughel. See p. 122, Plate ccxvii.
Christ Bearing the Cross.
Panel, 25 x 19. Sketch for the Brussels picture. See p. 171.
Queen Esther.
Panel, 191 x 22i- Sketch for ceiling of Jesuits' Church. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxci.
The Annunciation.
Panel, 12 x 17. Sketch for ceiling of Jesuits' Church. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcu.
Adoration of Shepherds.
Panel, 12$ x 18$. Sketch for the ceiling of Jesuits' Church. 1620. See pp. 134, 138,
Plate cxcu.
226

LISTS OF PICTURES
Vienna. Academy — continued.
Ascension of Christ.
Panel, 13 x 12}. Sketch for ceiling of Jesuits' Church. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcm.
St. Cecilia.
Panel, 11x17. Sketch for ceiling of Jesuits' Church. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcvi.
St. Jerome.
Panel, 11} x 17}. Sketch for ceiling of Jesuits' Church. 1620. See p. 134, Plate cxcvn.
Boreas and Oreithyia.
Panel, 64 x 56. About 1620. All by Rubens. See pp. 113, 151, Plate ccxxm.
Tigress Suckling her Young.
Canvas, 36 x 55. About 1620. See p. 118, Plate ccxxvm.
Landscape with Sportsmen, Cows, and Dairymaids.
19 x 29. 1630-35, or perhaps earlier.
Two Sketches for Miracle of St. Francois de Paul.
About 1632. Perhaps only copies.
The Good Deeds of the Government of James i.
Panel, 26 x 19. Sketch for the Whitehall ceiling. 1630-34. See p. 157, Plate ccclxx.
Emperor Charles v.
Canvas, 86 x 54. ' Touched ' by Rubens. Painted for the ' Joyous Entry ' of Ferdinand
in 1635. Plate ccclxxxvi.
The Emperor Maximilian.
Canvas, 85 x 58. 'Touched' work for the 'Joyous Entry' of Ferdinand, 1635.
Plate ccclxxxvi.
The Rondo. Dance of Italian Peasants.
Panel, 9$ x 14. About 1637. Sketch for the picture in the Prado. See p. 167.
Vienna. Hofmuseum. (See separate list, p. 207.)
Vienna. Count Clam-Gallas. Equestrian Portrait (perhaps the Duke of Infantado)-
Canvas, 98$ x 71. Probably painted in Spain, 1603. Formerly attributed to Velazquez.
See pp. 89, 90, Plate v.
Vienna. Czernin Collection.
The Holy Women at the Sepulchre.
Panel, 44 x 57$. About 1620. Plate ccvi.
Man holding Glove.
Panel, 41 x 29$. Dated 1621. Plate ccxv.
Vienna. Count Harrach. Head of a Child.
Canvas, 13} x 11}. 1615-20. Plate cxxvn.
Vienna. Liechtenstein Gallery.
Christ carried to Tomb.
Panel, 34 x 25. After Caravaggio. Italian period. See p. 85, Plate xix.
Tiberius and Agrippina.
Panel, 26 x 22. Probably Italian period. Plate xviii.
St. Francis praying before Crucifix.
Panel, 31 x 18. About 1612. See p. 108, Plate xlviii.
The Toilet of Venus.
Panel, 49 x 39. Founded on Titian. 1607-12. See pp. 82, 95, 164, Plate xxx.
227

RUBENS
Vienna. Liechtenstein Gallery — continued.
Erichthonius and the Daughters of Cecrops.
Canvas, 86 x 126. About 1612. See pp. 82, 113, Plate li.
Bust of Man with Full Beard.
Panel, 22 x 26$. About 1615. Plate lxxxv.
Jan Vermoelen, Captain in Service of Spain.
Panel, 50 x 38. 1616. Plate cxxi.
Head of a Child.
Panel, 14$ x 10$. About 1616. Plate cvi.
Ajax and Cassandra.
Canvas, 82 x 108. Gone over by Rubens. 1616-18. Plate cxv.
History of Decius Mus.
1. Decius Recounts his Dream. 2. Decius Consults the Haruspices. 3. Decius Devotes
himself to the Gods ofthe Lower World. 4. Decius Sends Back the Lictors. 5. Decius
Mortally Wounded. 6. The Funeral of Decius. 7. Rome Triumphant. 8. Trophy of
War. Canvas, 116 in. in height, and of varying width. Designs for tapestry, carried
out in large part by Vandyke. 1617-18. See pp. 131, 132, Plates cl.-clv.
Apollo expelling Diana.
Panel, 22 x 37. About 1625. Design for ceiling. See p. 143, Plate cclxxxvi.
Albert and Nicolas Rubens, Sons of the Painter.
Panel, 64 x 36. About 1626. See p. 152, Plate ccxcv.
The Battle of Coutras.
Panel, 25 x 20. Sketch for unexecuted picture of the Henri iv. series. About 1630.
See p. 168, Plate cccxxxvu.
Henri iv. Seizing Opportunity by the Hair.
Panel, 25 x 20. Sketch for an unexecuted picture of the Henri iv. series. About 1630.
See p. 158, Plate cccxxxvm.
Psyche Carried to Heaven.
Panel, 25 x 29. 1630-35. Sketch for ceiling. See Plate ccclxii.
The Watering Place : Landscape with Two Dairymaids and Three Cows.
Panel, 30 x 41. About 1625. From the S. Donato Collection. See p. 184, Plate cclxxix.
Assumption of the Virgin.
Canvas, 200 x 140. 1638. Gone over by Rubens. See p. 148, Plate ccccxlix.
Vienna. Schonborn Collection (?). Faun with Basket of Fruit and Girl.
Canvas, 431 x 27- 1608-12, or perhaps earlier. The fruit by Snyders. See p. 113,
Plate xxxi.

Weimar. The Trinity, with Saints.
Canvas, 84 x 57. 1615-18. Studio piece, ' touched ' by Rubens. Plate cxvm.
Windsor Castle.
Winter : Gypsies in an Open Barn.
Canvas, 57$x88$. About 1614. From the Duke of Buckingham's Collection. See
pp. 120, 181, Plate lxxix.
Peter Paul Rubens.
Panel, 34 x 24. 1623. See p. 159, Plate ccxni.
228

LISTS OF PICTURES
Windsor Castle — continued.
Portrait of a Bride.
Panel, 33 x 22. 1625-30. Probably one of the Fourment sisters. Has been called both
Helen Fourment and Isabella Brant. On back, sketch of ' Continence of Scipio.'
From the Lunden family. See pp. 163, 187 n., Plate ccxcvu.
Summer : Peasants Going to Market.
Canvas, 60 x 91. 1616-20. From the Duke of Buckingham's Collection. See pp. 119,
181, Plate clxii.
The Family of Sir Balthazar Gerbier.
Canvas, 52 x 75. Only the central part original, and this probably painted 1629-30.
Bought in Holland by Frederick, Prince of Wales. See pp. 155, 156 n.
Holy Family with St. Francis, etc.
Canvas, 85 x 84. 1625-35. Poor ' touched ' work. Replica of picture now in New York.
See p. 168, Plate cccxxx.
The Battle of Nordlingen.
94 x 134. By Van der Hoecke, ' touched ' by Jordaens rather than by Rubens. For the
' Joyous Entry' of Ferdinand, 1635. See p. 173.
Philip n. on Horseback.
' Touched ' replica of portrait in Prado.
Worms. Freiherr von Heyl Herrnsheim. Virgin and Child.
Panel, 38 x 28}. About 1620. Plate cxcvm.

229

PART III.— ENGLISH PRIVATE COLLECTIONS
Ardilaun, Lord, Dublin.
Infant Jesus and John with Lamb.
Canvas, 24 x 31$. Bought Blenheim Sale. Probably copy of picture at Genoa.
Adoration of the Kings.
Canvas, 100 x 80. About 1627. Bought Blenheim Sale. Replica of the Louvre picture.
' Touched ' by Rubens. See p. 148.
Ashburton, Ex Lord. (Collection dispersed 1907. At Messrs. Sulley, 1908.)
Wolf and Fox Hunt.
Canvas, 96 x 149. About 1614-17. (O. M. 1871.) See pp. 116, 117, Plate cxiv.
Diana with Three Nymphs Hunting Stag.
69 x 148. Animals by Snyders, and landscape by Wildens. Bought from Joseph
Bonaparte, 1838. See p. 117.
1. Rape of Sabines. 2. Reconciliation.
Each 22 x 34. Finished studies (with differences) for the pictures of Mr. A. de Rothschild
and National Gallery. About 1635. (O. M. 1871.)
Ashburton, Formerly Lady. Peasants Going to Market.
87 x 109. Ex Alexander Baring. (O. M. 1889.) In part by Snyders.
Bankes, Mrs., Kingston Lacy.
Marchesa Isabella Grimaldi.
Canvas, 93 x 56. Signed and dated 1606. Also known as ' Marchesa Brigitta Spinola.'
(O. M. 1892.) See p. 91.
Marchesa Maria Grimaldi with Dwarf.
Canvas, 92 x 54. Probably 1606. Both from the Grimaldi Palace, Genoa. (O. M. 1892.)
See p. 91.
Cupids and Children Playing under Festoon of Flowers and Fruit.
Canvas, 66 x 86$. Perhaps pupil's work. (O. M. 1892.)
Barrymore, Lord. Six Sketches for the ' Achilles ' series.
Panel, 16 x 17 to 17 x 20. About 1630. (O. M. 1879.) See p. 175.
Bedford, Duke of.
Death of Abel.
58 x 73.
The Death of Hippolytus.
On metal. 20x28. (Doubtful.)
Portrait of Man. (Called ' P. P. Rubens.')
Brownlow, Earl.
The Death of Hippolytus.
Panel, 20x25. From Abr. Hume Collection. (O. M. 1893.)
230

LISTS OF PICTURES
Brownlow, Earl — continued.
Achilles and the Daughters of Lycomedes.
Sketch on panel for the Madrid picture. About 1617.
Flight into Egypt.
Panel, 19 x 25. Ex Abr. Hume. (O. M. 1893.)
Buccleuch, Duke of.
The Watering Place : Wooded Landscape.
Panel, 39 x 53. 1615-25. (O. M. 1872.) See p. 184, Plate ccxxxi.
Marie de Medicis (?).
26 x 20. Study of Head. About 1622.
Buckley, Mr. Alfred. Elevation of the Cross.
See Paris, Le'on Gauchez Collection.
Bunbury, Sir Charles, Barton Hall. Ambrogio Spinola.
Canvas, 51 x 49. To knees, in robes of Golden Fleece, with staff. (O. M. 1891.)
Bute, Marquis of.
Adoration of Kings.
Panel, 20 x 14$. 1619. Sketch for the triptych in St. Jean, Malines.
A Son of Rubens with Nurse in Kitchen, with Fruit, etc.
Canvas, 66 x 68. The fruit by Snyders. Engr. by Earlom. (O. M. 1871.)
The Temple of Janus.
Panel, 19$x24. Sketch for triumphal arch for 'Joyous Entry' of Ferdinand, 1636.
See p. 173.
Butler, Mr. Charles.
Lot quitting Sodom.
Canvas, 85x96. About 1617. From Blenheim. (O. M. 1885.) Probably largely by
Vandyke. See p. 132, Plate cxvi.
Portrait of Lady (' Virgo Brabantina ').
Canvas, 42x31. About 1625. All by Rubens. (O. M. 1880.) Ex Novar Collection.
Plate cclxxv.
Campbell, Sir John, Marchmont House. Sketch for Whitehall ceiling.
Panel, 27 x 37.
Carlisle, Earl of, Castle Howard.
Salome Receives the Head of John the Baptist.
Canvas, 48 x 45. Ex Sir Joshua Reynolds. (O.M. 1890.)
Earl of Arundel.
Canvas, 26$ x 21. 1629-30. (New Gallery, 1900.)
Carlisle, Earl of, Kensington. Wooded Landscape with Sheep.
26 x 36. (Near to landscape at Wilton House.)
Carnarvon, Earl of. Landscape with Rainbow.
Panel, 19$ x 25. Small Replica of Hermitage picture. About 1606. (O. M. 1887.) See p. 93.
Cook, Sir Frederick, Bart., Richmond.
St. Teresa praying, with Dove.
Panel, 38 x 24. 1610-15.
231

RUBENS
Cook, Sir Frederick, Bart., Richmond — continued.
St. Mark (' Apostles ' series).
Panel, 25 x 19. 1610-15.
Arabs Hunting Tigers.
Panel, 38 x 48. About 1615. Central figures by Rubens. See p. 116.
Seated Portrait of Gentleman with Fair Hair (sometimes called Philip Rubens).
Panel, 43 x 34. About 1615. See p. 128, Plate cxx.
Wladislas-Sigismund, Prince of Poland.
Canvas, 103 x 73. Life size, on bay horse. Probably from Metcalf sale (1850). About
1624. Perhaps by Soutman.
Two Octagonal Sketches for Whitehall Ceiling (?).
Panel. Each side 8 in. 1630-33. See p. 157.
Cupids riding on Goats, etc.
Canvas on panel, 8 x 31. Sketch for margin of Whitehall ceiling.
Meleager and Atalanta.
Panel, 10 x 22. Powerful sketch ; near to the Vienna picture. From Calonne Gallery —
thence (1795) to Mr. Humble, and (1812) to Lord Radstock. (O. M. 1873.) See p. 117.
The Madonna with Saints.
Canvas, 89 x 79. About 1638. Studio copy, ' touched ' by Rubens, of the picture in
St. Jacques, Antwerp. See p. 172.
Cowper, Countess, Panshanger. Pope and Emperor worshipping Saint.
Sketch for altar-piece.
Currie, Mr. Laurence, Coombe Bank.
Return from Egypt.
Canvas, 80 x 54. ' Touched ' work of about 1614. From Blenheim.
Holy Family with St. Elizabeth leaning over Cradle.
78 x 54. About 1615. From Blenheim.
Virgin and Child.
Panel, 41 x 30. From Blenheim.
Darnley, Earl of, Cobham.
Thomyris and Cyrus.
Canvas, 80 x 141. About 1626. From Queen Christina and Orleans Collections. The
principal figures all by Rubens. (O. M. 1877.) See pp. 146, 151, 152, 176. Plate ccc.
Lord Darnley has also the sketch for the picture.
Entry of Henri iv. into Paris.
Sketch. Canvas, 19 x 32. About 1630. (O. M. 1895). See p. 158.
Jupiter, Venus, and Cupid.
Sketch. 19$ x 14.
Derby, Earl of, Knowsley. The Brazen Serpent.
24 x 34. Sketch for picture in National Gallery. 1635-37.
Devonshire, Duke of, Devonshire House.
Holy Family (St. John kissing Foot of Jesus).
Canvas, 70 x 54. About 1630. (O. M. 1895.)
The Archduchess Isabella Clara Eugenia in costume of Religious Order.
1625. Probably rather by Vandyke. See p. 150.
232

LISTS OF PICTURES
Devonshire, Duke of, Holker Hall. Evening Landscape with Sportsmen and
Milkmaids.
Panel, about 48 x 66.
Feversham, Earl of. Old Woman and Boy with Candle.
40 x 32.
Grafton, Duke of. Ferdinand Crossing from Barcelona to Genoa ('Quos Ego').
Panel, 18x25. Sketch for the picture at Dresden, made for 'Joyous Entry' of 1635.
(O. M. 1882 as ' Neptune on Car'). 1634. See p. 173.
Hamilton, Hon. Mrs. Baillie. The Feast of Herod.
Canvas, 80 x 105. Ex Lady Eliz. Pringle. (O. M. 1878 and 1893). Only in part by Rubens.
Hamilton, Duke of. Daniel in the Lions' Den.
Canvas, 88 x 129. About 1618. See p. 119.
Hanbury, Mrs. Culling. The Family of Sir Balthazar Gerbier.
Canvas, 63x66. 1629. (O. M. 1871 and 1902 as 'Family of Duke of Buckingham').
Ex Lord Radnor, Samson Gideon (engraved by M'Ardell), Sir Culling Eardley, etc.
See pp. 155, 156.
Harcourt, Mr. Vernon, Nuneham. ' La Charrette Embourbee.'
Replica of St. Petersburg picture.
Hardwicke, Earl of, Wimpole.
Roman Charity (' Cimon and Perus ').
28x40. About 1625. See p. 151.
Ambrogio Spinola.
Bust, in rich armour with white ruff and Golden Fleece. About 1625.
Two Old Men.
Panel, over life-size.
Heseltine, Mr. J. P. The Marriage of Thetis and Peleus.
Panel, 11 x 16}. About 1635. Sketch for lost picture. Plate cccxcix.
Holford, Lieut.-Col., Dorchester House.
Erection of Cross.
Panel, 27 x 51. Sketch for centre and wings of Antwerp triptych. (O. M. 1887). See
p. 100.
Head of Young Woman.
The Beheading of St. Paul.
Panel, 14 x 9$. 1635-37. Sketch for the picture burnt at Brussels, 1695. See p. 171,
Plate ccccxi.
Ingram, Mrs. Meynell, Temple Newsam. Virgin and Child in Landscape, with
Baptist and Joseph.
Iveagh, Lord. Man carrying Buck and Woman carrying Fruit.
Canvas, 48$ x 47. (O. M. 1891.) Ex Earl of Aylesford.
Jackson, Mr., Camber well.
The Archduke Albert. About 1614.

The Archduchess Isabella Clara Eugenia. About 1614.

