.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Portraiture as a specialty was never a major preoccupation for Rubens as it was to be for his pupil van Dyck, nevertheless the older artist executed masterly and beautiful portraits throughout his career, and of course his figure compositions are populated by convincingly life-like protagonists. The present portrait of an elderly man presents an exceptionally informal and lively description of a face as unpretentious as it is quizzically alert. It has something of the spirit of Rubens’ head studies, which were executed as modelli for the actors in his figure compositions, but is rather a striking record of a personality and was painted seemingly for no ulterior purpose.
The picture spent much of the last century in Japan, having been acquired by the important collector Kojiro Matsukata (1865-1950) perhaps before 1921, the date of publication of Rudolf Oldenbourg’s Klassiker der Kunst volume in which it was published for the first time. Discussed again by Erik Larsen in 1969 (who was told about the picture by his son-in-law who was then in Japan), its quality was again recognised, after cleaning in 1985/6, by Julius Held, then at the height of his powers as the leading authority on the artist (in a letter of 20 August 1986). The attribution was also confirmed by Professor Haverkamp Begemann (in an undated letter) and by Professor Michael Jaffé (in a letter of 24 March 1987), judging from a colour transparency and a black and white photograph.
Held was unwilling to be more precise than to suggest a date of execution of before 1620. In fact it must have been after 1615 for this was the year in which the panel maker Michiel Vriendt, whose monogram is stamped on the reverse, became a master in the Antwerp guild. The plasticity of the paint rendering the features of the face suggests a date closer to 1615 than to the end of the decade.
The identity of the sitter is not known. Held perceptively suggested that he be associated with the group of scholars and intellectuals in the circle of the Plantin press - the Offcina Plantiniana - the internationally famous Antwerp publishing house. In fact Rubens had a close association with it for much of his career, having been at school with its manager, Balthasar Moretus II (1574-1641). A pastime of the artist was to design frontispieces for the press’ books. The founder of the firm, Christopher Plantin (c. 1520-1589), had features not dissimilar to those depicted in the present portrait, but it seems unlikely that his descendants would have requested that he be portrayed in such an unconventional manner. Perhaps inspired by a view of the portrait similar to Held’s is the possible old identification of the sitter as Justus Lipsius (1547-1606), the greatly influential humanist and scholar who had taught Rubens’ elder brother.
The Colnaghi catalogue suggested a provenance for the portrait from the Dukes [sic] of Kent (= Henry de Grey (1671-1740)), whose titles included the Barony of Lucas, and his descendants. The portrait has not been traced among the pictures recorded as being attached to the barony; but perhaps connected is a portrait that was sold by the 9th Baroness Lucas in 1917 (see provenance above).
A copy in red(?) chalk of the head with the collar faintly indicated was traditionally ascribed to Antoine Watteau, however, this attribution has been rejected by Pierre Rosenberg and L.-A.Prat, judging from a photograph (Antoine Watteau 1684-1721. Catalogue raisonné des dessins, Milan, III, 1996, p. 1301, no. R.568).
The picture spent much of the last century in Japan, having been acquired by the important collector Kojiro Matsukata (1865-1950) perhaps before 1921, the date of publication of Rudolf Oldenbourg’s Klassiker der Kunst volume in which it was published for the first time. Discussed again by Erik Larsen in 1969 (who was told about the picture by his son-in-law who was then in Japan), its quality was again recognised, after cleaning in 1985/6, by Julius Held, then at the height of his powers as the leading authority on the artist (in a letter of 20 August 1986). The attribution was also confirmed by Professor Haverkamp Begemann (in an undated letter) and by Professor Michael Jaffé (in a letter of 24 March 1987), judging from a colour transparency and a black and white photograph.
Held was unwilling to be more precise than to suggest a date of execution of before 1620. In fact it must have been after 1615 for this was the year in which the panel maker Michiel Vriendt, whose monogram is stamped on the reverse, became a master in the Antwerp guild. The plasticity of the paint rendering the features of the face suggests a date closer to 1615 than to the end of the decade.
The identity of the sitter is not known. Held perceptively suggested that he be associated with the group of scholars and intellectuals in the circle of the Plantin press - the Offcina Plantiniana - the internationally famous Antwerp publishing house. In fact Rubens had a close association with it for much of his career, having been at school with its manager, Balthasar Moretus II (1574-1641). A pastime of the artist was to design frontispieces for the press’ books. The founder of the firm, Christopher Plantin (c. 1520-1589), had features not dissimilar to those depicted in the present portrait, but it seems unlikely that his descendants would have requested that he be portrayed in such an unconventional manner. Perhaps inspired by a view of the portrait similar to Held’s is the possible old identification of the sitter as Justus Lipsius (1547-1606), the greatly influential humanist and scholar who had taught Rubens’ elder brother.
The Colnaghi catalogue suggested a provenance for the portrait from the Dukes [sic] of Kent (= Henry de Grey (1671-1740)), whose titles included the Barony of Lucas, and his descendants. The portrait has not been traced among the pictures recorded as being attached to the barony; but perhaps connected is a portrait that was sold by the 9th Baroness Lucas in 1917 (see provenance above).
A copy in red(?) chalk of the head with the collar faintly indicated was traditionally ascribed to Antoine Watteau, however, this attribution has been rejected by Pierre Rosenberg and L.-A.Prat, judging from a photograph (Antoine Watteau 1684-1721. Catalogue raisonné des dessins, Milan, III, 1996, p. 1301, no. R.568).