The Quite Peerless Hubert Presentation
at niemeyer’s ,
The Home Environment of the Saint !
as of greatest authenticity
The Hubert bursting dedication
for Frederik de Marselaer
– Rubens painted him –
The presumptive prior possession
of just the same
as of latest originality
Bruyn, Nicolaes de (Antwerp 1571 – Rotterdam [before?] 1656). Saint Hubert. The south Netherlandish princely “Wild Hunter”, after Döbel father of the par force hunting, with bugle and 6-head pack kneeling without headgear before the stag with his cross in a rich wooden landscape in the manner of the 3rd Gillis van Coninxloo (Antwerp? 1544 – Amsterdam 1607). On the pool behind the stag two swans as the prophesying birds of mythology, at the trunk above the horse a hissing snake as temptress, and nearest to the stag a hubertus hound as the one and only looking at its master. Engraving. (1614.) Sheet size 27½ × 18 in (69.9 × 45.8 cm).
de Marselaer , ( in writing ) 1656
as baptismal gift from
Frederic de Marselaer
(Antwerp 1584 – [St. Hubert-] Elewijt 1670)
(Jöcher III, 1751, 208 & VIII, 1813, 789;
Biographie Nationale XIII, 1894/95, col. 854-860;
In 1631 the Inquisition
confiscates the 80 copies delivered to Madrid of Marselaer’s Legatus
[several editions between 1618 + 1668, among them Weimar 1663]
dedicated to Philip IV of Spain [sic!]
as well as the Spanish edition of the Ortelius Atlas published also by Moretus in Antwerp
and supplied there, too;
Peter Paul Rubens ,
Half-length portrait of Marselaer, Oil, 1635/40
[Rosenberg, 2nd ed., 1906, ills. p. 333]
1638 sketch for the title of the Legatus, engraved by Cornelis Galle II
between Dec. 1656 + June 1665 for the 1666 Moretus edition
[Corpus Rubenianum XXI, 1977, pt. 1, pp. 344-348, no. 84 + pt. II, ills. 286;
van de Velde, see below, ills. 1],
after he had examined with such one already in the early 1620s
and inspired that one of van Loon of the 1626 edition
[van de Velde ills. 3];
Lusus Anagrammaticus super Illustri a Centum Lustris Nomine
DE MARSELAER , Brussels 1662;
Portrait engraving of de Marselaer in the age of 80 + View of his mausoleum
[Thieme-Becker XX, 1927, p. 85; ills. + inscription of the portrait at Hooc, s. b., p. 31];
Een Brusselse Magistraat van het Ancien Régime:
Frederic de Marselaer
in Gemeentekrediet van België XXIII, 1969, pp. 27-35,
with illustrations of the [commemorative] medals, too;
C. van de Velde,
Rubens , Frederic de Marselaer en Theodor van Loon
in Festbundel beij de opening van het Kolveniershof en het Rubenianum, 1981, pp. 69-82) ,
– Rubens painted him –
Mayor of Brussels ,
Chairman of the Brotherhood of St. Hubert
Grail’s Keeper of the Hubert–Insignia in Elewijt
(A. Waumans, Levensschets van den H. Hubertus. Zijne vereering te Elewijt. 1927.)
to Frederic Jozef Ignatius de Marselaer (1656-1718)
as the grandson and heir ?
Conte Giovanni Maria Mazzuchelli (Brescia 1707 – 1765)
(Jöcher VIII, 1813, 1127 ff.; Meyers Konv.-Lex., 4. Aufl., IX, 1889, 98)
with his 5fold stamping on the back .
Wurzbach 52. – Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, V, p. 1600, no. 9 (“one plate of St. Hubert”), per January 16, 1632 proving the plate in an inventory of the Rotterdam orphan-chamber. – Not in Huyghebaert, Sint Hubertus – Patroon van de Jagers in Woord en Beeld, 2nd ed., Antwerp [sic!] 1949 and only by the copy here becoming known to Günther Schlieker for his coming Hubert monograph which will presents the sheet within the Hubert reserach now for the first time.