233

RUBENS
Jersey, Earl of, Osterley Park.
Duke of Buckingham on Horseback, Crowned by Fame. (Known also as
' Apotheosis.')
Canvas, 122$ x 134. 1625. (O. M. 1888.) See p. 145.
Apotheosis of Duke of Buckingham.
Ceiling piece. Canvas octagonal, 200 x 181. (O. M. 1884 as ' Apotheosis of Frederick
Henri.') See p. 145.
Kinnaird, Lord, Rossie Priory. Half-Length of Spanish Officer with Broad Hat.
Known as ' General Velazquez.'
Panel, 41 x 28$. (O. M. 1879.)
Leconfield, Lord, Petworth. Two Portraits of Kneeling Prelates.
Each 76 x 45.
Linlithgow, Marqtjis of, Hopetoun House. Adoration of Shepherds.
Large picture bought in Genoa.
Lonsdale, Earl of. Holy Family with St. Elizabeth, and St. John Riding on Lamb.
60 x 43.
Lowe, Mr. Drury, Locko Park. Portrait of Young Woman in Rich Costume.
Italian period.
Marlborough, Amy, Dowager-Duchess of. Venus and Adonis.
Canvas, 75x93. About 1620. Bought in at £7000 at Blenheim sale, 1886. Closely
founded on Titian. (O. M. 1885.) See p. 113.
Marlborough, Duke of. Virgin Invoked by Saints and by Albert and Isabella.
Panel, sketch, 26 x 20. Bought in at sale for £1510. Sketch or copy of picture in
Brussels Church, burnt in 1695.
Methuen, Lord, Corsham Park. Fox and Wolf Hunt.
About 1617. 70x100. (O.M. 1877.) See p. 116.
Mond, Dr. Ludwig. Landscape by Moonlight.
Panel, 25$ x 35. From the Rogers and Dudley Collections. 1635-38. Plate cccclxiii.
Morgan, Mr. J. Pierpont.
Anne of Austria.
Canvas, 59 x 47. 1625. Bought in at Marlborough sale at 3700 gs. (O.M. 1885 and 1903.)
Archduke Ferdinand as Governor of the Netherlands.
Canvas, 45 x 37. Painted 1635. Ex Vernon Smith Collection. (O.M. 1902.) Seep. 173,
Plate cccxc.
Morrison, Mr. Charles.
Holy Family under Archway. (' Vierge au Fruit ').
Canvas, 48 x 64. (O. M. 1882.) Ex Sir Simon Clarke.
Charles v. Receiving Deputation from Town of Antwerp.
Sketch on panel, 21 x 49.
Miracle of St. Francois de Paul.
43 x 30. Sketch on panel for lost picture. About 1632. See p. 147.
The Four Evangelists.
Panel, 25 x 26. Sketch for Duke of Westminster's picture.
234

LISTS OF PICTURES
Newcastle, Duke of, Clumber.
1. Woman with Grapes.
Canvas, 24 x 15.
2. Woman Smelling Rose.
Canvas, 24 x 15.
Norfolk, Duke of.
Isabella Brant.
Panel, 29 x 29$. Near to the Hermitage portrait. (New Gallery 1900. )
Peter Paul Rubens.
Canvas, 29 x 22. Replica of Windsor portrait. (New Gallery 1897.
Normanton, Earl of. Young Lioness Dying.
Canvas, 44 x 78. About 1618. (O. M. 1882.) See p. 119.
Northbrook, Earl of.
Abraham and Melchizedek.
Panel, 261 x 321. About 1627. Ex Julienne Collection. Finished study for the Grosvenor
House picture.
The Timber Waggon.
Panel, 20x22. 1630-36. Ex Rogers Collection. (O.M. 1872.) See p. 184, Plate ccccxxxiv.
Northumberland, Duke of. Return of Diana from Chase.
Canvas, 74X95. About 1616. Near to the Dresden picture. (O. M. 1873.)
Pembroke, Earl of, Wilton.
Wooded Landscape with Shepherd.
Canvas, 27 x 38. 1630-35. From the Orleans Collection.
Assumption of the Virgin.
Panel, 13x9$. Similar in design to the Antwerp 'Assumption.' Said to have been
painted for Lord Arundel, but probably not by Rubens.
Infant Christ and St. John, with Boy Angel and Lamb.
Panel, 37$ x 48. 1616-20.
Plymouth, Earl of.
A Falconer returning from Hunting (' The Fig ').
Canvas, 80 x 89. 1615-20. Accessories by Snyders. (O. M. 1894.) Ex Earl of Thanet.
See Plate cxlix.
Landscape with Rainbow and Shepherd Playing Flute.
Replica of Louvre picture. Canvas, 46$ x 67. (New Gallery 1900.) See p. 93.
Portarlington, Earl of. General, holding Baton, on Grey Horse.
Canvas, 54 x 40. (O. M. 1878 as ' Duke of Alva.') Perhaps Archduke Albert.
Portland, Duke of. Birth of Venus.
Vigorous grisaille, treated as a classical relief.
Radnor, Earl of, Longford Castle.
Return of Diana from Chase.
About 1616. Sketch on panel for the Dresden picture.
Nicholas Rubens, as a Boy of Eight or Nine Years.
Panel, 49 x 26. About 1622. (O. M. 1873.) 235

RUBENS
Radnor, Earl of, Longford Castle — continued.
Cupids Harvesting.
Panel, about 24 x 32. Landscape by Van Uden. (O. M. 1876.)
Robinson, Sir Charles. Landscape with Wild-Boar Hunt.
Canvas, 62 x 80. 1612-15. In part by Rubens.
Rosebery, Earl of. Loves of the Centaurs.
Panel, 20x28. From the Hamilton Collection. About 1635. See p. 176. Plate
ccccvi.
Rothschild, Mr. Alfred de.
Meleager and Atalanta.
29 x 21. About 1635. Finished sketch for picture at Dresden.
1 . Rape of Sabines. 2. Reconciliation.
Panel, each 21$ x 33$. Fine, late works, loosely treated. See p. 176. Plates ccclxvi.,
CCCLXVII.
Rothschild Family (Feed. Rothschild, O. M. 1877). Virgin with Child standing
on Lap.
Panel, 38 x 30. From the R. Forster Collection.
Rutland, Duke of, Belvoir Castle.
Erichthonius in his Cradle.
Seen by Reynolds in Dannoot Collection, Brussels. See p. 113.
Hercules and Antaeus.
Panel, 25$ x 19$. Finished study. Rather by Vandyke. About 1620. (O. M. 1907.)
' Le Croc en Jambe.'
Replica ofthe picture at Munich.
Crowning of St. Catherine.
102 x 85. Painted 1633 for Church of Augustinians, Malines. See p. 169.

Sandars, Mrs. Meeting of Esau and Jacob.
Panel, 19 x 15$. Sketch for the Munich picture. (O.M. 1907.)
Spencer, Earl, Althorp.
Sacrifice of the Ancient Law.
Sketch for one ofthe ' Eucharist ' series. 1627.
Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand.
Painted 1629. Replica ofthe Munich portrait. (O. M. 1870.)
A Daughter of Balthazar Gerbier.
Canvas, 28 x 21. 1629. Plate cccxix.
Sutherland, Ex Duke of, Stafford House. (At Messrs. Duveen, 1908.) Virgin
and Child Seated in Landscape with St. Joseph, etc.
Canvas, 63 x 58. About 1636. (O. M. 1875.) Plate cccclxvui.
Strathmore, Earl of, Streatlam Castle. Portrait of Man.
236

LISTS OF PICTURES
Warwick, Earl of.
St. Ignatius.
85x53. About 1620. Painted for Jesuits' Church, Brussels. Manchester 1857.)
Ambrogio Spinola.
Canvas, 44x34. Probably 1625. To knees, with baton. (O. M. 1871.)
Rubens's Daughter Playing with Goldfinch in Garden.
54 x 43. Bought 1840 at Averschott Sale. (Manchester 1887.)
Wellington, Duke of. Bust of Old Man.
Panel, 191 x 14- 1630-35. Plate ccclv.
Westminster, Duke of.
Pausias and Glycera.
Canvas, 79 x 74. Painted probably before 1600. (O. M. 1871.) See p. 82.
The Dismissal of Hagar.
Panel, 29x41. About 1615. (O. M. 1871.) See p. 109.
Abraham and Melchizedek.
Canvas, 168 x 228. Eucharist Series. 1627. See p. 150, Plate ccci.
Gathering of Manna.
Canvas, 192 x 163. Eucharist Series. 1627. See p. 150.
The Four Evangelists.
Canvas, 168 x 174. Eucharist Series. 1627. See p. 150.
The Four Latin Fathers of the Church.
Canvas, 168 x 134. Eucharist Series. 1627. See p. 150.
Adoration of Kings.
Canvas, 129 x 97. 1632. From convent at Louvain. See p. 169.
Williams-Wynn, Sir Herbert Watkin. Forest Scene at Dawn with Huntsmen
and Dogs.
Panel, 24 x 35. 1630-35. (O. M. 1888.) See p. 184.
Yates Collection, London (formerly in). The Continence of Scipio.
88 x 145. Ex Queen Christina and Orleans Collections.

Additional Note to Text. — To Vandyke rather than to Rubens should probably be attributed
M. Edmond de Rothschild's portraits of Peter van Hecke and his wife (pp. 128 and 160). The
same may be said ofthe Duke of Devonshire's Archduchess Isabella (p. 150). The portrait in the
Hermitage entitled ' Susanna Fourment and her daughter,' has possibly nothing to do with that
lady.

237

PLATE I

THE ANNUNCIATION
HOFMUSF.UM, VIENNA
BEFORE 1600

PLATE II

ST. HELENA AND THE TRUE CROSS
CHAPEL OF THE HOSPITAL, G BASSE.
1602

*¦ 1 1 BUJT ^11 tiw

tm*

k 0Q
v J1* ¦ ¦-- W
W m^*\ " 1 '>V .'" # ¦'•

Iobbbi Al
WlSrW^M bV 1 K i^'U'>f- i
1 & ^w" IM • >A*i« 'Mt "

^jgK^^M

^> jJW

Ba^Bl
fl w

' . JKk BL

m H Bm IBA
^^bbbbbbbV. - '"^wl
Hp ' ^V LbbW. mW-A. *»

^BnjUlB^B

bbW ^^^^Vbb^^^^H wfl
L X ;< • $ 1

¦KJjH

w ' J »

HI

Tp

BMBBl Hi
THE CROWNINC. WITH THORNS
CHAl'EL OK IHE HOSI'lTAL. GRASSE
l632
THE ELEVATION1 OF THE CROSS
CHAI'Et. OF THE HOSI'lTAL, liKASSE
1602
s

THE MYSTIC MARRIAGE OF ST. CATHERINE
COLLECTION OF MR. RODMAN WAMAMAKER, PHILADELPHIA, U.S.A.
1602-1606

EQUESTRIAN PORTRAIT (DUCA DEL INFANTADO?;
COLI.ECriOM OF COUNT CLA.M GALLAS, VIENNA
1603

PLATE VI

DEMOCRITUS, THE LAUGHING PHILOSOPHER
PRADO, MADRID
1603

HERACLIl'US, THE WEEPING 1'HU.OSOPHER
l'RADO, MADRID
1603

PLATE VII

ARCHIMEDES FRADO, MADRID
PROBABLY 1603

PLATE VIII

A

S0JP*

¦»&<-""' *•'?&

»

¦*m

;x jj

¦¦-¦¦

Wf%L *-,'¦¦*¦ k .-^BBB
I i Sail

it1*
10^
'.,'¦'¦¦'
x
¦: <•> '
ST. JAMES THE ELDER
PRADO, MADRID
1603

ST. ANDREW
PRADO, MADRID
1603

T3

*0

3

ST. PHILIP
PRADO, MADRID
1603

ST. MATTHEW
PRADO, MADRID
1603

PLATE XI

D Q

IS

c XHPS <

PL A TE XII

& 5
Cm *

o§

PRADO, MADRID
1603

ST. PETER
l'RADO, MADRID
1603

PLATE XI]'

THE TRINITY (UPPER PART OF PICTURE)
LlCEO, MANTUA
AUOUT 1605

JfcBBBj1/ Mf -jBkJsSfefcT,., ..I,,

IF m

BklirJ

f/*^/l ^fl^ Bfc oStt^ BBUl

:f7 >*r~

L$ iBHi
) ¦
Y §
/ >afc"- .... 7'.
DUKE VINCENZO GONZAGA OF MANTUA AND HIS FAMILY ADORING THE TRINITY
(LOWER PART OF PICTURL)
I.JCEO, MANTUA
ABOUT 1605
THE HAP 1 ISM OF CHRIST
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1605

THE TRANSFIGURATION MUSEUM, NANCY
ABOUT 1605

PLATE XVII

¦ >
' 1 i

•?

1
( ^t^ y^ flBBBfP' i^m

J i
V%|g| bhbbbbbL^bI*' 9bbbb1 1
X C^BBBBBBBEiP^Bi '-' HPn BBE^aBT^ ^SbI bb\ ' " 'al

"rjr ' "uflH 3bW

'Bf fl BJf ¦

THE DEATH OF SENECA
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1603-1606

PORTRAIT OF WOVERIUS
COLLECTION OF THE DUKE OF ARENBERG, BRUSSELS
1602-1606

TIBERIUS AND AGRIPPINA
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
1602-1606

PLATE XIX

\ ;x-"xy-x;x-.-'
1 % xx":-;\
^fl . :w!r^r-

BBT^BBktl BBT T^

i ^Bfls'. s 1

BBflkifE^sflRB >** flL. 1 >-

MJy^^A ¦

L 2flf ('¦ ^ JbI

»!3w / ^
| /f7(f i Bra '
[Sn Si^^
BbV. ^ll
tw IkZlJ
¦# J flk. ' fl
Br \ pBi
' BBT 'i ¦ fl«^P*
flflp^28
T H E E N I' OMBMEN T
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
1604-1606
PL A TE XX

LIPSIUS AND HIS PUPILS (THE FOUR PHILOSOPHERS)
PITTI, FLORENCE
1606-1607 (in PART)

THE PALATINE HILL
1-OUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1606

Ik.hi

THE TRIUMPH OF JULIUS CAESAR
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
1605-1607

PL A TE XXIII

THE COCK AND THE DIAMOND
SUERMONDT MUSEUM, AIX-LA-CHAPELLE"
1606

PLATE XXIV

THE VISITATION
BORGHESF. GALI ERY, ROME
1607-1610

PLATE XX I'

THE CIRCUMCISION
SANT'. AMBROGIO, GENOA
1605-1607

PLATE XXVI

ST. GEORGE AND. THE DRAGON
PRADO, MADRID
1605- 1 60S

PLATE XXVII

MADONNA ADORED BY SAINTS
MUSEUM, GRENOBLE
1607

PLATE XXVIII

MADONNA AND CHILD WITH ANGELS
CHIESA NUOVA, ROME
1608

Wf^*

HI >'*

B&?H
JBJb^ XaBBggX
¦'¦*^jr
w^^ B% ';
yf
#
JKtT " JbbI
W^mwr'J mi •- 7^ 1
BL ^"s^ii
^xY3^
2tt* 'X
FAUN WITH BASKET OF FRUIT
SCHONBORN COLLECTION, VIENNA
l6o3-l6l2
TWO SATYRS
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1606-1610
HEADS OF APOSTLES
COLLECTION OF THE LATE MR. C. T. YliRKES, NEW YORK
160S-1612

PORTRAIT OF*; A, YOUNG GENOESE
M. CHARLES S^DKLMEYER, PARIS
1607

PL A TE XXXIII

O

2. l; o
¦2 I I
Z .- '5

,f#*-X

PL A TE XXXIV

J z
O D
3 B
a =

o *

PL A TE XXXI '

'xt
pit> o X

IHXOo Hu

z
5 U

a
X

PLATE XXXl'I

ROMULUS AND REMUS
CAPITOLINE GALLERY, ROME
1607-1610

/

PLATE XXXVII

ttrv-

A ^>

-

*£3

\ *
(mi |

af 2
xy
Bl
* ¦¦¦"U^i. §9'
; '¦•" »
^AttSi BH&M
mnfi *Bl - ¦ Bfl ^L^'^^BBj
\±
fit
B
BB^BBB Hb^^^ ' ' .B^BBBB' -.''?*
E2. '--
mr
WfESMaAt'iM m . J .-M j
EflEty -.JbbW
T xi
H67/ . -,*t / j*ffi . •.'• .'''-hmmVmW
- ^ST /;--
W V
' \..\
.x, «,
IM1 1
A**t
¦' 'Y ¦ **
WW M
^ ~«tf* . .."ft;
¦BF'
BBW^J
rr t^^ELAM-zmr- Wimtm
: /-*>! *
tmt . ^ 1|g6?,
, ;i? .
P^
r
», ' ' TBR
**-b#* ¦¦/
. pJH
^t : ^ .
- -a
BT ¦-' .<atefc.' ?/
. "^
*> "^^rjSZ
RUBENS AND ISABELLA BRANT
ALTE PIN'AKi' THEK, MUNICH
1 609
LANDSCAPE WITH A RAINBOW
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1605-1615

LANDSCAPE WITH A RAINBOW
LOUVRE, PARIS
1605-1615

-0
h hi

PLATE XL

P Z< <mmZ <

"V

THE DRUNKENNESS OF LOT
M. JULES FERAI , PARIS
ABOUT l6lO

h

1

H|M<{ : :

¦'¦¦ p;;

P9JP^BBflBW^S9^PHBB^' '• ¦' f^Sw^X"^""" ••" "^BES'BBJiPX'^ff^gT^"'" " ~1

1

1 J
;t1
9HPII^»iX^«
i |#p
#pm
i
It
ij
a
'
J
¦ ¦ .
IPlBrMTTiv^'n
iBflTjB
kHhEXSj
i
j
! j
l ¦¦ XX' i
9k. ~4ML
km
Br*-
HSBl* i i
^^^
*»- i v» ^i
¦: 7% v
KB~"; W:iam%, ' at
' w
j i 1
1 1 j
Irk
J****^..
vBl Bi '' "
Jf'jJBT X ''
bjjbVbM^bbbT
m
BEeK^^ s-
L^^^
¦"-^
f
^
¦
1
i
Ml
H;'
WfM
1 \ " /¦ y*2s£
¦aSmi
y
THE ELEVATION OF THE CROSS
CATHFDHAL, ANTWERP
i6lO-l6n
THE ADORATION OF THE KINGS

PRADO, MADRID 1610

h

PL A TE XLIV

THE APOCALYPTIC WOMAN
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH

PLATE XLV

THE APOCALYPTIC WOMAN
COLLECTION OF THE LATE CONSUL WEBER, HAMBURG
l6,6-l6ll

THE DEAD SAVIOUR WITH MARY AND JOHN (PIETA)

HUf'MUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT l6tl

PLATE XLVII

CHRIST ON 'J'HE CROSS
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT l6lO

.1^*."

m

ST. FRANCIS AT THE ACROSS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1612

CHRIST. ON THE CROSS
AI.TK I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1612

PLATE XLI.X

COLLECTION OF PRINCE ANTOINE D ARENUERG, BRUSSELS
ABOUT _l6l2

PLATE L

ISABELLA BRANT
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1612

ERICHTHONIUS AND THE DAUGHTERS OF CECROPS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT l6l2

h
it. hi

PLATE LII

in u
O 3
« H
< w
^* D
P "
< E
O *
z a

DIOGENES SEEKING FOR A MAN
STAEDEL INSTITUTE, FRANKFORT-ON-THE-.M A1XE
l6lO-l6t5

h,h

THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY
ROYAL MUSEUMy BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1612

BBflflflflflflflflBBBflWBlBBflflBil^ «^j 9MBMI

K&jr ^r* -m fl **^' j

j-^flBPf*> fte -

¦W. Si 5^ ^B

¦mi-'"' ' ^^b*

JK| 73k .-/ ¦¦ I Bl
BPW 4f 1

Hfe*'. ¦¦ '-^jaV'

.- ; . "V4/-X. •; " '  '

^B^BBV ~

THE DISMISSAL OF HAGAR
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 1612

hj h

th

THE CONVERSION OF ST. BAVON (FINISHED SKETCH)

NATIONAL GAI.I.F.RV, LONDON
ABOUT 1612

PLATE LVII

ST. SEBASTIAN
MUSEUM, BERLIN
IOI2-IOI4

PLATE LVIII

DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1611-1614

PLATE LIX

OG

o

flflflfli

BBBBBBflBH

BBBBBBBBBBBBl ¦ HBl

JBw

¦'"¦Mi

_-.. ..-:

—
 .... "' :

_Sb1 BJSHl
• •'- .%*$$£** -S >< "tik. J
*"' "
'- t'" 'mm
 — ->
PLATE LX

DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS
(centre panel)
CATHEDRAL, AN IWttRP
1612-1614

PLATE LX!

DEPOSITION FROM THE CROSS

MUSEUM, LILLE
l6ll-l6(4

PLATE LXII

CRUCIFIXION
MUSEUM, TOULOUSE
ABOUT 1613

PLATE LXIIl

CHRIST GIVING THE KEYS TO ST. PETER
COLLECTION OF MR. £.. k. BACON, N'KW YORK
ABOUT 1613

PLATE LXIV

T. CHRISTOPHER AND THE HERMIT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK', MUNICH
1612-1614

KING DAVID WITH THE HARP
STAEDEL INSTITufE, FR AN K FORT-UN-THE-M Al N F
1610-1615

MAN IN FUR COAT
HOFMUSEUM, VIF.NNA
161O-1615

i.h.

PL A TE LXII

/

-THE DOUBTING THOMAS
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1613-1615

PL A TE LXVII

NICOLAS ROCKOX

ADRIANA PEREZ, WIFE OF NICOLAS ROCKOX

WINGS Ol- THE ALTAR-PIECE THE DOUBTING THOMAS
MUSEUM, AXIWERf
1613-1615

PLATE LXVIII

SUSANNA AND THE ELDERS
NATIONAL MUSEUM, STOCKHOLM
1614

PL A TE LXIX

THE STATUE OF CERES
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1612-1615

hh
ra h

JUPITER AND CALLISTO
ROYAL GALLERY, CASSEI.
1613

PROMETHEUS AND THE EAGLE
MUSEUM, OLDENBURG
1610-1615

s hih.
2

"0h

VENUS FRIGIDA
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1614

PL A IE LXXI II

¦J-. J
z ~
a o
o y

- a o.

5 y

PLATE LXXIV

THE DEAD SAVIOUR (PIETA)
HOFMUSF.UM. VIENNA
l6l4

"0
h

THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT
ROYAL GALLERY, CASSEL
1614

¦oh

THE HOLY FAMILY WITH THE PARROT
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1614

THE PRODIGAL SON
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1612

PL A TE LXX IX

THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH

THE OVERTHROW OF SENNACHERIB
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1614

•mm'

I- >t

PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG MAN

ROYAL GALLERY, CASSEL
1612-1615

PORTRAIT OF A LADY
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 1615

PLATE LXXXIU

PORTRAIT OF RUBENS
UFFIZI, FLORENCE
ABOUT 1615 -

¦srah
¦y.

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1615

PORTRAIT OF AN OLD WOMAN
ALTE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1615

¦

¦ X -
w%
"jKJ
¦'
ip
Bwfek flf»
.
'IP-- S
g^.
L
¦
(
*v«bV
x
$y*«.
"
' 4 jSBp
x
1
N
\ .
V-
>
'
PORTRAIT OF A MAN
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1615
PORTRAIT OF A MAN
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 1615
5
"XIh ho S3

A FRANCISCAN MONK
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
AROUT 161C

PORTRAIT OF AN OLD LADY
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG

PLATE LXXXVI 1

CJD

x s :

o<mm
fa

z
<Si

PLATE LXXXVIII

CHRIST ON THE CROSS
LOUVRE, PARIS
1615

PLA TE LX.\XIm\'

CHRIST AND THE REPENTANT SINNERS
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1615

PLATE XC

LAMENTATION OVER THE DEAD SAVIOUR
MUSEUM, BERLIN
1610-1620

PLATE XCI

CHRIST DESCENDING TO THE EARTH
FORMERLY IN SCHUBART COLLECTION, MUNICH
ABOUT 1615

hjh-

NYMPHS CROWNING THE GODDESS OF PLENTY
ACADEMY OF ST. LUKE, ROME
161O-1620

THE ALLIANCE OF EARTH AND WATER (NEPTUNE AND CYBELE)
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 161^

PERSEUS AND ANDROMEDA
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1615

3 mm

hj
h

VENUS AND ADONIS
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 1615

NYMPHS AND SATYRS
MUSEUM, OLDENBURG
1610-1620

3 ra'

S

THE DEATH OF CLEOPATRA
GALLERY SANSSOUCI, POTSDAM
ABOUT 1615

MELEAGER AND ATALANTA
ROYAI- GALLERY, CASSEL
ABOUT 1615

PLATE XCVII

W
Q •A*-.
Ou

I 3
o <

X
H

CJ

¦#!•'*

¦'»

A
K^lr*
jfiV ^SP
¦7 .
**
1
jP
-*¦' V * N
t
|JJL *¦' Aj
0*f
77; jj^H
r
Y-
P&xg MNM^BtM^- 4B
; ..'
-<*
>
' 4
z
jr>
vtS^I
S i
^
iip
BbJ«
>'^ ...cw
* «k. dr
V*
V
%¦ >
:i^--S
\?4
V/
'
j-v
.-¦>' J:
ra
DIANA RETURNING FROM THE CHASE
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
ABOUT 1615
'

B^a£_rf-
Mr^if^^m* SIT *wfci
r .r^- '
1 Jbt "'li
L </1f ',*
BYCM«
gw|3. c
71; -*
™rjk' ' ^f^jaiL.
I^WflF v,y firjjA
J^J^
v *¦¦
L ¦ * \j^ ( ¦ «5
jJL ;MJ
¦L> ••3mf-
(L k'
x^|
IbV' "H
wJP Jv 'ELM.
Mn .j jgUugj
PJL.v-1
.r r»
iii
¦> Jl
--¦' ' 4fc 4
¦t ^^ jflfl
^*^L>-^"T"^ , Jfl™^^^^ jjp
ii*^ '-^
tmWmX/J
bbbL^J
Bf •
i 
¦
DIANA RETURNING FROM THE CHASE
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
ABOUT 1615
hih iv
PLA TE C

THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
l6lO*l6t5

PLA TE Cl

THE LITTLE LAST JUDGMENT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1615

PLATE CU

THE FALL OF THE DAMNED
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1614-1618

PLA TE CIII

MADONNA WITH THE HOLY INNOCENTS
LOUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1615

kso

THE BATTLE OF THE AMAZONS

PLATE CV

3 2
Is

0
X

MADONNA AND CHILD
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 1615

HEAD OF A CHILD
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1616

PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG MAN
AI.TE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1616

PORTRAIT OF A MAN IN ARMOUR
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1615-1G2O

hjhhi
n 7:

PLATE CVIII

¦ 'tjirf a1B8Sr?8K ^"^^qTlKF'WE^^* *yrTii^mf;m

-jjpK^HI :. IS^^Mfc^syJBiF^ 5» %T ~JF^mr^m\ ^^m^^^^^f^k

«^<v\*SJS£ ^CS^iibbVMbW ^¦bbf^bbm Www ^D

wjT! '^¦mF"w '.. ^f&?*flm%^a&^x953Bmb ^^^Ba^^BT^BK !¦¦ BB^^ ''5fnHl

- '*'' '' ^SEr^rf > VJ PJ* J#j jjH

' - :rf»

" "1' f* '¦--

?>^BH :^? -^^w* ;

•^r- . „

x-4- -^^ •

,r-^x^

• ''-. -.'fcr *. #:' *' JR ¦?*lS ^4 in

:y^^*Ij ^L

¦ ¦•¦ m -tr t-mM ¦<i-t4ir+-^<Brr V I

*W5»b i* *sxr«J": '

S|B2Bg|BJBMjB i,-'/''^5Jk Brn iilBV' "HiB B ilBSF ,,,'JaJ

Bs§HKf<'^X1.' W^m&^L? JrlraP'''
X"^'fcf
"— ¦*»¦' r'"-- Hi VtCi
^"'''9Ss_y<-&3HlB3B ^fci-*- fe %^si£ifi T//t^^B ' ¦**
,j - -T!"
BSSW^^.JfJ; J '''MP**** '" " -'''" i :* t&5>J »R r'^^V
iib>bbjimBHb1»3^hk SM^^^^^-^BKA^^i^iiMI BJB»e^M%
¦^^*^BBfiBB?!m*^B^BBlKA^ *xv *PS
> >t^BMBWWNB^BiWr^^\fea^SwBB mmmKtsSr \ <^BBflflflflfl
¦^^,^#;,. ?f
j
~!!2sBBB1 Hfl BfiiL:'-/*!,!*ail
WILD-HOAR HUNT
MUSEUM, MARSEILLES
1614-1617

hih hn

PLA TE CX

fm

2o

PLATE CXI

'P I
X t
O i

PLATE CXI I

CROCODILE AND HIPPOPOTAMUS HUNT
ROYAL GALLERY, AUGSBURG
1615-1618

2

ra

WOLF AND FOX HUNT
EX ASkBURTON COLLECTION (MESSRS. SULLEY AND CO., LONDON)
1614-1617

PLATE CXV

'J: - w>

X U

hih
hi
th

LOT LEAVING SODpM
COLLECTION OF MR. C. BU'II.ER, LONDON
ABOUT 1617

V

THE GARLANDED MADONNA WITH BOY ANGELS
'AI.TE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1616

hj i.h

PLATE C XVII I

THE TRINITY WITH SAINTS
MUSEUM, WEIMAR
1615-IOlS

PLA TE CXIX

THE FLAGELLATION
CHURCH OF ST. PAUL, ANTWERP
16.7

> si I ll. U^^\

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
COLLECTION OF SIR F. COOK, BART., RICHMOND
ABOUT 1615

PLATE CXXI

* •

*

jrtBf^-
.
BBfll Bi
1% ^ ^^^^^^^K
^^¦ibbbbbbbbbbbbbbI
WftmffWTI ¦¦¦*£# ¦/ . 1
/^ Jk
0 1
t; ¦
'^Nri'-
LJ
If 1
' '
1
4t
B^^Lm. BBv/fl
BkX
'mMf '¦¦
3®i iS^Si
\ J-iwil I
ut J
M
*v*
m
^ « '
¦Kifli
*.** .
PORTRAIT OF JAN VERMOELEN
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
1616
PLA TE CXXI/

PORTRAIT OF CORNEILLE DE LANXSCHQXT
COLLECTION OF SENATOR -ALLAKJJ, ljUJUSSELS
1615-^618

PLATE CXXI If

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
COLLECTION OF MR. J. HAGE, COPENHAGEN
1615-1620

PLATE CXXI I'

PORTRAIT OF JEAN CHARLES DE CORDES
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
1617-1618

PLATE CXXV

PORTRAIT OF JACQUELINE VAN CAESTRE
ROYAL MUSKUM, BRUSSELS
1617-1618

PORTRAIT OF A MAN

PORTRAIT OF A MAN

h
th 3

ROV PLAYING WTIH 1UKD
(j'KOBABLY RUUENs's SON NICOLAS)
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1620

HEAD OF A CHILI)
HARRACH GALLERY, VIENNA
1 6 I s-1620

PL A TE CXXV I II

m-a
xO<a'xH
o

PORTRAIT OF THE INFANTA ISABELLA
l'RADO,i'MADR]D 1615-1620

8n s

PLA TE CXXX

MADONNA AND CHILD WITH ST FRANCIS
MUSEUM, LILLE
1615-1618

PLA TE CXXXf

ST. AUGUSTINE BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE VIRGIN
ACADEMY OF SAN FERNANDO, MADRID
ABOUT 1618, OR PERHAPS EARLIER

PLATE CXXXII

HOLY FAMILY WITH A BASKET
GALLERY, SANSSOUCI, POTSDAM
1615-1620

PLA TE CXXX/ II

HOLY FAMILY
WALLACE COLLECTION, LONDON
ABOUT 1617

PLATE C XXXIV

ST. FRANCIS RECEIVING THE STIGMATA
WALLRAF-RICHARTZ MUSEUM, COLOGNE
ABOUT 1617

PLATE CXXX V

PARACELSUS
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
1615-1620

PLATE CXXXVI

miX<CmX
z <

£ 2

PLA TE CXXXVI/

SAINTS PETER AND PAUL
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1615-1620

STUDY FOR HEAD OF S. PETER
MUSEUM, BERLIN
1615-1620

THE ENTOMBMENT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1615-1620

PLATE CXXX IX

HWin5<xmm

XE-

zo

PLATE CXL

PORTRAIT OF CHARLES DE LONGUEVAL
HERMITAGE, ST. 1'ETERSBURG
1615-1620

PLATE CXL1

NATURE ATTIRED BY THE GRACES
CORPORATION GALLERY, GLASGOW
1615-1620

h>hIt.
hhi

CHILDREN WITH GARLANDS.
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH

PLATE C.XLIIl

?J u-
oz

08:

K
o

wH

PLATE CXLIV

ADAM AND EVE IN PARADISE
MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
1615-1620

<

hi th hi

hj'Sra

DIANA ASLEEP AFTER THE CHASE
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH'

PHILEMON AND BAUCIS ENTERTAINING JUPITER AND MERCURY
HOFMUSEUM. VIENNA
IO15-IO2O

hihn '<h

PLA TE C.XL I III

FALCONER RETURNING FROM HUNTING
COLLECTION OF THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH, REDDITCH
1615-1620

PLATE CL

THE HISTORY OF DECIUS MUS
I.— DECIUS RELATES HIS DREAM
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
1617-1618

PLATE CL1

? <
x I
Um £
X a.

X I

PLATE CLII

ami <
mmmmmm•mm
W £ <
X " 5

U O
K H
0 7=.

5 a
>• 3.
o *
* O>H
0

HISTORY OF DECIUS MUS
IV.— DECIUS SENDS BACK THE LICTORS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY VIENNA
1617-1618

h
h5

hih
h
th
h

HISTORY OF DECIUS MUS
V.— THE DEATH OF DECIUS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
16,7-1618

| :W

BJBHBOBHBM^'' J

HT\ MHfl

ammmm
IL . - ^
I ,- flLS»- a jtef*^_J
_JBBjBi B^^fl

L .is* 1 '^R.^^B^i,4j
4MM_ .^ , ^
£ •$*£-¦' "£*;
¦\^$Aw^,
|t >*^BB^BBBtoi^. ¦¦¦ .-»i5^i ^lH^Bfc-. *^3
1 ¦ '''¦-Iv' " rll
»i^— «^BBJBK.
v- -
* * \j t~!M HI 3!
•'•k*\
¦ :'£-^-m <¦ Jt^a"- iVbSbIbbI "bY Pv^H
&> *^*'la2SB^ iH bb^B ' IbI
5"\ " A_5t4SHP*-'
w^ .,
¦yv-
L m**^ ^^^. w,.-BBBBBk.
Bl E&ss^Aai? iBB
_j (^3B^" 7«i
X^v
'*
tm - ¦**¦¦ BmBJ
HISTORY OF DECIUS MUS
VL— THE FUNERAL OF DECIUS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLFRV. VIENNA
I6l7-l6l8
h;t- sth h
PLATE CLVI

w

¦*tt$u3f?-

• -.'".
Iax^ -
mm.
"" "'"," -^gtfMSy.
jT^xi
r
t'_ '¦
.H
¦W^k' ¦ .- k:^BL7rm
^S^fi ' \M
M$
6
'
' BBBik^LjIte '• ^Bl- ' "¦-•waffi
3
X
ft
!vi
X i^ " .- -JBjEfe- ..dP
il/l
m, '¦ '% * '
*um& ^
m ' ft*
X""'^.
-
y * w £
Wk fc ^s
!lg?jP
jRfi^L ¦»
^^F
,--.-
•
/..: x} ...
wj
'^mtom
¥
1
 2
^l^j^re^
';vV^^5^2S|
fflEr J*s®e£--
mw r
i *iiP
BBY - ' f'^M
;
¦ a. y
m
Ip
k
Wfi
1
"
THE RECONCILIATION OF JACOB AND ESAU
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ADOUT l6l8
PLA TE CL VII

JUDAS MACCABEUS PRAYING FOR THE DEAD
MUSEUM, NANTES
1618-1620

PLATE CLVI II

A HERO CROWNED BY VICTORY
HoFMUSEUM, VIENNA
APl'UT l6lQ

his

s ra
<h h

PERSEUS AND ANDROMEDA
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1615-1620

THE RECONCILIATION OF THE ROMANS AND SABINES
ALTE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
AUOUT 1618

5 hih

PLATE CLX'II

THE CAPTURE OF TUNIS BY THE EMPEROR CHARLES V
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT l6l8

PLATE CLXIV
-J

'LE CHRIST A LA PAILLE"
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1618

PLATE CLXV

XI \DONNA AND CHILD

ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST

WINGS OF THE ALTAR-PIECE "CHRIST A LA PAILLE"
MUSEUM. ANTWERP
AnniiT tA.R

PLATE CLXVI

JONAH THROWN INTO THE SEA
MUSEUM, NANCY
I6l8-l6l9

CHRIST WALKING ON THE WATER
MUSEUM, NANCY
1618-161Q

hjhIIhi
<h h-

hh. '".
r.

STUDIES OF A NEGRO'S HEAD
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT l6lS

THE ADORATION OF THE KINGS
MUSEUM, LYONS
ABOUT 1 6 J 8

ih h

PLATE CLXX

V

THE GREAT LAST JUDGMENT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1618

PLATE CLXX I

THE LAST JUDGMENT
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
ABOUT 1618

PLA TE CLXXII

ST. AMBROSIUS AND THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT l6ig

PLATE CLXXII1

THE FALL OF THE REBEL ANGELS
AI.TE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1619

PLATE CLXX IV

THE LAST COMMUNION OF ST. FRANCIS
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1619

PLATE CLXXV

THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1619

PLATE CLXXV I

THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1619

V

PL A TE CLX.XVII

CRUCIFIXION 'LE COUP DE LANCE1
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
162O

PLATE CLXXVI1I

THE- ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN
ROYAL MLSI'UM, BRUSSELS*
1618-1620

i ' PLATE CLXXIX

THE ASSUMPJIOX OF THE VIRGIN
ACADEMY. DUSSELDORF
ABOUT 1620

PLATE CLX.XX

1 ^^ L S
mm BBB? ¦?''''¦ W™ '¦¦ ^w*w5 'tygtfSL
1 ^^r 'mW(kWmmmmw\ Ib* ¦ vx -«L/

L/' .j v *• mB 4L^F 1

¦ ZaP  k ¦~T"*i

VBft JBBBPbiE-i*^ ' Yv "' ' .-'' ¦iSH^BBHnB

'"0^M,%

mm ¦' H /^^fBB
4r bI ^B^Tl
/ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦> ¦ ¦

jrM_ > W H V 1

"^ 'x

§ ll

BBBP^C x ^^
^^ElrSJL ' "^ feJBBpJBBi
ISliWBSBBBB^^^^^BB

THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1620

PLATE CLXXXl

MARTYRDOM OF ST. URSULA AND HER COMPANIONS
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT T620

PL A TE CLXXX1I

THE VIRGIN AND SAINTS INTERCEDING FOR THE WORLD
MUSEUM, LYONS
ABOUT 162O

PLA TE CLXXX1H

X z o
z Xs

PLATE CLXXXX

THE MIRACLES OF ST. FRANCIS XAVIER
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1620

PLA TE CLXXXV

THE MIRACLES OF ST. FRANCIS XAVIER
(SKETCH FOR PICTURE OPPOSITE)
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1620

PL ATE CLXXXV!

> / • , J*

THE MIRACLES OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA
IIOFML'SEUM, VIENNA
162O

PLATE CLXX XV I I

THE MIRACLES OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA,
(sketch for picture opposite)
hofmuseum, vienna
J62O

i

'
'**Hm
-"•sb**
I
1
iJK -%B» w
%&¦-¦.- -ky ^ ,-^tmmmaSm^KH/k
Jk^V';-M
' fljft "':.
|»
^2H
VX
f
j
Vk'A
#n
^V# ' -«%
jk
i^%J
* >
W^Zm*
f
9
*
6
^
Jk^L\V"
I
th h>
TftE CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN
LOUVRE, PARIS
i6zo
PLATE CLXXXIX

THE MIRACLES OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA
SANT" AMBROGIO, GENOA
ABOUT 1620

PL A TE CXC

V

AI3RAHAM AND MELCHISEDEK
LOUVRE, PARIS
1620

ABRAHAMS SACRllICE
LOUVRE, PARIS
1620

PLATE CXC I

ESTHER BEFORE AHASUERUS
ACADEMY, VIENNA

THE ASCENSION OF ELIJAH
MUSEUM, GOTHA
1620

PLATE CXCU

THE ANNUNCIATION
ACADEMY, VIENNA
I02G

THE ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS
ACADEMY, VIENNA
1620

PL A TE C XCI 1 1

THE ELEVATION OF THE CROSS
LOUVRE, PARIS
1620

THE ASCENSION
ACADEMY, VIENNA
162O

PLATE CXCIV

ST. BASIL
MUSEUM, GOTHA
1620

UW/&f

B\' •JbbP^^^^^ to!
KifiS&dBT
^^BV1-. ^^+*- J * ^mk m mmammw 1
f^Bf ¦ «L«iirff > BsMfeAk. -mJBB bt J?