Compare Plietzsch, Gillis van Coninxloo 14 in Die Frankenthaler Maler (1910/1972) with plate V; Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting (2nd ed., 1968), pp. 65 ff. + ills. 122; Devisscher, Kerstiaen de Keuninck (1987), pp. 36, 89 + ills. Z 10.
Early impression before the addresses (“… are the better because his fine graving work got worn out soon”, Wurzbach) by Gerard Valck (1626 – after 1694) + Peter I Schenk (1661-1715). – Here with Jan Meyssens’ (Antwerp 1612 – Brussels 1670; painter, draughtsman, engraver, and publisher; “established one of the greatest Antwerp art publishing houses” [Wurzbach])
publisher’s dedication for just the above-mentioned :
“ I(ll?). Nob(i)lissi(mum) Do FR(E)DERI(C)O de MARSELAE(R,) Equiti Aurato et Lauretano, Baroni de (Perc)k (et E)lewyt S. Huberti, Toparchæ liberi Dominii de Opdorp. Hærseaux Oycke, etc. … Man. à Consiliis B(e)lli, septimum Bruxellæ Cons(uli, ha)nc D. Huberti iconem D. C. Q. Io(a)nnes Meyssens ”.
On top of it within the subject itself below right
the “MARSELARE” coat of arms
formed from the stock-arms under the five pointed coronet along with the two
set up on both sides, here holding arms banners: on the left the one of the Marselear family, on the right that of the wife, Margriete van Borainage (de Bernaige, Baronaige, b. 1584, marriage 1626, more see below).
Meyssens’ address, standing for the early impressions of the younger Hollar, thus could be an intermediate state before those disqualified ones of Valck and Schenk. For de Bruyn in general Wurzbach proves dates from 1592 (W. 76) to 1650 (vol. II, p. 217). In 1601 he became a member in the Antwerp guild as plaetsnyder and coopman. And “On December 4, 1652, he is indicated as being descrepit in a document” (Thieme-Becker).
According to Bredius the Antwerp engraver and brother-in-law Assuerus van Londerseel has printed and edited several of the early works. “As results from the inventory later de Bruyn has handled printing (no. 75: Een druckpers) and publishing of his plates himself … In respect of the drawings and paintings (the latter of which are introduced in literature concretely probably for the first time here; additionally nos. 78 f.: Vyer tonnekens met verwe and Twee saxkens met smalt/cobalt resp.) … it is noticeable that almost all deal with those themes, partly occurring only rarely, which de Bruyn has engraved, too, so that the idea suggests itself they may have been his copies” (Bredius, op. cit., p. 1599).
On top trimmed to mark of the subject, otherwise with quite fine margins around the subject. So fully corresponding with the size given by Wurzbach (52) with 69 x 46 cm. Because of several partly only small tears or thin places professionally restored (doubled) as only relatively and not noticeably impairing the quite fascinating scenery of the subject itself.
The superb rare sheet
neither attained even by Schwerdt
nor by so many places more
and still quite recently reported here to Günther Schlieker
at preparation of his Hubert monograph, just as then
already unknown to Huyghebaert
even after 21 further years of research
on occasion of the most completely enlarged new edition of his “Sint Hubertus, Patroon van de Jagers in Woord en Beeld” (Antwerp [sic!] 1949 with now 361 pages + 173 illustrations against 158 pages + 34 illustrations in 1927 !!)
what proves the said rarity the more significantly
as he documents Frederic de Marselear in detail (pp. 174-181 + ills. 75-80).