1

^V . -BE" **\ "*.- >6 A

j

; ij
¦¦¦ ¦¦¦'¦¦'¦. ' 1
X '<

W"

THE FALL OF THE REBEL ANGELS
COLLECTION OF PROF. WILLEMS, BRUSSELS
1620

PLATE CXCV

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN
MUSEUM, GOTHA
1620

ST. ATHANASIUS
MUSEUM, GOTHA

PLATE CXC VI

ST. BARBARA
DUI.WICH COLLEGE GAT LERV, LONDON
1620

ST. CECILIA
ACADEMY, VIENNA
1620

PLATE CXCV II

ST. JEROME
ACADEMY, VIENNA
1620

ST. AUGUSTINE
MUSEUM, GOTHA

PLA TE CXCVIII

MADONNA AND CHILD
COLLECTION OF FREIHERR VON HEVI. ZU HERRNSHEIM, WORMS
ABOUT 1620

\

PLATE CXC IX

HOLY FAMILY
PITTI, FLORENCE
ABOUT 1620

\s

VIRGIN AND CHILD
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1620

VIRGIN AND CHILD
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1620

PLA TE CCI

U
zUmXX

PL A TE CCII

¦J, ,

THE TRINITY
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1620-1621

PLATE CCI1 1

ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS
MUSEUM, MARSEILLES
1619

1 fW m/r mJ
¦Lvk C «

HE* -
A^£r4m\

. . ¦ J. J^F^Ki

IB |^8H§. m|
'.^mrS. mamfkmSL

>**

^•- " r^s*'"

Jl

?fl* ^ NV^

%:¦

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
MUSEUM, MARSEILLES
1619

PLATE CCIV

THE PENITENT MAGDALEN
HUFMUSEUM, VIF.NNA
ABOUT 1620

PLATE CCV

hih. hi
th

THE HOLY WOMEN AT THE SEPULCHRE
CZERNIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1620

PLATE CCVII

MUCIUS SOEVOLA BEFORE PORSENNA
NATIONAL GALLERY, BUDAPEST
1620-1625

PLATE CCVII I

THE EARL AND COUNTESS OF ARUNDEL
ALTE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1620

PLATE CdlX

SUSANNA FOLRMENT
(le chapeau de paille)
national gallery, london
ABOUT 162O

PLATE CCX

PETER VAN HECKE
COLLECTION OF BARON EDMUND DE ROHTSCHILD, PARIS
1618-1620

PLATE CCX I

CLARA FOURMENT
COLLECTION OF BARON EDMUND DE ROTHSCHILD, PARIS
1618-1620

PLATE CCXII

PORTRAIT OF DOCTOR VAN THULDEN
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1620

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
H OK MUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 162O

ISABELLA BRANT
MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
ABOUT 1620

h>;Ch

THE EMPEROR AUGUSTUS
r.AI.I.EKV, SANSSOUCI, POTSDAM
1619

^
3

STUDY FOR HEAD OF ST. GEORGE
LOUVRE, PARIS -
LOUVRE, PARIS •

yx* >*3|^,
• J'^033>x

^^^Aj^AUt^

mmiL

mw^m
m\''rw3mx — ^S

HpP' T

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
CZERNIN f.AI.I.KKV, VIENNA
162 1

ST. FRANCIS WITH A ROSARY
MUSRUM FREDERICIANL'M, CASSEI,
ABOUT 162O

n2

PLATE CCXVI

THE GARLANDED MADONNA
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621

PLATE CCXVI f

THE THREE GRACES
ACADEMY, VIENNA
1618-1620

PLATE CCXVIII

PLATE CCX IX

'I'HE MARCH OF SILENUS
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1619

PLATE CCXX

PLAIE CCX XI

PLATE CCXXII

THE CAR OF APOLLO
COLLECTION OF FREIHERR A. VON OPPENHEIM, COLOGNE
ABOUT 1620

PLATE CCXXII I

BOREAS AND OREITHVIA
ACADEMY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1620

PLATE CCXXIV

V

CASTOR AND POLLUX SEIZING THE DAUGHTERS OF LEUCIPPUS
ALUE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ADOUT 1619

PLATE CCX.XV

D

z

x y

PLATE CCXX VI

S ?

THE FOUR QUARTF.

S OF THE GLOBE (THE FOUR RIVERSJ
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 162O

hth
X th<h7:

TIGRESS SUCKLING. HER YOUNG
ACADEMY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1620

<h \

PLATE CCXX IX

PLATE CCXXX

1/

• M

THE WATERING PLACE
COLLECTION OF THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, MONTAGU HOUSE
1615-1625

<h<h b'mm

PLATE CCXXX! I

X <

O §
o W-s
S-2.'i . CJ
S 2

THE BAPTISM OF CONSTANTINE
COLLECTION OF M. F. BISC1IO FFSHF.1M, PARIS
162I-1622

hith
th

PLATE CCXXXIV

VENUS AT THE FORGE OF VULCAN
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1622

OLD WOMAN WITH BRAZIER
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
ABOUT 1622

PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS RESPAIGNE IN ORIENTAL DRESS
ROYAL GALLERY, CASSEL
1623-1624

h
t-ihi 'mm

PLATE CCXX XV I

THE CONVERSION OF S. BAVON
CHURCH OF s. BAVON, GHENT
1624

PLATE CCXXX] 'II

MARTYRDOM OF ST. CATHERINE
CHURCH OF ST. CATHERINE, LILLE
ABOUT 1622

PLA TE- CCmX.XXI 711

ADORATION OF THE KINGS
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
¦ 6,4

PLATE CCXXX IX

HOLY FAMILY ADORED BY SAINTS
ROYAL GALLERY, CASSEL
1620-1625

PLATE CCXL

TtiE RAISING OF LAZARUS
MU'SliUM, BERLIN
ABOUT IDJ4

PLA TE CCXL1

SUSANNA FOURMENT
I.OUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1623

PLATE CCX LI I

V

PORTRAIT OF RUEENS
WINDSOR CASTLE
1623

,'•'¦

PLA TE CCXL! 1 1

ISABELLA BRANT
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1623-1625

h
ohi mm

ISABELLA BRANT
UFFIZI, FLORENCE
I 623- 1 62 5

YpUNG WOMAN WITH MIRROR
ROYAL GALLERY, CASSEL
1 620- 1 625

'j:i

PORTRAIT OF FRANCESCO DE MEDICI,
GRAND-DUK.E OF TUSCANY
LOUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1624

PORTRAIT OF JOANNA OF AUSTRIA
GRAND-DUCHESS OF TUSCANY
I.OUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1624

h
th

PLATE CCXLV I

J

MARIE DE MEDICIS
PRADO, MADRID
ABOUT 1623

PLATE CCX LVI I

V

MARIE DE MEDICIS QUITTING PARIS. (SKETCH)
ALTE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1622

PLATE CCXLV! II

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
-THE FATES SPINNING HER DESTINY
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCXL IX

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
II. —HER BIRTH
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCL

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
III.-HER EDUCATION
LOUVRE, PARIS
162I-1625

PLA TE CCLI
Cx

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
IV.-HENRY IV RECEIVING HER PORTRAIT
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCLI I

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
V.— HER MARRIAGE BY PROXY TO HENRY IV
LOUVRE, PARIS
J62 I -1625

PLATE CCLI II

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
VI.-HER LANDING AT MARSEILLES
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCLIV

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
VII.— HER MARRIAGE WITH HENRY IV
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCLV

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
VIII.— THE BIRTH OF LOUIS XIII
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCL VI

*y*

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
IxXhEN'ry iV LEAVES FOR THE WAR
1 ¦ I.OUVRF, PARIS
1621-1625 '

-v

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
X.— HER CORONATION
LOUVRE, PARIS
^7 1621-1625

13hth thth
h.

13hth
th(hth

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XL— THE APOTHEOSIS OF HENRY IV
LOUVRE, PARIS

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XII.— THE SCENE IN OLYMPUS
LOUVRE, PARIS
162I-1625

hhtL.

PLATE CCLX

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XIIL— JOURNEY TO PONT-DE-CE
LOUVRE, PARIS
I 621-1625

PLATE CCLXI

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XIV.-THE EXCHANGE OF THE PRINCESSES
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCL XI I

HISl'ORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XV.— THE PROSPEROUS REGENCY
LOUVRE, PARIS
1625

PLATE CCLXIII

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XVI.- THE MAJORITY OF LOUIS XIII
L'lL'VRF, PARIS
1621-IT2S

PLATE CCLX IV

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XVII.— THE FLIGHT FROM BLOIS
I.OUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCLXV

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XVIII.— THE RECONCILIATION WITH HER SON
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCL.XVI

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XIX.-THE CONCLUSION OF PEACE
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLA TE CCLXVII

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XX.— THE INTERVIEW WTIH HER SON
LOUVRE. PARIS
162I-1625

PLATE CCLXVIU

HISTORY OF MARIE DE MEDICIS
XXI. -THE TRIUMPH OF TRUTH
LOUVRE, PARIS
1621-1625

PLATE CCLXIX

\

A LADY-IN-WAITING TO THE ARCHDUCHESS ISABELLA
HERMITAGE," ST. PETERSBURG *
ABOUT 1625

X

h
th
tt.
thhilhy,

THE. DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
PITTI," FLORENCE
1625

ANNE OF AUSTRIA, WIFE OF LOUIS XIII
LOUVRE, PARIS
1622-1625

PLATE CCLXXI

ANNE OF AUSTRIA, WIFE OF LOUIS XIII
PRADO, MADRID
m-.-\Xnl\ 1625

PLATE CCL.XX'II

AMBROGIO SPINOLA
MUSF.UM, BRUNSWICK

PLATE CCLX XI II

fak" '*'--""

|irl^-' "
W' ::"
W xSKm
j
xV.JBM
J 11
A
-* % wmy
^d 7 -jay
¦P
a\\
^,.-,iija.^i»W mJmmr
.'I--
m
mmW
BK;-
m
'¦¦'. ,m\w^
F '
1
m
^j
xMm
jBbHbP
•
Pf4,X"
. . »/ili/jt3ml m^i
*>^" -.- ¦ -" ^-
....^
m@m
^ 1
'Wm¥ ' l:-xW4.
SfcV*-
x:f ;¦'
K a ' aBT*^
m
.<
S?)Sl r^SSum
^i Jjjj? —
j
,A^M4y ~ ¦ ,.
, •';^;;;:;;— ¦
' Hi
m
'•¦>~ ' i Bv *' "' * ¦
'¦':!$^*~'
I
J^"': /
¦'..'<'
<
X ! '¦¦• c ¦ ' .
AMBROGIO SPINOLA
DURAND-RUEL COLLECTION, PARIS
1625
tt. hh th
\

BARON HENRI DE VICQ
LOUVRE, PARIS
1625

PORTRAIT OF AN ELDERLY MAN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1625

PLATE CCLX XV

PORTRAIT OF A LADY— "VIRGO BRABANTINA '
COLLECTION OF MR. CHARLES BUTLER, LONDON
ABOUT 1625 'X ^X~\"

PLA TE CCLXXVI

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1625

PLATE CCLXXVI/

ST. PEPIN AND ST. BEGA
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1625

PLATE CCLXXVI II

THE EDUCATION OF THE VIRGIN
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1625

PLATE CCLXmYIX

W
o<

z a

z <ml

hih
tK
thththh«

THE DAIRY FARM AT LAEKEN
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, LONDON
ABOUT 1625

LANDSCAPE WITH COWS AND MILKMAID
AI.TE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1625

hit-. thhi \

PLATE CCLXXXII

SAMSON AND THE LION
NATIONAL MUSEUM, STOCKHOLM
ABOUT 1625

GARITAS ROMANA
RIJKSMUSEUM, AMSTERDAM
ABOUT 1625

A FRANCISCAN MONK
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1625

CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1625

J.hhi
<hr, t-
\

hih- thth
I

LOT DEPARTING FROM SODOM
LOUVRE, PARIS
1625

THE HERMIT AND THE SLEEPING ANGELICA
HOFMUSEUM, V1KNNA
ABOUT 1625

tlh-tKth

PLATE CC LXX XV I

CIMON AND IFIGENIA
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1625

hhtk.(hth h
\

>»

stL. th
th
n

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
ABOUT 1625

PLA TE CCLXXXIX

THREE NYMPHS WI'i.. CORNUCOPIA
l'R\DO, MADRID
1625-1627

PI A IE CCXC

THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN
CATHEDRAL, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1626

PLATE CCA CI

THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN
CHURCH OF THE HOLY CROSS, AUGSBURG
ABOUT ID20

PLATE CCXC II

PLA TE CCXC 11/

CASPAR GEVARTIUS
MUSEUM, ANTWERI'
ABOUT 1628

hih>tL*h th
n <h

PORTRAIT OF A LADY
COLLECTION OF BARON GUSTAVK DE ROTHSCHILD, PARIS
162O-163O

PORTRAIT OF A LADY
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1625-1630

/
PLATE CC.XCV
V

ALBERT AND NICOLAS RUBENS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1026

PLATE CCXC VI

^jj£^

fl '
J
£" .m\3mm^\^M' BP>^^B
>,
-_*»* Si
,
\«xx*
1- ¦ ¦„¦ , Wm ¦ A
B :¦;
'¦¦; Xl'.'&k:, "X
- /if'- ''-
KA
WjE$Buk ' Wf i.wm I
I - w.«Sb1
A. i ^ ' \ wbhBbI
-
... 1
f
¦ : V ?-
f
f
/¦
PORTRAIT OF A MAN
MUSEUM, RRUNSWICK
1625-1630
PLATE CC XCVII

PORTRAIT OF A LADY— ELIZABETH OR HELEN FOURMENT (?)
WINDSOR CASTLE
1625- 1630

PLATE CCXCVIII

HOLY FAMILY
PRADO, MADRID
1625-1628

/

PLATE CCXCIX
I

zo

O J o

h
hSt.
fi thth

THOMYRIS AND CYRUS
COLLECTION OF LORD' DARNLEY, COBHAM HALL
ABOUT' l6z6

THE MEETING OF ABRAHAM AND MELCHISEDEK
COLLECTION OF THE UUKE OF WESTMINS I Fl,\ LONDON
1627

tlt- h
th
<h

hthth

THE FOUR EVANGELISTS
PRADO, MADRID
1627

PLATE CCCIII

tegj&&

h
ththth

THE TRIUMPH OF THF. EUCHARIST OVER HERESY,
PRADO, MADRID
1627

THE TRIUMPH OF THE EUCHARIST OVER IGNORANCE
PRADO, MADRID rnf - /• ¦• ....
'«' 1627

"0tt.th<h<h thh:

<v

THE TRIUMPH OF. DIVINE LOVE
PRADO;' MADRID
1627

PLATE CCCVII

V

Z -t.

X<

hi

<
XCJXwXH

wH

PLA TE CCCVII I

THE VIRGIN ENTHRONED WITH ST. CATHERINE AND OTHER SAINTS
AUGUSTINE CHURCH, ANTWERP
1628

THE VIRGIN ENTHRONBD WITH ST. CATHERINE AND OTHER
SAINTS. (SKETCH)
MUSEUM, BERLIN
1627-1628

THE VIRGIN ENTHRONED WITH ST. CATHERINE AND OTHER
SAINTS. (SKETCH) . ,
STAEDEL INSTITUTE, FRANKFORT-ON'THE-MAINE
1627-1628

hi
-th tt,3

PLATE CCCX

C\tJ
-* -
BBK '.:-"X
"¦^H
r~ ,— -^
BBBlF^
BL ?j2T'S
1 '
^W/mmmM
jfc, Jfl
Q* m
Hk.^
y*
E ww 'Jm
._ 3fj! ^H1^^^3P3b
Lt flj
B ai
JUDITH WITH THE HEAD OF HOLOFERNES
MUSEUM, BRUNSWICK
1625-1630
PLATE CCCX I

THE ADORATION OF THE KINGS
I.OUVRE, PARIS
1627-1628

o

KING PHILIP IV
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1628-1629

THE INFANTE DON FERDINAND IN CARDINALS ROBES
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1628-162O

.*

:

B> jj&fc

¦

: W



^JHBk
¦
'j it ,* m m^^M H^k.
.
mw m ji
/
b»-w j^ '¦"¦-
M'
p%- .'-»»..
J0'
bbhBP* ^B h
jgF ¦*
H ^
r-s.
Bv
^j^B*^ : ^ yVjU
t».
« tt
h /
1 • ...i|lfl
1
-Sl m oRbb
¦
/. .
m
9%
il tit,
/ - . " '
1 '¦-*¦"
' j
'
X • •* l
•_ '
ELIZABETH OF BOURIiON, WIFE OF PHILIP IV
AI.TE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1628-1629
ELIZABETH OF BOURBON, WIFE OF PHILIP IV
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1628-1629
hih.
¦h
<h hi•y.
PLATE CCCX I]'

PHILIP II OF SPAIN ON HORSEBACK
PRADO, MADRID
1628-1629

PLATE CCCXV

THE EARL OF ARUNDEL
COLLECTION OF MRS. GARDNER, BOSTON, U.S.A,
-1629-1630

PLATE CCCXV!

i- 1

IP

x

1

. T^F
*T^^
r
X ' •' '•¦ ¦ X '''' -.
.
i
B" ¦' * • xvg
:i:--k VI
^^
t."< '-¦!>; ''''¦¦
' ' *
i
a» ...
Ufll
r r
1
i
'
flWJi
1
' W i
#^^
i
, ,MUL
^ ¦¦ ¦
'"'A 1
1
^jt^m i
BMF
'W4\m%
' ' ^
"^H m * tir ™m
HF
*4#1$* -x
^
^
^^ l& "WSl
1
wi ¦ Jfc
•^sk-v ^^BbI
*^h
Bl 'Wl^ ^^^x
Br'-',
| j
.'"*% ^|
¦
T
|
t» 'TfcV vJBBBKBBBbW *M .^j
Bv J; 'jB
Bfe» ***
htttiJ '*m WW: Jt&
SB,- fl
1 9 " j HP ¦*%i(gj, 7
tV,.
¦ *
TW #
1
^'WF
¦¦» -1 BBV
L
m\
-*»« 1
mWi
Jf fl
FjL
i
*?•
Hi V'^v' ^*3
Bj m^-t " ¦
Sjflikifl.
F 41 '**
Ha • . bV> ^
bht^ {.Br ^P
^L ' IF tl '%¦ •
Xm^mSmm *. xMmmm.
:?\ii
H »¦' 'Cflk •¦
¦
flT ^mW' ^W ' **"' ' ¦
Bt jt'
|
'¦•• mt
*; *"* ' '
%
W \
¦ '" >
.'¦.wfctefc -:
*V
*r
*t
V " ' ¦
V :.
1
^^^^
ADAM AND EVE
(copy oi' titian's picture)
PRADO, MADRID
1628-1629
EUROPA
(copy of titian's picture)
prado, madrid
l628rl629

<h th
th mt

tltltL th
thth
o '-.

VENUS, MARS AND CUPID
DULWICH COLLEGE GALLERY, LONDON
1629-1630

VENUS, MARS AND CUPID
. MUSEUM, UERLIN
1629-1630

PLA TE CCCXIX

A DAUGHTER OF BALTHAZAR GERBIER
COLLECTION OF EARL SPENCER, ALTHORP
1623'

Br Vi^

¦'¦¦.¦ . '
¦ '; ' ':"..
¦
BBBf Jbb^IwP^
* JHH
I H
WT ¦--jm
WW" -tm
¦
WWWW ^^niB^
' i '^&P
¦ £*J M
P lEjfiB ¦ w * Sbhb
Bl
;
¦
r ¦
BBS^MBBr^fe*^-^" -^2
' - 1 j 4091 HJHflfcHP^Bflr SbV'^Sb
Pr, \fBH
¦Rr^-^dfla
IeHL ^HHEWJsf
¦¦HetP JftfllflK&^ifw
DBF «1 |R|
r^^HHHE
¦m^hhp^^hI
BbbBjX -^I^^HflJ
Yj
hi h
tk, th
WAR AND PEACE
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON'
1629-163O
WAR AND PEACE
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1629

hari
tu th
h<-,
th

LANDSCAPE WITH ST. GEORGE
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, LONDON
1629-1630

PLA TE CCCXXIl!

X §
-J o
>• J
^ a °
O w io
£ ^ j?
H V3 x>

=C <

PLATE CCCXXlV

THE APOTHEOSIS OF BUCKINGHAM
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
ABOUT 1629

PLATE CCCXXV

SUSANNA FOURMENT AND HER DAUGHTER CATHERINE
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
ABOUT 1630

PLATE CCCXXV I

FREDERIC DE MARSELAER
PARIS (EX KONIGSWARTER COLLECTION1)
ABOUT 1630

PLATE CCCX XV 1 1

MATTHAUS YRSSELIUS
CHRISTIANSBORG GALLERY, COPENHAGEN
ABOUT 1630

MICHEL OPHOVIUS

THE CORONATION OF' THE VIRGIN

PLATE CCCXXIX

J
Xu a

wu
5 a
u xH

PLATE CCCXXX

HOLY FAMILY WITH ST. FRANCIS
WINDSOR CASTLE
1625-1635

PLATE CCCXXXI

uz

H Z

PLATE CCCXXXI I

•AJXXu s
< J o
o H. "
K 3 o
is s 3
Q H
X

DIANA HUNTING A STAG
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1630

5 8

h htk.hjth<h h
th

ENTRY OF HENRI IV INTO PARIS AFTER THE BATTLE OF IVRY
UFFIZI, FLORENCE
ABOUT 163O

HENRI IV AT THE BATTLE OF IVRY
UFFIZI, FLORENCE
ABOUT 1630

nth'%

CAPTURE OF PARIS BY HENRI IV
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1630

PLATE CCCX XXVI I

THE BATTLE OF COUTRAS
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, YIENNA
ABOUT 1630

PLATE CCCXX XVIII

F^.-'jn

HENRI IV SEIZING OPPORTUNITY
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
ABOUT 1630

PLATE CCC XXXIX

HOLY FAMILY UNDER THE APPLE TREE
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1 630-1631

5 th.

h
th

THE MIRACLE OF ST. ILDEFONSO
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA

=£ = =£;=

PLATE CCCX LI

A—
U <

PLATE CCCX LI I

THOMYRIS AND CYRUS
LOUVRE, PARIS
163O-1632

PLATE CCCXL! II

\ 4

i
BHjii «*"
1

¦ -'t^' *Y*m
w ^ a - W . ^L i
x i L * J ' \$ijpw
V1' s&h " '^mm\mw^SF'^'^

! • BBBP <0 Hflt '
*

3p

THE LAST SUPPER
BRERA, MILAN
163=

PLATE CCCXL IV

HELEN FOURMENT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
163O

HELEN FOURMENT
COLLECTION OF IHE LATE CONSUL WEBER, MAMP-IM.'I,
A ROUT 163O

PORTRAIT OF RUBENS
COLLECTION OF THE DUKE OF ARENBERG, BRUSSELS
163,

<h <h
th

HELEN FOURMENT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1634

HELEN FOURMENT
RIJKSMUSEUM, AMSTERDAM
ABOUT 1631

PLA TE CCCXL/ X

RUBENS AND HELEN IN GARDEN WITH CHILD IN LEADING STRINGS
HEIRS OF BARON ALPHONSE DE ROTHSCHILD, PARIS
ABOUT 1635 -».. .

PLA TE CCCL

HELEN FOURMENT
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1632-1635

PLATE CCCL/

HELEN FOURMENT WITH HER CHILDREN
LOUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1636

HELEN FOURMENT
MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
ABOUT 1634

HELEN FOURMENT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1636- 1639

PLATE CCCL II I

HELEN FOURMENT
HEIRS OF BARON ALPHONSE DE ROTHSCHILD, PARIS
1(536-1639

PORTRAIT OF A MONK
COLLECTION OF THE DUKE OF ARENBERG, BRUSSELS
1630-1635

h h
¦h hi
0 h
thpi

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
COLLECTION OF THE; DUKE OF ARENBERG, BRUSSELS
1630-1635

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
COLLECTION OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON, LONDON
1630-1635

HEAD OF AN OLD MAN
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1630-1635

th

PLATE CCCL VI

DIANA AND NYMPHS SURPRISED BY SATYRS
ROYAL GALLERV, CASSEL
AHOU I 1632

PLATE CCCLVII

THE DEATH OF IlIDO
COLLECTION OF M. CHARLES DE PE1STEO.M, PARIS
16JO-1633

¦-¦¦ X

"0
thth.
hh
th

THE MIRACLE OF ST. FRANCIS DE PAUL
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESI1EN
ABOUT 1632

THE SACRIFICE TO VENUS
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1630-1631

o ththpi

ththth s

CONVERSATION A LA MODE. ("THE GARDEN OF LOVE")
COLLECTION OF BARON EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, PARIS
1633-1635

PLATE CCCL XI

I

A
>O A

A
5

zo

z
o

PLATE CCCLXIl

PSYCHE CARRIED TO HEAVEN
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
1630-1635

PLA TE CCCLXIl!

THREE GIRLS GATHERING FRUIT. ("L'ABONDANCE")
COLLECTION OF BARON EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, PARIS
1630-1635

PLATE CCCLXIV

PLATE CCCLXV

A
H

X ?

h
ti th.
ththth
t~l mm

THE ABDUCTION OF THE SABINE WOMEN
COLLECTION OF MR. ALFRED DE ROTHSCHILD, LONDON
163O-1635

THE RECONCILIATION OF THE ROMANS AND SABINES
COLLECTION OF MR. ALFRED DE ROTHSCHILD, LONDON
I 630- I 63 5

htitt,thth<hth ti
\

PLATE CCCLXV! 1 1

m^mCmm^mmSmimmsmmi

xM
A 1Jii.iiil.iil .nli«'i li I

THE HAPPY REIGN AND APOTHEOSIS OF JAMES I
CEILING OF BANQUETING HOUSE, WHITEHALL, LONDON
1634-1635

PLA TE CCCLXIX

THE APOTHEOSIS OF JAMES I
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
163O-1634

PLATE CCCLXX

THE GOOD DEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF JAMES I
ACAUKMV, VIENNA
1630-1634

PLATE CCCLXXI

JA.MES I DESIGNATING HIS SOX AS KI.VG OF SCOTLAND
HEHMITAI.E. ST. PEPE KSLL'Rtl
1630-1634

PLATE CCCLXXI I

THE WISE GOVERNMENT OF JAMES I TAMING REBELLION
COLLECTION OF FREIHERR A. VON OPPENHEIM, COLOGNE
1631-1634

PLATE CCCLXXI! I

¦   ~~  - ':;¦¦— - -.  - —  —

DESIGN FOR 'ARCH OF HERCULES.' THE VICTORIES OF
FERDINAND
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1634-1635

PLATE CCCLX.XIV

DESIGN FOR TRIUMPHAL ARCH. THE VICTORIES OF TERD1NAND
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
I634-I635

PLATE CCCL.XXV

DESIGN FOR TRIUMPHAL ARCH. THE APOTHEOSIS OF THE ARCHDUCHESS ISABELLA
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1634-1635

PLATE CCCLXXI!

DESIGN FOR TRIUMPHAL ARCH. THE TRIUMPH OF FERDINAND
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
¦634-1635

PLATE CCCLX.XVl!

THE TEMPLE OF JANUS
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1634-1635

PLATE CCCL.YXVI1I

TRIUMPHAL ARCH OF THE MINT (FRONT)
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1634-1635

PL A TE CCCLXXIX

TRIUMPHAL ARCH OF THE MINT (BACK)
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1634-1635

PLATE CCCL.YXX

MERCURY QUITTING ANTWERP
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1634-1635 ™ ;- _

DESIGN FOR FIVE STATUES OF HABSIIURG PRINCES
HERMITAGE, ST.' PF I EKSP.UKG
. 1634-1635

PLATE CCCLXXXII

SKETCH- FOR STATUES OF ALBERT II AND FERDINAND I
SUERMONDT MUSEUM, AIX-LA-CHAPELLE
1634-1633

PLATE CCCLXXXII!

_ o
Zmfz5

hitith. a
th <-.R •mm
mm'<

THE TWO FERDINANDS AT THE BATTLE OF NORDLINGEN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1634-1635

THE ARCHDUKE ALBERT OF AUSTRIA
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
1634-1635

THE ARCHDUCHESS ISABELLA OF SPAIN
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
1634-1635

hpi ¦j.

th>h ¦hh.

htlth,¦s
th<hh-

THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN I
ACADEMY, VIENNA
1634-1635

THE EMPEROR CHARLES V
ACADEMY, VIENNA
1634-1635

PLATE CCCLXXXVII

FERDINAND, KING OF HUNGARY
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1634-1635

THE INFANTE FERDINAND OF SPAIN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1634-1635

tt.

CHARLES THE BOLD
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1634

THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN I
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1634

PLATE CCCLXXXIX

BUST OF AN AGED BISHOP
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
1634

PLATE CCCXC

THE ARCHDUKE FERDINAND, CARDINAL INFANTE OF SPAIN
COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN, LONDON
¦635

PLATE CCCXC I

THE INFANTE FERDINAND AT THE BATTLE OF NORDLINGEN
PRADO, MADRID
ABOUT 1635

JAN BRANT
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
1635

hipi tKths

PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG WOMAN
ROYAL GALLERY,. DRESDEN

PORTRAIT OF A MAN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1635

PORTRAIT OF AN OLD MAN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1635

PLATE CCCXCIV

ST. THERESA PRAYING FOR THE SOULS IN PURGATORY
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1634

PLATE CCCXCV

PORTRAIT OF PRINCE FREDERICK HENRY (?)
EX KANN COLLECTION, PARIS. (MESSRS. DUVEEN)
ABOUT 1635

PLATE CCCXCV I

THE HOLY FAMILY
WALLRAF-RICHARTZ MUSEUM, COLOGNE
"ABOUT 16315

hh-
tk.

SUSANNA AND THE ELDERS
. AL IE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1635

thth .
<h 'mm <h
7

PLATE CCCXC VI 1 1

BATHSHEBA AT THE FOUNTAIN
ROYAL GALLERY, DRESDEN
ABOUT 1635

PLATE CCCmXCIX

PLATE CCCC

THE PENITENT MAGDALEN
COLLECTION OF MR. W. A, CLARK, NEW YORK
ABOUT 1635

PLA TE CCCC!

THE PENITENT MAGDALEN
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1635

ORPHEUS AND EURYDICE
GALLERY, SANSSOUCI, POTSDAM
1630-1640

PLATE CCCC II

PLATE CCCCIII

Ztmo

X

THE MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS
ALTE I'INAKOTHEK, MUNICH

COUNT RUDOLF OF HAltSBUkI', AND THE PRIEST
PRADO, MADRIO
AKOU 1' 1636

h
t>thth orith

PLATE CCCC VI

PLATE CCCCV/l

ST. JUSTUS CARRYING HIS HEAD IX HIS HANDS
MUSEUM, BORDEAUX
ABOUT 1636

PLATE CCCCVII!

Bferfflj ™° 7' ' ' ?Kiif;'ll 1
gp JS^i m.^"WhftMr fX^^^-.^mHk
¦Ut 'BF;- ...¦.--'; '¦"•¦¦fflp fV.iB?W*™**"m^BBj 1
war- illRkii'^wjR/? 1
fill \I wWi&tiF''^fe" y- J
Sw^r
W>. 4 mr&jX**'^^' ^BKbII Br 4 lr^akSBli
3t-Li<^r-B''iiaHK» 181 Pt X L^wil
Br7 >7^^Myp MM L^tm^^ mt "^ «X ¦ >iSv J^1' 1
^X
*T\-' Ml
^ JP' O I^T1^
B^fjM IPI ,-f IK" 1
EWafTvilll 1%sS
¦BhWBtJ K-VBBhWBHWBbWBhI BhVBhwBbW ¦ fH
bbwbbhbbmY iJmmM '•mjr&Bimm.. Ai Wmmt'- , bbW ^E: - tB
¦BBJrF/ '^JfiBWf / ¦^HP ^J^P*BJ HWtBk V 1
BB»- */V'- ilflEww^Bn -J Br"^l
mm * '
.
¦IbSmI r / afl law _^_
x *#-J Hl NbT Af 1 B«Mftvlsv
^IbpiS^^ •- 1* afl! Bbk 1KX Hb> ^v ^P ¦ 1
CHRIST BEARING THE CROSS
RIJKSMUSEUM, AMSTERDAM
ABOUT 1636
PLATE CCCCIX

CHRIST BEARING THE CROSS
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1636

PLATE CCCCX

THE DEAD CHRIST IN THE LAP OF THE VIRGIN
PRADO, MADRID
ABOUT 1636

PLATE CCCC XI

THE BEHEADING OF ST. PAUL
COLLECTION OF LIEUT.-COL. HOLFORD, LONDON
1635-1637

THE BRAZEN SERPENT
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
ABOUT 1637

PLA TE CCCC XI 1 1

MARTYRDOM OF ST. ANDREW
FLEMISH HOSPITAL, MADRID
1637

h
it.¦hhi thhh
O

HOLY FAMILY WITH SAINTS (REPOSE IN EGYPT)
PRADO," MADRID
1635- I 63S

X ,-.

NYMPHS AND SATYRS PLUCKING FRUIT
PRAUO, MADICII)
16361638

sth m-

hi
thtL

THE HORRORS OF WAR
PITTI, FLORENCE
ABOUT 1638

THE HORRORS OF WAR
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
1637-1638

hih.tLththth
thth

PLATE CCCCXVIII

HIPPODAMIA AND THE CENTAURS
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1636

THE FALL OF THE TITANS
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1636

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
ABOUT 1636

hipi ¦
tL
th thth<hn

DIANA AND CALLISTO
PRADO, MADRID
1636-1638

PLATE CCCCXXI

' f*** '-. '^i \w^* m\\\\\\m\

A

,>*. mf* 'jifa'^MmmM w'mmw xk-
mmm mwwZm^
X^ *t '

B^^^BBBi

"XbE;:

. .. X

'^^^H

•

SHEPHERD AND SHEPHERDESS. "LE CROC EN JAMBE"
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
ABOUT 1637

PLATE CCCCXXI I

PERSEUS AND ANDROMEDA
PRADO, MADRID
ABOUT 1639

PLA TE CCCCXXI II

ANDROMEDA
MUSEUM, BERLIN
¦635-1638

PLATE CCCCXXI V

GIRLS BATHING
GALLERY, SANSSOUCI, POTSDAM
ABOUT 1637

PLATE CCCCX XV

PLA TE CCCC XXVI

THE BATH OF DIANA
EX SCHl.'BART COLLECTION, MUNICH
ABOUT 1637

PLA TE CCCC XXVII

*8rfr

S * %
Z U) vo
t, = -
E-t _- h
ct, r- ^
O u g
fc. S <

a -«
§1

PLA TE CCCCXm\ VIII

GANYMEDE
PRADO, MADRID
1637

SATURN
PRADO, MADRID
1637

PLATE CCCCX XIX

PERSEUS AND ANDROMEDA
EX OSUNA COLLECTION (MESSRS. P. AND D. COLNAGHI, LONDON)
1636- 1637

PLATE CCCC XXX

PLA TE CCCCXXXI

z J, '3

THE MILKY WAY
PRADO, MADRID
1637

PLATE CCCCX X. YII I

X

PC 4 TE CCCC XX XLV

THE TIMBER WAGGON
COLLECTION OF LORD NORTHBROOK, LONDON
1630-1636

MERCURY AND ARGUS
ROYAL "MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1636

PLATE CCCCX XXV

MERCURY
PRADO, MADRID
1637

hihJ>th
thr^thth

MERCURY AND ARGUS
PRADO, MADRID

PLATE CCCC XXXV 1 1

tuth th h
th
O mm

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS
PRADO, MADRID
1638

PLATE CCCCXXXIX

PLATE CCCCXL

CHA
X<yz<
IAX

PLATE CCCC XLI

}/

m<><

alX

z

PLATE CCCCXLI 1

BACCHUS SEATED ON A WINE-CASK
HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG
1635-1639

PLATE CCCC XLI 1 1

THE THREE GRACES
PRADO, MADRID
ABOUT 1639

PLATE CCCCXLIV

AN OLD PRIEST
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
1635-1638

ST. ANDREW
HOFMUSEUM VIENNA
1635-1638

ST. JEROME AS CARDINAL
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1638

HEAD OF AN OLD MAN
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1638

th 'h
th\h. h;

PLATE CCCC XL] P

ST. AUGUSTINE
RUDOLFINUM, PRAGUE
ABOUT 1638

PLATE CCCCXLV//

THE MARTYRDOM OF ST. THOMAS
RUDOLFINUM, PRAGUE
ABOUT 1638

PLATE CCCC XLV III

THE CRUCIFIXION OF ST. PETER
st. peter's church, cologne
ABOUT 1638

PLA TE CCCCXLIX

THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN
LIECHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA
1638

PLATE CCCCL

"•>«.

PORTRAIT OF RUBENS
HOFMUSEUM, VIENNA
ABOUT 1638

PLATEyCCCCLI

t

DESIGN FOR A TRIUMPHAL CAR
MUSEUM, ANTWERP
1636

PLATE CCCCLII

X <
ss
mm H< WPL,Ph[/]HKH

PLATE CCCCLIII

ST. CECILIA
MUSEUM, BERLIN
ABOUT 1638

h;thSb. *h th

--*h
.' ti

THE FLEMISH KERMESSE
LOUVRE, PARIS
ABOUT 1636

PLATE. CCCC I. V
I

PLATE CCCC LVI

PLATE CCCCL VII

<
<
o mX-?.ZQZ<

>AXX ¦-

<
ucoO z<A

PLATE CCCCLVIU

HARVEST LANDSCAPE WITH RAINBOW
WALLACE COLLECTION, LONDON
ABOUP 1636

V

h
thSb.th
¦h h
f~><h

h
Pi

LANDSCAPE WITH THE CHATEAU DE STEEN, AUTUMN
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
ABOUT 1636

THE RETURN FROM THE FIELDS
PITTI, FLORENCE
1635-1638

hi ath pi\

AUTUMN SUNSET
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
ABOUT 1636

'

LANDSCAPE BY MOONLIGHT
COLLECTION OF DR. L. MONO, LONDON
1635-1638

Sbththth h
thSy.