Ridder Dr. iur. Frederic (Fraderi, Frider) de Marselaer, Lord of Opdorp, alderman, treasurer, and at last Lord Mayor of Brussels, in 1611 graduation at Leuven, gentleman’s tour to Italy, author of two works on legations repeatedly published between 1618 + 1668, became Lord and first baron of Perk + Elewijt, Lord of Herseaux, Oycke, and Loxem by marriage (see above) and found central mentioning in the bull of the Mechelen archbishop Jacobus Boonen of October 15, 1650, by which this recognizes canonically
the Elewijt Hubert insignia as well as the Hubert brotherhood , too ,
per May 1, 1651. Existed the latter already since a very long time, so the insignia were transferred for the chapel of the castle of Elewijt by the Antwerp Capuchins after former ones were gone under by ravage by the iconoclasts. The richly decorated bull – Huyghebaert ills. 78-80 – shows as centerpiece of the wide upper border the saint as portrait-medallon with bishop’s insignia and obviously the stag-head on his right and on both sides, framed by hunting parties, two arms each for Boonen + Marselear, at which in contrast to her arms banner in the engraving here that of Lady Marselear quotes the emblems of her husband in the left field of the shield. The side borders decorated with tulips as in those days still very expensive, at which Huyghebaert believes they could be considered as reverence for Rubens who with such gladly pleased his tulip friend Justus Lipsius. Also the left group of the upper border – ills. 79 – returning from hawking and hunting on big and small game might be thought of the surroundings of Baerbeek where Rubens as well as Teniers have painted many landscapes. But
Rubens’ half-length portrait
of Frederic de Marselaer
dated by Rosenberg about 1630/35 – a presumable copy presently offered for genuine on the market – seems to be unknown to him. With the sumptuous country seat Steen Castle located near Elewijt and acquired by Rubens in 1635 the hitherto connection became neighborly, too.
Likewise in 1650 archbishop Boonen already had requested per posters by public reward of a forty-day indulgence to visit the insignia “given to the chapel of the castle of the Lord of Perk and Elewijt”, hoping His Holiness could extend the limited indulgence to a full one as then per 1st May of the following year Innocenz X had
“ granted for the sure relics of ST. HUBERT within the church of Elewijt
and granting the licence for that to the brotherhood of ST. HUBERT ”
what had been published in 1651 by poster printed under the papal coat of arms. This Elewijt full indulgence, however, was reserved only for the church-goers “on the day of ST. HUBERT the 3rd of November each year”. How much the Marselear name stood as a synonym for the welfare of church + relicts of Elewijt even still after extinction in the male line about 1720 one with 16 x 21 cm rather large posthumous souvenir engraving by Antoon Opdebeek (1709-1759) in Mechelen with the Hubert scenery in front of the Elewijt church with the Marselear arms above it documents. See in Huyghebeart the illustrations 75-77.
In respect of publicity the licensing to the Hubert brotherhood to grant full indulgence was a great success. Coming from afar the crowd thronged anew in Elewijt reminding of the great pilgrimages in the early 16th century when Hubert was requested for protection against rabies.
Substantially older is Perk Castle
as the Marselear ancestral seat of the time of Frederic .
Of simple origin in the 12th century building activities from the 17th to 19th centuries formed one of the most splendid manors of the Brussels area with more than 200 rooms amidst a 222 acres immense park. Via marriage of the Katharina de Wavre (Waver), daughter of Jan de Wavre flourishing between 1347 + 1378 and his heiress of Perk + Elewijt, with Johann van Weede/Bernaige
the properties run up on Frederic de Marselear
by joining in marriage with said Margriete van Borainage
pooling property + mind as family zenith in his person .
Home of this rise was the dominion Opdorp, today incorporated to Buggenhout whose present double arms showing the former one of Opdorp, namely that of the Marselears, on the left. As baronial Gwijde van Dampierre, count of Flanders, had donated it in the 13th century to Willem van Grimbergen for rendered services. By marriage with Elisabeth van Grimbergen it came on Geeraerd van Marselear remaining then in his family for centuries. In 1435 Adriaen van M. erected the chapel there, in place of it threehundred years later a church was erected – with active aid by the Ursuline sister Maria Therese van M., daughter of the above Frederic Jozef Ignatius, and her heir Jan Willem d’Alvarado y Bracomonte, Burgrave of Lippelo and Lord of Opdorp. In between, 1641, Anton Sanderius wrote in his Flandria Illustrata “This dorp makes a show of a fine castle or palais erected by the lords of Marselears” (illustration there).