TOURNAMENT BY THE MOAT OF A CASTLE (STEEN)
LOUVRE, PARIS
1636-1639

PLATE CCCCL XV

WOODED LANDSCAPE WITH THE CALYDONIAN BOAR
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
1636-1639

PLA TE CCCCLXVU

PLATE CCCCL XVI II

THE HOLY FAMILY
ABOUT 1635
MESSRS. DUVEEM (EX DUKE OF SUTHERLAND)

PLATE CCcdLXIX

THE THREE GRACES
NATIONAL .MUSEUM, STOCKHOLM'
ABOUT 1620 "

PLATE CCCCLXX

THE MARTYRDOM OF ST. LlfiVIN
ROYAL MUSEUM, BRUSSELS
ABOUT 1635

PLATE CCCC LXX I

VIRGIN WITH SAINTS
CHURCH OF ST. JACQUES, ANTWERP
ABOUT 1637

'-.
>-)Lj

LANDSCAPE. AUTUMN MORNING
LOUVRE, PARIS
1636-1639

INDEX

Note. — The titles of Rubens's pictures are printed in italics.

Abel, Death of, 230.
Abundance, Ii , 176, 222.
Abraham and Melchizedek (Caen), 213; (Cam
bridge), 150, 213 ; (Louvre), 203 ; (Earl of
Northbrook), 235 ; (Duke of Westminster),
150,237.
Abraham, the Sacrifice of, .2i3.
Achilles, History of, 175.
Achilles Series, Designs for iAe(LordBarrymore),
175, 230 ; (Berlin), 175, 191 ; (fix Dreyfus
Collection), 222 ; (ex Pastrana Collection),
220 ; (Pau), 176, 223.
Achilles with the Daughters of Lycomedes, 131,
153, 197 ; sketch for, 231.
Adam and Eve (copy of Titian), 154, 198.
Adam, and Eve in Paradise, 121, 217.
' Adoration of Kings ' Series, dates of, and treat
ment, 136-137 ; 147-148.
Adoration ofthe Kings (Antwerp), 147-148, 190 ;
(Lord Ardilaun), 148, 230 ; (Brussels), 136,
192,- (Marquis of Bute), 231; (Hermitage),
137, 206 ; (Louvre), 148, 204 ; (Lyons), 137,
219 ; (Malines), 136-137, 220 ; (Prado), 98,
99, 197; (Prussian Royal Palaces), 224;
(Wallace Collection — sketches), 169, 196,
197 ; (Duke of Westminster), 169, 237.
' Adoration of Shepherds ' Series. How treated,
137-138.
Adoration of the Shepherds (Marquis of Linlith
gow), 233 ; (Lille), 137, 218 ; (Marseilles),
220 ; (Munich), 137-138, 201 ; (Rouen),
225 ; (Vienna), 138, 226.
Aerschot, Duke of, 58; quarrel with Rubens,
59 ; summoned to Madrid, 59-60.
Aertszen, Pieter, 78.
Ajax and Cassandra, 228.
Albert, the Archduke, 9-10; death of, 41.
Albert, the Archduke (Brussels), 173, 193; (Mr.
Jackson), 234 ; (Prado), 128, 197-
Albert and Nicolas Rubens, 152, 228.
Albert 11. and Ferdinand I., sketch for 'Joyous
Entry ' (Aix-la-Chapelle), 210.

Alliance of Earth and Water (Cambridge) 213 ;
(Hermitage), 118, 205 ; (Paris), 223.
Alva, the Duke of, 5, 8.
Amazons, Battle of the (Munich), 123-124, 201 ;
(Glasgow — sketch), 217.
Andromeda. See under Perseus.
Angelica Sleeping, 151, 208.
Angels, Two Boy, with Garland of Fruit (Phila
delphia), 223.
Anna of Saxony, 5, 0.
Anne of Austria (Amsterdam), 210 ; (Louvre),
145, 203 ; (Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan), 234 ;
(Prado), 145, 197.
Annunciation, the (Dublin), 214 ; (Vienna), 81-
82, 207 ; (Vienna— sketch), 134, 226.
Antwerp, Alva at, 5, 8 ; art centre in sixteenth
century, 75 ; art guilds at, 74 ; aspect in
Rubens's time, 29 ; capture by Farnese,
8 ; the Catholic reaction, 8 ; churches of,
29 ; the citadel, 9 ; in the early seven
teenth century, 28-29 ; the ' Joyous Entry,'
12, 64-65, 173-174 ; the question of peace,
9 ; return of the religious orders to, 8 ;
Rubens's mansion in, 32-34 ; the ' Spanish
Fury,' 8, 9.
' Apocalyptic ' Series of pictures, 124-126.
Apocalyptic Woman, the (Hamburg), 218 ;
(Munich), 126, 200.
Apollo and Midas, 221.
Apollo driving out Diana, 143, 228.
Apollo in his Gar, 214.
Apostle, Head of (Prague), 224.
Apostles' Heads (New York), 221.
Apostles, the Twelve, 90, 197.
Apotheosis of Duke of Buckingham (Earl of
Jersey), 234; (National Gallery), 145, 157,
195 ; and see Buckingham.
Apotheosis of William of Orange (so called), 145.
Arabs hunting Tigers, 116, 232.
Arbaletriers, Guild of, 102.
Archdukes, the, Albert and Isabella, 9, 30.
Archdukes, the, Portraits of, 128, 173.
239

RUBENS

Archimedes , 89, 197.
Architecture, Rubens's study of, 25, 32.
Arion saved by Dolphins (Paris, M. A. Schloss),
222.
Arundel, Earl of, (Earl of Carlisle), 231 ;
(Mrs. Gardner), 212.
Arundel, Earl and Countess o/(Munich), 201.
Ascension, the, 227.
Assistants and pupils of Rubens, 105-106, 144,
146-179.
Assumption of the Righteous (Munich), 125, 200.
' Assumption ' pictures, dates of, and treatment,
135-136, 148.
' Assumption of the Virgin (Antwerp), 148, 211 ;
(Augsburg), 148, 211 ; (Brussels), 135,
192 (Buckingham Palace), 135, 218 ;
(Dusseldorf), 136, 215 ; (Liechtenstein
Gallery), 148, 228; (Earl of Pembroke),
235 ; (Vienna), 135-136, 208.
Atalanta. See Calydonian Boar and Meleager.
Augustus, Head of Emperor, 224.
Autumn Sunrise (Louvre), 186, 205.
Autumn Sunset (National Gallery), 175 note,
185, 196.
Bacchanal, after Titian (Stockholm), 95, 154,
225.
Bacchus on a Wine-cask, 177, 207.
Bacchus upheld by Satyr and Faun, 213.
Baptism of Christ, 87, 189.
Bathing Girls, 176, 224.
Bathsheba at the Fountain, 166, 195.
Battle and Hunting pieces, 115-117.
Beuckelaer, Joachim, 78.
Birth of Venus, 223.
Bishop, Bust of an Aged, 195.
Blond, Michel le, 47.
Boar Hunt (Dresden), 116-117, 194 ; (Glasgow),
117, 217 ; (Marseilles), 117, 220 ; (Munich),
200.
Boreas and Oreithyia, 113, 151, 227.
Boy playing with Bird {Nicolas Rubens}), 191.
Brant, Isabella (Aix-la-Chapelle), 210 ; (Berlin),
190 ; (The Hague), 217 ; (Hermitage), 97,
' 161 note, 206 ; (Duke of Norfolk), 235 ;
(Uffizi), 216 ; (Wallace Collection), 196.
Brant, Isabella, and Rubens, under Honeysuckle
Bower, 82, 97, 158, 200.
Brant, Isabella, Portraits of, 97.
Brant, Isabella, Rubens's first wife, 30, 51, 97.
Brant, Jan, ' El Catolico,' 49.
Brant, Jan (Munich), 202. ?
Brazen Serpent, the (Earl of Derby), 232 ;
(National Gallery), 172, 196 ; (Prado), 197.
240

Breughel, Jan, 79, 96; as landscape painter,
182 ; letter to Cardinal Borromeo, 122 ;
Rubens's collaboration with, 121-122.
Breughel, Peter, 79 ; as landscape painter,
182.
Bride, Portrait of a (Windsor), 163, 187 note,
229.
Bril, Paul, influence of, 183.
Buckingham, Duke of, 40 ; buys Rubens's
Collections, 46-47 ; meets Rubens in Paris,
46 ; sale of his Collections, 47.
Buckingham, Duke of (Pitti), 145, 215.
Buckingham, Apotheosis of Duke of (Earl of
Jersey), 145, 157, 195, 234.
Buckingham, Duke of, on Horseback, 145, 234.
Caestre, Jacqueline van, 128, 129, 192.
Calydonian Boar, Atalanta hunting the
(Brussels), 181-182, 184, 193 ; (Prado), 200 ;
(Vienna), 117, 208.
Caravaggio, 84 ; Rubens's admiration for, 85 ;
copies his pictures, 85.
Cardinal Infant. See Ferdinand.
Caritas Romana (Hamburg), 151, 218 ; (Earl of
Hardwicke), 151, 223 ; (Hermitage), 151,
205.
Carleton, Sir Dudley, 39-40, 52, 116, 119.
Castor and Pollux seizing the Daughters of Leu
cippus, 201.
Centaurs and Lapithae (Prado), 178, 198 ; (Her
mitage — sketch), 207.
Centaurs, the Loves of the, 176, 236.
Ceres and Pan, 198.
Ceres, Statue of (Hamburg), 218 ; (Hermitage),
205.
Chapeau de Paille, 160, 195.
Charles i., honours conferred on Rubens by,
56, 156 ; marriage by proxy, 45-46, 143 ;
Rubens's criticism of, 55.
Charles V., the Emperor, receiving deputation from
Antwerp, 234.
Charles V., the Emperor, sketch for the 'Joyous
Entry,' 173, 227.
Charles the Bold, 174, 209.
Charrette Embourbee, La (Hermitage), 184, 207 ;
(Mr. Vernon Harcourt), 233.
Chieppio, Duke Vincenzo's minister, 18, 20, 21.
Chiesa Nuova, the, at Rome, 24-25, 26 ; pictures
in, 24-26, 86-89.
Child, Head of (Harrach Gallery, Vienna), 227 ;
(Liechtenstein Gallery), 228.
Children with Garlands, 123, 201.
Christ a la Paille, Le, 130, 189.
Christ and the Apostles, 13 panels (Rome), 225 .

INDEX

Christ and the Repentant Sinners, 200.
Christ at the House of Simon, 226.
Christ bearing the Cross (Brussels), 170, 193 ;
(Vienna), 171, 226.
Christ before Pilate, 207.
Christ descending to Earth, 220.
Christ giving the Keys to St. Peter, 109, 221.
Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, 215.
Christ on the Cross (Antwerp), 108, 189 ; (Louvre),
UO, 111, 203; (Munich), 108, 200. See
also Crucifixion.
Christ's charge to Peter, 109, 196.
Christ's entry into Jerusalem, 214.
Christ, The Dead, on Knees of Virgin (Brussels),
192.
Christ triumphant over Sin and Death (Brussels),
212; (Paris), 223; (Prussian Royal Palaces),
224.
Christ walking on the Water, 133, 221.
Christ washing the Apostles' Feet, 214.
Chronology of Rubens's works — divergence of
opinion, 83 ; division into periods, 140-141.
Cimon and Ifigenia, 150, 151, 208. .\^
Cimon and Perus. See Garitas Romana.
Circumcision, the, 88, 216.
Cleopatra, the Dying, 223.
Cock and the Diamond, The, 23-24, 93, 210.
Codex Diplomaticus Rubenianus, 1, 35.
Cologne, Church of St. Peter's, 7, 171.
Cologne, the Rubens family at, 5, 6, 7.
Colour scheme of Rubens, 110-111, 111-112, 130.
Commerce deserting Antwerp, 173, 226.
Constantine, the Baptism of, 222.
'Constantine' Series, 124, 222, 223.
' Conversation a la Mode ' (The Garden of Love),
(Paris, Rothschild Collection), 164-165, 176,
222 ; (Prado), 164-165, 199.
Conversion of St. Paul (Berlin), 115-116, 191 ;
(Munich), 115, 200.
Copies of Caravaggio, 85 ; of Correggio, 23-
24, 86 ; of early Flemish painters, 121 ; of
Venetians, 54, 95, 154.
Cordes, Charles de, 128, 192.
Coronation of the Virgin (Berlin), 191 ;
(Brussels), 193; (Hermitage), 206;
(Louvre), 134, 203.
Correggio, early copies of, 23-24, 86.
Cossiers, Jan, as assistant of Rubens, 179.
Cottington, Sir Francis, 64, 55, 56.
Coup de Lance, le, 129-130, 190.
Courte Pelisse, la, 165, 209.
Coutras, Battle of, for Henry iv. series, 228.
Croc en Jambe, le (Hermitage), 207 ; (Munich),
166, 203 ; (Duke of Portland), 236.
R.— 16

Crocodile and Hippopotamus Hunt, 118, 211.
Crowning of St. Catherine, the, 169, 236.
Crowning with Thorns, the, 86, 217.
Crucifixion (Malines), 220 ; (Rome), 225 ;
(Toulouse), 226; (Wallace Collection),
108, 196.
Cupids and Children with Flowers and Fruit, 230.
Cupids Harvesting, 236.
Dairy-farm at Laeken, 119, 184, 219.
Dance of Italian Peasants (Rondo), 167-168, 199.
Daniel in the Lions' Den, 119, 233.
David and Abigail, 211.
David, King, 216.
Decius Mus Sene* (Liechtenstein Gallery), 131-
132, 228.
Decius mortally wounded (ex Pastrana Col
lection), 219.
Decius Mus, Obsequies of, sketch (Munich), 201.
Defeat of Maxentius, 124, 196.
Deianira, 216.
Democritus, the Laughing Philosopher, 21, 89,
197.
Deodato del Monte, 14, 96, 105, 138.
De Piles, Roger, his ' Abrege" quoted, 17-18,
36-37.
Deposition from the Cross (Antwerp), 101-103,
211 ; (Arras), 104, 211 ; (Hermitage), 104,
205; (Lille), 104, 218; (St. Omer), 104,
225 ; (Valenciennes), 104, 226.
Descalzas Convent, Tapestries for, 150.
Descartes at Neuburg, 126 note.
Descent from the Cross. See Deposition.
Descent ofthe Holy Spirit, 201.
Diana and Callisto, 199.
Diana and her Nymphs hunting the Stag (ex
Osuna Collection), 219 ; (Messrs. Sulley and
Co.), 117,230.
Diana and Nymphs pursued by Satyrs (Prado),
176, 199.
Diana and Nymphs surprised by Satyrs (Cassel),
177,194.
Diana, bathing, surprised by Satyrs (Berlin), 177,
192.
Diana, Bath of (Part of Diana and Actaeon), 177,
220.
Diana, Return of, from the Chase (Aix-
la-Chapelle), 210; (Darmstadt), 214;
(Dresden, full-length), 138, 195 ; (Dresden,
half-length), 138, 194 ; (Duke of Northum
berland), 235 ; (Earl of Radnor), 235.
Diana sleeping (Hampton Court), 114, 218.
Diana sleeping after the Chase (Munich), 202.
Dido, the Death of, 222.
241

RUBENS

Diogenes seeking for an honest Man (Frank
fort), 216.
Dispute on the Sacrament, 98, 105, 211.
Doorway with Pediment (Cambridge), 213.
Doubting Thomas, the, 108, 189.
Drebbel, Dutch physicist, 44.
Drunkenness of Lot (Paris), 109, 112, 151, 222 ;
(Schwerin), 225.
Duchess of Brabant and her Lover, 121. See
under St. Pepin and St. Bega.
Dupuy, Pierre, Rubens's Paris correspondent,
45.
Diirer at Antwerp, 74-75.
Ecce Homo, 225.
Education ofthe Virgin, 147, 190.
Egmont, Justus van, 144.
Elevation of the Cross (Antwerp), 99-101, 212 ;
(Mr. Alfred Buckley), 231 ; (Grasse), 86,
217; (Lieut. -Col. Holford), 100, 233;
(Louvre), 134, 203 ; (Paris), 222.
Elijah, Ascension of, 134, 217.
Elijah in the Desert, 150, 204.
Elizabethof Bourbon (Hermitage),206; (Munich),
153, 202 ; (Vienna), 153, 208.
Elsheimer, Adam, 120, 182-183; imitated by
Rubens, 120.
Emmaus, Supper at, 172, 199.
Entombment, The (Liechtenstein Gallery), 227 ;
(Munich), 201.
Entry of Henry IV. into Paris, 158, 191.
Equestrian Portrait of a General, 235.
Erichthonius and the daughters of Cecrops, 113,
228.
Erichthonius in his Cradle (Duke of Rutland),
113,. 236 ; (Stockholm), 225.
Esther, Queen, 226.
Etchings by Rubens, 120 note.
Etching, Elsheimer's new process, 120 note.
'Eucharist' Series, 150.
Eucharist, Triumph of, (Louvre), 150, 204.
' Eucharist ' Series, Sketch for (Lord Spencer),
236.
Europa (copy of Titian), 154, 198.
Evangelists, the Four, sketch (Cambridge), 213 ;
(Mr. C. Morrison), 234; (Prussian Royal
Palaces), 224 ; (Duke of Westminster), 150,
237.
Faber, Johann, Rubens's doctor, 23-24, 93.
Faid'herbe, Lucas, Rubens's letter to, 32-33, 65.
Falconer returning from Hunting, 235.
Fall of the Damned (Aix-la-Chapelle), 125, 210 ;
(Munich), 125, 200.
242

Fall of the Rebel Angels (Munich), 126, 201 ;
(Brussels), 134, 213.
Fathers of the Church, the, (Cambridge, sketch),
213 ; (Duke of Westminster), 150, 237.
Faun with basket of fruit (Schonborn Collection),
113, 228.
Faun with Grapes (Dresden), 195.
Fauns and Nymphs (Antwerp), 211.
'Feed my Sheep,' 109, 196.
Ferdinand, Archduke (Cardinal Infant), 64,
153-154 ; as art-critic, 180 ; as patron of
Rubens, 63 ; his ' Joyous Entry ' into Ant
werp, 64-65, 173-174.
Ferdinand, the Archduke (Mr. Morgan), 173,
234; (Munich), 203; (Vienna), 173, 209;
as Cardinal Infant (Munich), 153-154, 202 ;
(Lord Spencer), 236; (Vienna), 208; at
Nordlingen (Prado), 173, 198.
Ferdinand, King of Hungary, 173, 209.
Ferdinands, the two, at Nordlingen (Vienna), 173,
209.
Flagellation, the, 211.
Flemish school of sixteenth century, 74, 76;
Italian influence, 76-77 ; landscape painters,
80 ; painters of home life, 78 ; portrait-
painters, 79.
TYipW into Egypt (Earl Brownlow), 231 ; (Cassel),
120, 182, 193.
Forest Scene with Huntsmen, 184, 237.
Flora, 179, 199.
Floris, Frans, 77, 79.
Fortune (Berlin), 179 note, 191 ; (Prado), 179,
199.
Fourment, Clara, 128, 160, 222.
Fourment, Elizabeth, possible portrait of, 163
note, 187 note.
Fourment family, the, 61-62 ; portraits of, 160,
166.
Fourment, Helen, her character judged from
pictures, 62 ; influence on Rubens, 161-
162 ; portraits of, 162-164.
Fourment, Helen (Amsterdam), 162, 210 (Hague),
217; (Hamburg), 163, 218; (Hermitage),
163, 206 ; (Munich), with black cap, 163,
203 ; with boy on lap, 163, 202 ; with white
feather in hat, 163, 202 ; as Bride, 162,
202 ; as Magdalen in Landscape, 215 ; in
Fur Cloak— 'Het Pelsken,' 165, 209; with
Page, 163, 164, 223.
Fourment, Helen, and her Children, 163, 204.
Fourment, Susanna, 61 ; her relation to Ru
bens, 160.
Fourment, Susanna (Louvre), 160, 204; (Lon
don), 160, 195.

INDEX

Fourment, Susanna, and daughter, 161, 206, 237
note.
Four Philosophers, the, 91-92, 159, 215.
Four Quarters ofthe Globe, the, or the Four Rivers,
118, 208.
Fox and Wolf Hunt (ex Ashburton Collection),
116, 117, 230; (Lord Methuen), 116, 234.
Franciscan Friar, Bust (Hermitage), 205.
Franciscan Friar holding Skull (Munich), 202.
Franciscan Friar looking up (Hermitage), 205.
Frederick Henry, supposed Portrait of Prince, 222,
Fromentin, criticisms by, quoted, 103, 108, 127,
129, 147.
Ganymede, 178, 199.
Garden of Love. See under Conversation a la
Mode.
Garlanded Madonna, the (Louvre), 122, 203 ;
(Munich), 122, 201.
Geest, Cornelis van der, 99, 121 note, 123.
Genoese Gentleman, Bust of, 223.
Genoese Palaces, Rubens's work on, 25.
Gerbier, Sir Balthazar, meets Rubens in Paris,
46 ; with Rubens in Holland, 52 ; his pro
bable treachery, 59-60 ; on the illness and
death of Rubens, 66, 67, 69 ; his character,
50.
Gerbier, a Daughter of Sir B., 236.
Gerbier, the Family of Sir B. (Mrs. Culling Han-
bury), 155-156, 233; (Windsor), 155-156,
229.
Gevartius, Caspar, 44, 65.
Gevartius, Caspar, 152-153, 190.
Gonzaga, Family, the, 23, 86-87.
Goubau, Alexandre Jean and his Wife, 226.
Gouwi, J. P., as assistant of Rubens, 179.
Graces, the Three (Dulwich), 215 ; (Prado), 180,
199 ; (Stockholm), 122, 225 ; (Uffizi), 215 ;
(Vienna), 122, 226.
Grebber, Francois de, 40.
Grimaldi, Marchesa Isabella, 91, 230.
Grimaldi, Marchesa Maria, with Dwarf, 91,
230.
Guilds at Antwerp, the; 74-75.
Hagar, the Dismissal of (Hermitage), 109, 205 ;
(Duke of Westminster), 109, 237.
Harvest Landscape with Rainbow. See Rainbow.
Head, Study of (Louvre), 203.
Hecke, Peter van, 128, 160, 222, 237 note.
Hemessen, Jan Sanders van, 78.
Henri iv. Series, the breakdown of, 157-158.
Henry IV., Birth of, 158, 196; Entry of, into
Paris (Lord Darnley), 158, 232; (Uffizi),

157, 158, 216; (Wallace Collection), 158,
196 ; Marriage of, 158, 196 ; Seizing Oppor
tunity by the Hair, 158, 228.
Heraclitus, the Weeping Philosopher, 21, 89,
197.
Hercules, 216 ; and Antaeus, 236 ; the choice of,
216 ; the drunken (Cassel), 193 ; (Dresden),
82, 83, 94, 194.
Hero crowned by Victory (Cassel), 132, 194 ;
(Dresden), 82, 83, 94, 113, 132, 194;
(Munich), 200; (Tours), 226; (Vienna),
132, 207.
Herod's Feast (Hon. Mrs. Baillie Hamilton),
233; (New York), 221.
Het Pelsken, 165, 209.
Hippodamia and the Centaurs, 179 note, 193.
Hippolytus, Death of (Duke of Bedford), 230;
(Earl Brownlow), 230.
Hippomenes and Atalanta, 219.
Holland, Rubens's early visit to, 43 ; Rubens
and Gerbier in, 52.
Holy Family (Duke of Devonshire), 232 ; (Paris),
223 ; (Prado), 198 ; (ex Duke of Suther^
land), 236 ; (Wallace Collection), 122, 196.
Holy Family adored by Saints (Cassel), 194.
Holy Family under the Apple-tree (Vienna), 168,
209.
Holy Family with a Basket (Potsdam), 123, 223.
Holy Family with Cradle (Pitti), 123; (Potsdam),
223.
Holy Family with the Parrot, 111, 189.
Holy Family with St. Elizabeth (Mr. Currie),
232 ; with St. Elizabeth, St. John, and
Lamb (Earl of Lonsdale), 234.
Holy Family with St. Francis (New York), 168,
221 ; (Windsor), 168, 229.
Holy Family with Saints (National Gallery), 169,
196 ; (Prado), 169, 199.
Holy Sacrament, Triumph of, 150. See also under
Eucharist.
Holy Women at the Sepulchre, the, 227.
Honeysuckle Bower, the, 97, 158, 200.
Horrors of War, the (National Gallery), 175,
196 ; (Pitti), 175, 215.
Horses in Rubens's pictures, 131, 132; kept
by Rubens, 37.
Hunting and Battle pieces, 115-117.
Infantado, Duca del, 89, 90, 227-
Infant Christ with St. John, etc. (Lord Ardi-
laun), 230 ; (Berlin), 123, 191 ; (Genoa),
216 ; (Earl of Pembroke), 235 ; (Vienna),
123, 208.
Invention ofthe Cross (Grasse), 86, 217.
243

RUBENS

Isabella Brant, Rubens's first wife, 30, 51, 97,
and see under Brant.
Isabella Clara Eugenia, the Archduchess, 9-10 ;
42, 48, 51, 68 ; her interest in Descalzas
Convent, 150 ; death of, 59.
Isabella Clara Eugenia, the Archduchess(Br\issels),
173, 193 ; (Duke of Devonshire), 150, 232 ;
(Mr. Jackson), 234; (Prado), 128, 197.
Isabella d'Este (copy of Titian), 95, 207.
Italian Period of Rubens, 83-95.
Italy, Rubens in, 14-27.
Ivry, the Battle of, 158, 216.
Ixion deceived by Juno, 112, 221.
Jacob and Esau, the Reconciliation of (Munich),
132-133, 153, 201 ; sketch for (Mrs. San
dars), 236.
James I., the Happy Reign and Apotheosis of,
sketches for the Whitehall Ceiling (Hermi
tage), 157, 206 ; (Vienna), 157, 227. See
also under Whitehall.
Janssens, Abraham, 98.
Jegher, Christoffel, engraver on wood, 165,
169.
Jesuit Church at Antwerp, 133-134 ; pictures
painted for, 134-135 ; sketches for ceiling of,
134, 203, 217.
Jesus at the House of Simon, 206.
Jesus instructing Nicodemus, 192.
Joanna of Austria, 204.
Job, the Patriarch, (lost picture), 109.
Johns, the two, 219.
Jonah thrown into the Sea, 133, 221.
Joost van Cleef, copy after, 121, 201.
Jordaens, Jacob, 78 note, 107 note, 132 note ;
finishes pictures left by Rubens, 68 ;
supposed jealousy of Rubens, 187 note.
'Joyous Entry' of Archdukes, the, 12, 64-65,
173-174.
' Joyous Entry,' the, sketches for (Hermitage), 64,
65, 173, 207; (Lille), 173, 218. See also
under Triumphal Arches.
Judas Maccabaeus praying for the Dead, 221.
Judith and Holophernes (Brunswick), 169, 212 ;
(Nice), 221.
Judgment of Paris, the (Dresden), 150, 177,
195; (National Gallery), 150, 177, 196;
(Prado), 177, 179, 180, 199.
Judgment, the last. See under Last Judg
ment.
Juno and Argus, 112, 214.
Juno and Ixion, 112, 221.
Jupiter and Callisto, 112, 193.
Jupiter, Venus and Cupid, 232.
244

Juvenal, Quotation from, on Rubens's Garden
Gates, 34, 70.
Kermesse, the Flemish, 167, 204.
Key, William, paints Alva's portrait, 5.
Lady, in Waiting, A (Hermitage), 206; Old,
Seated (Hermitage), 205; Portrait of a—
' Virgo Brabantina ' (Mr. C. Butler), 231 ;
Portrait of a (Paris), 223; with Fan
(Vienna), 207 ; with Spreading Collar
(Vienna), 208.
Laeken, Dairy Farm at, 119, 184, 219.
Laeken, Landscapes painted at, 184.
Lamentation over Christ (Prado), 172, 198;
(Vienna), 121, 207. See also under Pieta.
Landscapes, painted in Italy, 92-93, 181 ; of
middle period, 119-120, 182; of last period,
183-187 ; of uncertain date, 184.
Landscape, Moonlight (Dr. L. Mond), 234 ; with
Boar-hunt (Sir C. Robinson), 236; with
Cart (Hermitage), 184, 207; with Chateau
de Steen, 185, 196; with Cows (Munich),
184, 202 ; with Rainbow and Shepherd (Lord
Carnarvon) 93, 231 ; (Hermitage), 93, 205 ;
(Louvre), 92, 93, 181, 203; (Earl of
Plymouth), 93, 235; with Sheep (Earl of
Carlisle), 231 ; with Shepherd (Earl of Pem
broke), 235 ; with Sportsmen (Duke of
Devonshire), 233; (Sir H. Watkin Wil
liams- Wynn), 237.
Lantschott, Chevalier Corneille de, 212.
Last ¦ Judgment, the (Budapest), 213 ; sketch
(Dresden), 194; (Genoa), 216; the Great,
126, 200 ; the Little, 126, 200.
Last Supper, the (Brera), 169, 220; sketch
(Hermitage), 169, 207.
Lazarus, the Raising q/*(Berlin), 149, 191 ; sketch
(Louvre), 203 ; (Turin), 226.
Leganes, Marquis of, 52.
Lerma, Duke of, 21, 89.
Lerma, Duke of, 220.
Liggeren, or Registers of Guilds, 30, 75,
IAon Hunt (Dresden), 116, 194; sketch (Her
mitage), 206 ; (Munich), 201.
Lion and Tiger Hunt (Rome), 116, 225.
Lioness, Young, (Earl of Normanton), 119, 235.
Lions, Two Young, 212.
Lipsius and Disciples — the Four Philosophers,
91-92, 159, 215.
Lipsius, Justus, 16, 19, 23, 91-92.
London, Art collections praised by Rubens,
155 ; pictures painted by Rubens in, 155-
156.

INDEX

Longueval, Charles de, 206.
Lot Leaving Sodom (Mr. Butler), 132, 231 ;
(Louvre), 149, 204.
lat, Drunkenness of. See under Drunkenness.
Love and Wine (Genoa), 216.
Luxembourg Palace, 45, 141.
Luxembourg Series, allegory of, 143 ; choice of
subject, 45-46, 141 ; colour scheme, 144 ;
history of, 141-143, 157-158; Rubens's
assistants in, 144 ; sketches for, 142 ; sub
ject rejected, 143.
Luxembourg Medicis Series, 141-145, 204.
Madonna adored by Saints (Chiesa Nuova), 26,
88, 225 ; (Grenoble), 87, 217.
Madonna and Child (ex Kann Collection), 222 ;
(Prussian Royal Palaces), 224; with Saint
Francis (Lille), 110, 218 ; with Saints (Sir
F. Cook), 172, 232; (St. Jacques), 172,
211. See also under Virgin.
Madonna in Glory (Prussian Royal Palaces),
224.
Madonna with Holy Innocents (Louvre), 122, 203.
Madrid, Rubens in, 21, 153 ; pictures painted
in, 153-154.
Magdalen, the, in Ecstasy (Lille), 218 ; the
Repentant (Berlin), 187, 192 ; (New York),
221 ; (Vienna), 208.
Magi. See Adoration of Kings.
Malderus, Jean, 219.
Man, Portrait of a (Antwerp), 152, 190 ; (Duke of
Bedford), 230; (Brussels), 192; (Brussels,
Arenberg Collection), 212 ; (Budapest),
213; (Cassel), 194; (Sir F. Cook) 'Philip
Rubens'}, 128, 232; (Copenhagen), 214;
(Czernin Gallery), 227; (Dresden), 194;
(Hermitage)^ed, 206, grasping mantle, 205,
in armour, 205 ; (Liechtenstein Gallery),
228; (Munich) 'Grotius'}, 200, 'Philip
Rubens ' ?, 200 ; Young, 201 ; (Lord Strath-
more), 236 ; (Vienna) bald, with large ruff,
209, with fur coat, 207, with fur coat and
ruff, 208, with long beard, 209, with red
beard and gold chain, 209, with shallow ruff,
208 ; (Duke of Wellington), 237.
Man carrying buck and Woman carrying fruit
(Lord Iveagh), 233.
Manna, Gathering ofthe, 150, 237.
Mantegna, at Mantua, 16 ; copied by Rubens,
16, 94.
Mantua, Marbles at, 16 ; Rubens at, 15, 23, 24.
'March of Silenus' Series, how treated, 138-
139. See also under Silenus.
Marie de Medicis (Duke of Buccleuch), 231 ;

(Louvre), 204 ; (Oldenburg), 222 ; (Prado),
145, 197 ; as Bellona (Hermitage), sketch,
206 ; (Louvre), 203.
Marie de Medicis, the Luxembourg pictures, 45,
141-143 ; in Belgium, 57-58.
Marie de Medicis, History of, 141-145, 204;
sketches (Hermitage), 142, 206 ; (Munich),
142, 202.
Marriage of Peleus and Thetis, 233.
Mars and Venus, 224.
Marselaer, Frederic de, 174, 223.
Mars, Venus and Cupid (Berlin), 191.
Massacre ofthe Innocents, 170, 202.
Maxentius, Defeat of, 124, 196.
Maximilian, assistant of Rubens, 144.
Maximilian, the Emperor, (Vienna), 173, 174,
209 ; (Vienna Academy), 227.
Mayernius, Portrait of, 219.
Medici, Francesco de', 204.
Medicis, Marie de. See under Marie.
Medusa, Head of, 208.
Meleager and Atalanta, (Cassel), 194 ; (Sir F.
Cook), 117,^232 ; (Dresden), 195 ; (ex Kann
Collection), 222 ; (Munich), 203; (Potsdam),
224; (Rothschild Collection), 236. See
also under Calydonian Boar.
Men, Two old, 233.
Menageries brought to Antwerp, 117.
Mercury, 179, 199 ; and Argus (Brussels), 179
fn., 193; (Dresden), 177, 195; (Prado),
178, 199 ; quitting Antwerp, 173, 226.
'Metamorphoses' Series, 178.
'Metamorphoses' Series, sketches for, 220.
Milky Way, the, 178, 198.
Minerva repelling Discord, 190.
Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 133, 220.
Monk, Head of a (Brussels), 212 ; (Copenhagen),
214.
Monogram of Christ, 223.
Montalto, Cardinal, 17, 18.
Mor, Anton (Anthony More), 79.
More, Sir Thomas, 198.
Moretus, B., the printer, 34, 38-39.
Morning Walk, the, 202.
Mucius Scaevola before Porsenna, 213.
Natural Histoby, Rubens's interest in, 117-
118; Series of pictures, 117-119, 133.
Nature adorned by the Graces, 122, 217.
Negro, Studies of Head of, 129, 192.
Neptune and Amphitrite, 118, 190.
Neptune and Cybele, 118, 205.
Nessus and Deianira (Hanover), 218 ; (Prussian
Royal Palaces), 224.
245

RUBENS

Neuburg, Duke of, pictures painted for, 125-
126.
Nordlingen, the Battle of, VIS, 229.
Norgate, Edward, on Rubens's landscapes, 186
note.
Nymphs and Fauns (Oldenburg), 221.
Nymphs and Satyrs plucking Fruit (Prado), 199.
Nymphs crowning Abundance (Rome), 225.
Nymphs plucking Fruit (Hague), 122, 217.
Nymphs with Fruit, sketch (Dulwich), 215.
Nymphs with Horn of Plenty, (Prado), 151, 197.
Old Woman and Boy with Candle, 233.
Old Woman with Brazier, 151, 195.
Olivares, the Count Duke, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58.
Olivares, the Count Duke, 211.
Ophovius, Michel, 174, 21 7-
Oriental costume, source of, 148 note.
Orpheus and Eurydice, (ex Osuna Collection),
219 ; (Potsdam), 223 ; (Prado), 178, 179, 198.
Pacheco, references to Rubens, 54, 153.
Palatine Hill, the, 92, 181, 203.
Pan and Syrinx, 218.
'Pand,' the, at Antwerp, 75-76.
Paracelsus, 121, 192.
Paradise, Expulsion from, 224.
Paris, Rubens's visits to, 45.
Parr, Thomas, 222.
Pausias and Glycera, 82, 237.
Peace, Rubens's efforts in favour of, 42 ;
pictures in support of, 155, 175.
Peasants going to Market, 230.
Pecquius, Peter, 128, 212.
Peiresc, Fabri de, 43, 142.
Perseus and Andromeda (Berlin), 113, 190;
(Hermitage), 113, 205 ; (ex Osuna Collec
tion), 219 ; (Prado), 180, 199 ; Fresco ( ? )
on wall of house, 33, 113.
Philemon and Baucis, 120, 207 ; Landscape
with, 183, 209.
Philip II. on Horseback (Prado), 198 ; (Windsor
Castle), 229.
Philip iv. and Rubens, 51, 54, 57, 153 ; last
pictures for, 65, 178-180 ; purchases by,
after Rubens's death, 180.
Philip IV. (Genoa), 216; (Hermitage), 206;
(Munich), 153, 202.
Philopoemen, 119, 203.
Picquery, Mile., supposed portrait of, 163 note,
187 note.
Pieta (Antwerp), 189 ; (Berlin), 190 ; (Madrid),
172, 198; (Vienna), 121, 207. See also
under Saviour, Christ, and Lamentation.
246

Piles, Roger de. See De Piles.
Plantin-Moretus, Muse'e, 39.
' Pompa Introitus.' See ' Joyous Entry.'
Pope and Emperor worshipping Saint, 232.
Porto Venere, View of (Shipwreck of Aeneas),
182, 191.
Portraits, of Antwerp period, 127-129 ; of him
self by Rubens, 158-159; of last period,
174.
Potsdam, Rubens's pictures at, 123 note.
Pourbus the younger, Frans, 17.
Prelates kneeling, 234.
Presentation in Temple, the, 226.
Priest, Head of old, 209.
Prodigal Son, the, 120, 181, 189.
Prometheus and the Eagle, 112, 222.
Proserpine ^Rape of (ex Osuna Collection), 219 ;
(Prado), 112, 178, 198 ; (Strassburg), 226 ;
burnt picture, 112.
Psyche carried to Heaven, 228.
Pupils and assistants of Rubens, 105-106, 144,
147, 179.
Purgatory, 226.
Pypelincx, Maria, Rubens's mother, 5, 6, 7, 10.
Pythagoras, 219.
' Quos Ego' (Dresden), 173, 195; sketch (Duke
of Grafton), 233.
Rainbow, Harvest Landscape with (Munich), 186,
203; (Wallace Collection), 185-186, 197;
and see under Landscape.
Rainbow Landscape with Shepherd, 92-93, 181,
203.
Rape of Sabine Women, the (National Gallery),
175, 176, 196 ; (Mr. A. de Rothschild), 176,
236; (Messrs. Sulley and Co.), 230.
Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau. See under
Jacob, etc.
Reconciliation of Romans and Sabines, the
(Munich), 201 ; (Mr. A. de Rothschild),
176, 236 ; (Messrs. Sulley and Co.), 230.
Religion crowned by Genius, 157, 204.
Repose in Egypt (National Gallery), 169, 196 ;
(Prado), 169, 199.
Respaigne, Nicolas, in Oriental Dress, 194.
Resurrection, the (Antwerp), 108, 211 ; (Mar
seilles), 220.
Return from Egypt, the (Mr. L. Currie), 109,
232 ; (New York), 221.
Return from the Fields, the (Pitti), 186, 215.
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, criticism quoted, 99 note,
100, 101, 111, 120, 130, 149 note ; on en
gravings after Rubens, 38 note.