The provenance attribution , held for very well possible ,
of the copy here
to Frederic de Marselear and the grandson Frederic Jozef Ignatius resp.
deemed not as illogical also in so far as the secured Mazzuchelli provenance following chronologically practically seamlessly to the extinction of the Marselears in the male line, for which in respect of topically, but a little contradictorily, genealogical material to the family the years about 1720 are to be scheduled. If relations to the Mazzuchellis existed is unknown here. Nevertheless, there were such ones to the Spanish family of the Arrazola de Oñate, though politically branched out to Brussels, by marriage of two Marselear daughters, Margriete Frederika Hieronyme (1620-1695, at further relations into the family della Faille, de La Faille, to be localized at different places) + Johanna Angelica (1623 – 18th Dec. 1656, which latter date appearing less substantially for the written date “1656” placed 8 cm to the left of the Marselear arms. Possibilities to think of Mazzuchelli furthermore are given by marriage of a granddaughter of Frederic and a son (but whose wife died already only twenty-two-year-old) + daughter each of just the thought grandson Frederic Jozef Ignatius as great-grandson and great-granddaughter resp.
How precious the Saint Hubert here
was in any case for Conte Giovanni Maria Mazzuchelli
shows his fivefold ( sic! ) back stamping “Con. Gio. Mazzuchelli” under the count’s coronet. With 21 titles mentioned by Jöcher he counts “to the Brescia patrician familiy whose name is perfectly represented on the field of Italian literature by several members ” (ADB XXI, 150 on occasion of the later Alois Count M.).
Bruyn’s scenery makes the wonder of the event much truer than Dürer
(c. 1501) as emanation from a quite different self-comprehension rooted in just its natural and therewith, especially, also intellectual ambience. Contrary to this Dürer shows a vain knight with straightened back and a cap on his head ( sic! ) next to a proud castle amidst an Italian landscape and separated from the stag by his horse. Corresponding with that the sleek face of the knight (after Winkler, p. 97, by the way the lineaments of Emperor Maximilian!) added by the hands bidding a welcome after social graces. And, what wonder, without swans, snake and – Hubert hound, too.
What different attitude at Bruyn! Kneeling in front of his horse in conceivably greatest nearness to the stag, easily bent forward,
making the mystery of this moment experienceable
by face and arms showing downwards. And reverentially taken off before himself the suitable headgear. The rich landscape pure nature. Correspondingly then Wurzbach I, 217 f.
“ (Bruyn) is an excellent draughtsman, his heads are full of expression and truth, his costumes phantastically interesting and the abundance of his figures surprising. ”
Latters in the manner of van Leyden, “whose forms he had made so to his own, that one is tried to hold many of his original engravings for sheets after this” (Wurzbach). And Thieme-Becker V, 1911, 160:
“ the majority (of his sheets), however, after own invention – so the one here, too! – and herein de Br. shows himself as a most original artist (AKL XIV, 1996, 617: ingenious engraver), who continued skilfully the art language of Lucas van Leyden (Bredius reminds together of Hendrick Goltzius, too) still one century after his death … His very rich œuvre …
belongs to the most interesting of his time .
With sure chisel he had engraved a great many series of representations from the scripture in large size which one more often finds mounted in old Bibles. ”
Beside of such oversizes as badly to be conserved and also a general susceptibility for wear as theses sheets, both also may be an additional reason for the rareness of these works criticized by the way by Nagler and Wurzbach in respect of their chiaroscuro. What at least for the impression of the Hubert here is by no means supported. The landscape being dued to Gillis van Coninxloo III (Antwerp 1544 – Amsterdam 1607), repeatedly engraved after by de Bruyn, of a differentiated chiaroscuro leading to the depth as after Bachmann (on occasion of the early work of van der Neer – “the forest itself, the interior of the wood” – , Oud Holland LXXXIX, 1975, p. 214/II, break 2) so typical only for the late Coninxloo. This of quite important interest as Plietzsch points out that the engravers after Coninxloo with de Bruyn at the top should have reproduced only the “landscapes of his first period or from the time of the change to the second” (Plietzsch, op. cit., p. 27). So it is quite evident that already one hundred years ago
de Bruyn’s Hubert has been unknown to Plietzsch , too .