INDEX

Richardot, Jean and GuiUaume, 18, 19, 86.
Richelieu and Rubens, 57, 157.
Ricketts, Mr. C, on pictures in Prado, 178
note, 179.
Rockox, Nicolas, 31, 102, 108, 129 ; portraits of
108, 189.
Roman General, Return of, 206.
Romulus and Remus, Finding of, 176, 224.
Romulus and Remus suckled by Wolf, 93-94, 181,
225.
Rondo, the, 167-168, 199; sketch (Hamburg),
218 ; sketch (Vienna), 167, 227.
Rooses, M. Max, 33, 78 note, 88, 92 note, 118,
128 note, 163 note.
Rubens, Albert, the painter's eldest son, 61 ;
serves as model, 123, 152.
Rubens, Jan, the painter's father, 4-7.
Rubens, Jean Baptiste, the painter's elder
brother, 11.
Rubens, Nicholas, the painter's second son, 61,
62 ; serves as model, 123, 152.
Rubens, Nicholas, 235.
Rubens, Peter Paul —
His Life —
Birth, 6 ; early years in Germany, 6-
8 ; baptized as Lutheran, 7 : early
years in Antwerp, 10 ; as page, 10-11 ;
student years, 11-12; in studio of Adam
van Noort, 11, 81 ; departure for Italy, 14 ;
Italian travels, 18-19 ; Letters to Chieppio
quoted, 20, 22, 24, 26 ; at Florence, 16-17 ;
at Genoa, 25, 91 ; at Mantua, 15, 16, 23,
24; his relations to Duke Vincenzo, 24;
at Rome, 17, 23, 25-26 ; art studies at
Rome, 23, 83-84, 94; at Venice, 14;
classical influences, 23-24 ; departure from
Italy, 26-27 ; first Spanish journey, 20-22 ;
at Valladolid, 20-21 ; arrival at Antwerp,
28 ; first marriage, 30 ; appointed Court
painter, 30 ; the Antwerp mansion, 32-34 ;
the Rotunda, 33 ; the collections, 33 ; the
great picture manufactory, 34-35 ; a visit
to the studio, 35 ; invited to Brussels, 34 ;
dealings with English noblemen, 41 ; first
diplomatic employment, 42 ; visits to Paris,
45, 141-145 ; dealings in cameos, 47 ; em
ployed as political agent, 48-50; Spanish
letter of ennoblement, 49 ; friendship with
Spinola, 50 ; with Gerbier in Holland, 52 ;
summoned to Madrid, 53 ; second journey
to Spain, 53-55, 153-154 ; copies Titian at
Madrid, 54, 154 ; sent as envoy to England,
55 ; in England, 65-56, 155-157 ; English
honours, 56 ; departure from England, 56-

57 ; receives Marie de Me'dicis on flight to
Belgium, 67-58; later diplomatic experi
ences, 57, 58-59; insulted by Duke of
Aerschot, 59 ; second marriage, 61-62 ; life
as country gentleman, 63, 65 ; attacks of
gout, 63, 66, 178 ; last illness and death,
66-67 ; tomb in St. Jacques, 67-68 ; the
will, 66-67 ; inventory of estate, 68-69 ;
final disposal of property, 68-69.
His character and opinions —
Summary of character, 70-71 ; influence of
milieu, 71 ; bodily gifts, 72 ; personal aspect,
36 ; higher endowments, 72, 73 ; varied esti
mation of critics, 73 ; position in art world,
74 ; influence of his brother Philip and of
Lipsius, 19-20, 23 ; his way of life, 35-37 ;
interest in scientific questions, 44-45 ; criti
cism of Philip iv., 54, 153 ; opinion of the
English, 56 ; his correspondence, 35 ; with
Carleton, 39-40 ; with French correspond
ents, 43 ; with Vaenius, 44 ; with Olivares,
57 ; on the selection of wife, 62.
His work and technique —
Work on Genoese Palaces, 25 ; work for
engravers, 38-39 ; work for Plantin Press,
39 ; the Luxembourg pictures, 45, 46 ; work
for ' Joyous Entry,' 64-65, 173 ; manner
isms of drawing, 83 ; earliest works, 81-83 ;
drawings made in Italy, 84 ; pictures of
Italian period, 83-95 ; copies made in Italy,
94-95 ; early pictures painted in Spain, 89-
90 ; rendering of vigorous action, 100, 107,
115, 117, 124 ; uniform style of Antwerp
period, 107 ; flesh painting of Antwerp
period, 107, 113-114, 122, 124; his use of
vermilion, 110-111 ; his rank as portrait
painter, 127 ; his portraits of himself, 158-
159 ; division into four periods, 140-141 ;
date of beginning of fourth period, 145-
146, 152 ; pre-eminence of last period, 161-
162 ; merits of his late work, 161-162 ;
technique, 163, 166 ; orgiastic spirit in late
works, 166-167 ; scenes of torture, 170 ;
love of 'new patterns,' 171 ; little sense of
humour, 171-172 ; erotic subjects of last
period, 176-177 ; character of latest works,
179, 180; dogs in his pictures, 45, 149;
horses in his pictures, 131, 132 ; his pupils
and assistants, 31, 96 ; division of work in
atelier, 104-105.
Rubens and Helen in Garden, 163, 164,
223.
Rubens and Isabella Brant, 97, 158, 200.
Rubens, Daughter of, in Garden, 237. -
247

RUBENS

Rubens, Philip, the painter's brother, 10, 18,
19, 22, 23, 25, 29 ; his death, 31.
Rubens, Philip, the younger, author of the
Vita, 10 note, 11, 31.
Rubens, Portraits of (Duke of Norfolk), 235;
(Uffizi, two), 215, 216; (Vienna), 159, 209;
(Windsor), 228 ; with his son (Hermitage),
225.
Rubens's son with Nurse in Kitchen, 231.
Rubens, Two sons of, 152, 228.
Rudolph of Habsburg and the Priest, 172, 119.
Ruelens, M., the Rubens Codex, 1.
Sabine Women, Abduction of. See under Rape
of
JSacrifice of Abrahetm-,-4he, -203. 
X^ Sacrifice to Venus, the (Stockholm), 95, 225 ;
V (Vienna), 166-167, 209. ______ 
St. AmbrosFancTTheodosius, 131, 208.
St. Andrew, Crucifixion of, 171, 219 ; Head of
(Vienna), 171, 209.
St. Athanasius, 134, 217.
St. Augustine (Gotha), 134, 217 ; between Christ
and the Virgin (Madrid), 90, 219 ; on the
Seashore (Prague), 171, 224.
St. Barbara, 215.
St. Basil, 134, 217.
St. Bavon, Conversion of (Ghent), 146, 216 ;
(National Gallery), 146, 195.
St. Benedict, the Miracles of, 212.
St. Bonaventura, 218.
St. Catherine, Crowning of, 169, 236 ; Decapita
tion of, 146, 218; Mystic marriage of
(Antwerp), 149, 210 ; (Philadelphia), 94,
223.
St. Cecilia (Berlin), 172, 192 ; (Vienna), 227.
St. Christopher and the Hermit (Antwerp), 102,
211 ; (Munich), 102 note, 200.
St. Dominic, 214.
St. Francis, holding Crucifix (Oldenburg), 110,
221 ; in adoration (Pitti), 215 ; in ecstasy
(Lille), 218 ; last communion of, 129, 189 ;
praying before crucifix, 108, 227 ; protecting
the world, 193 ; receiving the Infant Christ
(Antwerp), 210 ; (Lille), 110, 218 ; receiving
the stigmata (Cologne), 110, 214; (Dublin),
215 ; (Ghent), 217 ; with a rosary, 214.
St. Francis Xavier, Miracles of, 134-136, 208.
St. Francois de Paul, Miracle of (Dresden), 146-
147, 195; (Mr. C. Morrison), 147, 234;
(Munich), 146-147, 202; sketch (Vienna),
227.
St. George, and the Dragon, 93, 197 ; Landscape
with, 156, 219 ; Martyrdom of, 212.
248

St. Gregory, 134, 217.
St. Helena and the True Cross, 86, 217.
St. Ignatius Loyola (Earl of Warwick), 237 ;
Miracle of '(Genoa), 135, 216 ; (Vienna), 134-
135, 208 ; Vision of (Dublin), 215.
St. Ildefonso, the Miracle of (Hermitage), 168,
206 ; Triptych (Vienna), 168, 209.
St. Jerome (Dresden), 94, 194 ; (Vienna), 227 ;
as Cardinal (Vienna), 209.
St. John Baptist, Beheading of, 211.
St. Justus carrying his head, 171-172, 212.
St. Laurence, Martyrdom of, 202.
St. Lievin, Martyrdom of, 170, 193.
St. Luke, Guild of, 30.
St. Mark, 232.
St. Paul, Beheading of, 171, 233 ; Conversion of,
115, 191.
St. Pepin and St. Bega, 121, 208.
St. Peter, study (Berlin), 191 ; Crucifixion of,
171, 214 ; finding Tribute money, 214.
St. Peter and St. Paul (Brussels), 213 ; (Munich),
201.
St. Roch interceding, 146, 210.
St. Sebastian, 190.
St. Stephen, Triptych, 226.
St. Teresa praying (Antwerp), 169, 190, (Sir F.
Cook), '231.
St. Thomas, Martyrdom of, 171, 224.
St. Ursula, Martyrdom of (Brussels), 192,
(Montpellier), 220.
St. Walpurga, Church of, at Antwerp, 29, 31,
99.
Sallaert, Anton, 96, 98, 105.
Salome with the Head of John the Baptist, 231.
Samson and the Lion, 226.
Samson taken Prisoner, 169, 170 note, 202.
Sandrart, travels with Rubens, 52.
Santa Croce, pictures painted for the church
of, 16, 18, 86.
Saturn, 178, 199.
Satyrs, the Two, 94, 200.
Saviour, the dead, with Mary and John, 207.
Scaglia, Abbe de, 51.
Scipio, the Continence of, 237 ; sketch, 187 note.
Seneca, as expounded by Lipsius, 19 ; supposed
bust of, 19, 91, 92.
Seneca, the Dying, 19, 92, 200.
Sennacherib, Defeat of, 115, 200.
Shepherd and Shepherdess. See under Croc en
Jambe.
Shipwreck of Aeneas, the, 120, 182, 191.
Siegen, birthplace of Rubens, 4, 6.
Silenus, the March of (Berlin), 138-139, 191 ;
(Cassel), 194 ; (Hermitage), 205 ; (Munich),

INDEX

138-139, 201; (National Gallery), 139,
196.
Sketches, how carried out, 142 ; often superior
to pictures, 117, 134-135.
Snyders, Frans, 96, 106-106.
Soldiers Carousing, 213.
Solomon, Judgment of, 214.
Sophonisba. See Cleopatra, the dying.
Spanish Officer, Portrait of—' General Velazquez,'
234.
Sperling, Otto, his visit to Rubens's house, 35.
Spinola, Ambrogio, 28, 48, 50, 53, 152.
Spinola, Ambrogio (ex Sir C. Bunbury), 231 ;
(Earl of Hardwicke), 233 ; (Hermitage),
152, 225 ; (Paris), 222 ; (Prague), 152, 224 ;
(Earl of Warwick), 237.
Spinola, Brigitta. See Grimaldi.
Stag Hunt, the (Berlin), 117, 191.
Steen, Chateau de, Rubens's country residence,
63, 65, 164, 185, 186.
Steen, Chateau de, the Park, 62, 156, 164, 209 ;
Landscape with (National Gallery), 185,
196 ; Tower of (Berlin), 192.
Summer, 119, 181, 229.
Supper at Emmaus, the, 172, 219.
Susanna and the Elders (Munich), 166, 203 ;
(Prado), 109, 219 ; (M. Rooses), 166, 211 ;
(Stockholm), 109, 225.
Tapestry, designs for, 132, 149, 175.
Temple of Janus, the (Marquis of Bute), 173,
231 ; (Hermitage), 207.
Tereus, the Banquet of, 178, 198.
Thomyris and Cyrus (Lord Darnley), 146, 151-
152, 176, 232 ; (Louvre), 152, 204.
Thulden, Doctor van, 128, 201.
Tiberius and Agrippina, 227.
Tigress suckling her Young, 118, 227.
Timber Waggon, the (Earl of Northbrook), 184,
235.
Titans, Fall of the, sketch, 179 note, 193.
Titian, copied by Rubens, 54, 95, 154 ; influence
on Rubens's latest style, 154-155.
Tobias and the Angel, 133, 220.
Tomb of Rubens, 67-68.
Torre de la Parada, Pictures for, 178, 180.
Tournament by Moat of Castle (Louvre), 63, 79,
204.
Transfiguration, the, 87, 221.
Trinity, the (Antwerp), 130, 190 ; (Mantua),
23, 86, 220 ; with Saints (Weimar), 228.
Triumphal Arches, sketches (Hermitage), 64,
65, 173, 207.
Triumphal Arch ofthe Mint, 173, 190.
R.— 17

Triumphal Car, Designfor, 173 note, 190.
Triumph of Julius Caesar, the, after Mantegna,
16, 94, 95, 195.
Triumph of the Conqueror, or of Virtue. See
under Hero.
'Triumph of the Eucharist' Series, 150, 198,.
204, 213.
Triumph of Truth, and the Fates, sketch
(Louvre), 142, 204.
Tunis, Capture of, 158 note, 191.
Turner, suggestions of, in Rubens's landscapes,
183, 185, 186.
Ulysses and Nausicaa, Landscape with, 183, 215.
Vaenius, Rubens's master, 12, 13, 76, 81.
Vandyke, Sir Anthony, in Rubens's studio, 43,
130-131 ; style of his early work, 131 ;
painted horses, 132 ; share in Rubens's
pictures, 131-134.
van Haecht's picture of van der Geest's gallery,
121 note.
van Noort, Adam, his pictures, 11-12.
van Thulden, 147 ; his ' Pompa Introitus,' 65,
173.
van Uden, Lucas, 106 ; his landscape work in
Rubens's pictures, 181-182, 183-184.
van Veen. See Vaenius.
Velazquez, relations with Rubens, 54.
Venetian painters, Rubens's copies of, 54, 154.
Venus and Adonis (Berlin), 190 ; (Hague), 217 ;
(Hermitage), 113, 205 ; (Dowager-Duchess
of Marlborough), 113, 234 ; (ex Osuna Col
lection), 219 f (Prussian Royal Palaces),
224 ; (Uffizi), 216.
Venus and Cupid (Dulwich), 156, 215.
Venus at her Toilet, 95, 227.
Venus at the Forge of Vulcan, 151, 193.
Venus, Birth of (National Gallery), 156, 196 ;
(Duke of Portland), 235.
Venus, Ceres, and Bacchus, 112, 193.
Venus Frigida, 113, 189.
Venus, Offering to. See Sacrifice to Venus.
Verhaeght, Tobias, Rubens's first master, 11, 81.
Vermoelen, Jan, 228.
Vicq, Baron Henri de, 204.
Vierge au Perroquet, la (Antwerp), 111, 189.
Vierge au Fruit, la (Mr. C. Morrison), 234.
Vincenzo, Duke of Mantua, 14-15, 16-17, 18, 22,
24, 25, 26 note, 87.
Vincenzo of Mantua and Family, 86, 220.
Virgin and Child (Mr. L. Currie), 232 ; (Hermit
age), 205, 206; (Rothschild), 236; (Worms),
229 ; in Landscape (Mrs. Meynell Ingram),
249

RUBENS

233 ; (ex Duke of Sutherland), 236 ; with
Flowers and Angels (Prado), 197 ; with
Goldfinch (Cologne), 169, 214 ; with Missal
and Flowers (Berlin), 191 ; with Roses
(Brussels), 192 ; with St. Elizabeth (New
York), 122, 221 ; enthroned with Saints,
' Marriage of St. Catherine,' sketch (Frank
fort), 216; (Berlin), 149, 191; see also
Madonna and Vierge.
Virgin and Saints interceding (Lyons), 219.
Virgin invoked by Saints, and by Albert and Isa
bella, 234.
Virgin presenting Rosary to St. Dominic, 206.
Visitation, the, 103, 225.
Vos, Cornells de, as assistant of Rubens,
179.
Vos, Martin de, 77-78.
Vos, Paul de, 106.
Vriendt, de, Family of Artists, 77.
Vouet, Simon, 141.
War and Peace (Munich), 202 ; (National
Gallery), 155, 156, 195.
Watering-Place, the (Duke of Buccleuch), 184,
231 ; (Liechtenstein Gallery), 184, 228.
Whitehall Banqueting-House Ceiling, 41, 156-
157.

Whitehall Ceiling, Sketches for the (Brussels),
193 ; (Sir J. Campbell), 231 ; (Sir F. Cook),
157, 232 ; (Cologne), 214. See also under
James I.
Wild-Boar Hunt, the (Dresden), 116-117, 194,
See also under Boar.
Wildens, Jan, 106, 118 ; landscape work in
Rubens's pictures, 181-182.
Winter, 119-120, 181, 228.
Wisdom victorious over Discord (Brussels), 193.
Wladislas, Sigismund, Prince of Poland (Sir F.
Cook), 232 ; (Genoa), 216.
Wolf and Fox Hunt. See under Fox.
Woman, Head of an old — Rubens's mother (?),
201.
Woman, smelling Rose (Duke of Newcastle),
235 ; taken in adultery (Brussels), 108,
192 ; with Grapes (Duke of Newcastle),
235 ; Young (Brussels), 212 ; (Hermitage),
205 ; (Lieut. -Colonel Holford), 233 ; (Mr.
Drury Lowe), 234; with crimped Hair
(Dresden), 195 ; with Mirror (Cassel), 194
Wooded Landscape with Atalanta. See under
Calydonian Boar.
Woverius, 91, 212.
Yrsselius, Mattheus, 174t, 214.

YALE

v — 1>1

a"

tis a-
— ^

Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to His Majesty
tit the Edinburgh University Press

y*U UNIVEJ?SITY

339002 VWWfgt

YALE

. .- - .

*^+ — »»' .w**»nf»*'*" ZZZZZT ''