Though as autonomous by no means to be assigned to the thought copying engravings after Coninxloo, so at a glance
de Bruyn nevertheless calls up both as landscape and not at least thematically
Coninxloo’s revolutionary 1598 late work “Wooded Landscape with Hunters” in Vaduz
(Plietzsch 14; „… while Coninxloo [as the greatest harbinger of seventeenth-century Dutch forest painting] was painting his revolutionary forest landscapes in Amsterdam“, Stechow), showing de Bruyn artistically up to date. After all for old literature this “amazing” (Stechow), “most significant” (Devisscher, seeing, however, rather Paul Bril instead of Coninxloo) wooded landscape by Coninxloo together with the 1595 Wooded Landscape Ertz 16 by the elder Jan Brueghel in Milan passed for as standard of a new, now natural wooded landscape in general. And still in 1968 Stechow resumed after divers consideration “But even this is relegated to a minor position when compared with Coninxloo’s amazing Forest of 1598 in the Liechtenstein Gallery“ (op. cit., p. 66).
That by this de Bruyn, turned back, makes Coninxloo’s deliberately and logically small and therefore marginally set hunters + stags to the theme itself and even developes it to highest consecration should not be misread as irony. His matter was another one so he then also replaced suggestively as mythologically less momentous Coninxloo’s storks animating a marshy pond on the left by swans as the birds of prediction and places their pool behind the stag at the right border. But the ambience for his presentation should be dernier cri, indeed. By which he undoubtedly contrived a great success in fact. For still three hundred years later his landscape model is found as called in generally in the illustration of its historical merit:
“ Coninxloo has to be seen as one of the most important representatives of the transition period in the history of the Netherlandish landscape painting, which leads over from the fantastic orientation in the middle of the 16th century to the unpretentious landscape art of the 17th century in its nearness to nature, and is together one of the first whose ideas carry over from Belgium to Holland … Instead of the landscape built up fantastically from rocks and mountains another one, far simpler, enters gradually, arranged with deliberately, indeed, but yet risen from the observation of the native nature. (Especially in some woodland pictures in Vienna at Liechtenstein.) The flatlike composition is replaced by an arrangement giving a prospect developing evenly from front to back. At the same time the viewpoint supposed very high in the early works constantly moves down. At last C. is successful to give in his last pictures of 1604 a homogeneous hue to the whole landscape and to overcome the schematic arrangement in a brown foreground, a green middle distance, and a blue distance … Generally it seems that his art had exerted an important influence on many Dutch landscapists as then also van Mander reports that since his appearance the representation of the trees in the works of his compatriots has changed essentially ”
(Zoege von Manteuffel in Thieme-Becker VII , 302 ff., as taken over as unchanged valid in general still by Ertz in Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon XX , 522 ff., too).
Under this Coninxloo landscape aspect, too, Bruyn’s Hubert is of quite essential worth of demonstration and Nagler (“no idea of the chiaroscuro”) and Wurzbach (“all held as in uniform lighting”) could have misunderstood him to this. So by handling of the motif and most topically native woodland – thereto the most recent research identifies on Italian models at Dürer – de Bruyn then gives his Hubert
in general. Namely in every respect
the home environment of the Saint !
(“For his sheets of own invention worked from ca. 1603 onward B. takes over essential characteristics of the Flemish wood and panorama landscape, but set the chief accent on the narrative of the picture”, AKL, op. cit.)
And with 70 x 46 cm ( sic! )
just the adapted size to the singular scene. But therewith seeking its own kind with the one as well as the other. And with the
Marselaer dedication + Rubens nearness
finally leaving any field far behind itself .
For the first time then present here with the full claim to its outstanding rarity, also with the marks of its centuries, indeed, but
as a wonderful sheet as a whole .
See to his modern meaning Heinz Brüll per subparagraph “(The Significance of the Legend of Hubert)” (Lindner Commemorative vol. “Et Multum et Multa”, 1971, pp. 19 f.), E. Ueckermann, (Saint Hubert – Legend and Reality) (unsere jagd 11/96, pp. 26 f., in regard of the stag by the way with the remark “mostly with an antler of eight points”, at Bruyn and Dürer there are ten) + Peter Bußmann and Georg Haasis in “Die Pirsch” 23/96, pp. 108-111.
Offer no. 15,753 / price on application
„ … Ich habe in Ihrer ‚Thienemann-Online‘-Seite eine für mich sehr wichtige Information gefunden, die mich wahrscheinlich in einer Dresdner Fotografenforschung weiterbringt … “
(Frau R. R., 24. Januar 2014)