Takács Imre – Buzási Enikő – Jávor Anna – Mikó Árpád szerk.: A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria Évkönyve, Művészettörténeti tanulmányok Mojzer Miklós hatvanadik születésnapjára (MNG Budapest, 1991)

DACOSTA KAUFMANN, Thomas: Addenda Rudolphina

close to those of the angel in the artist's image of the „Instruments of the Passion".

26 The bow and quiver identify the putto in the Brussels painting as Cupid; by association the nude female must therefore be Venus, rather than a mere nymph. The presence of the rabbit, a traditional symbol of lust, placed prominently in the center of the composition reinforces this identification. As has been previously noted, it is thus possible that this is the painting cited in the inventory of the Vienna collections drawn up between 1610 and 1619 as „Ein Stuckh mit Satyro und Venere vom Dieterich Ra27 fensteiner. The landscape background, bird, and rabbit also provide important evidence of how Van Ravesteyn painted these sorts of elements. Together with similar evidence from such works as the artist's „Venus and Adonis", to which it must be close in date, they thus provide the best point of comparison for other attributions of such elements to Van Ravesteyn, who is recorded in the 1607-11 inventory of the prague Kunstkammer as having done animal paintings.

28 Though Van Ravesteyn may have contributed to the so-called „Museum" of Rudolf II, the touch and coloring in these paintings differ radically from the work of the „Chief painter" of these volumes, who the entry in the catalogue of the recent exhibition Frag urn 1600 has recently identified with Van Ravesteyn. As a result, this recent proposal may probably be rejected.

29 Further points of reference for the determination of Van Ravesteyn's œuvre may now also be established by the firm identification of the earliest dated work by his hand. This is a large allegorical painting of a female nude surrounded by children (Figure 5). Only the recent sale of the estate of Walter P. Chrysler, Jr. brought to this picture the necessary scrutiny that noticed the presence of a date of 1593 and the monogram DR in the lower right of the picture.

30 The auction catalogue noted, as this author also confirmed, that this monogram must be that of Van Ravesteyn. The painting may be compared to another allegory by the artist still in Prague, which is signed and dated 1603.

31 With this work it shares compositional components such as the flying putti pulling back a screen to reveal a group of figures, the draped an bejeweled large female figures, who wear sandles, diadems, and pearl earrings, the figure types of the putti, and many other motifs, not to mention similar qualities of coloring and handling. As in the Prague allegory, the appearance of the monogram and date on this work, the only other known instance of a similar occurrence within the artist's œuvre, may be an indication of its significance. Like that signed and dated work, and also like the representation of Venus and a Satyr from the imperial collection discussed here, this allegory is large in size: its dimensions speak for the importance of the commission. An undraped figure is prominent; as in the other signed work, the allegory still in Prague, it is possible to relate this kind of representation of the female figure as well as the allegorical content to the emperor's taste in pictures. The subject may also allude to the benefits of imperial rule. The Chrysler allegory has been called one of fecundity;

32 the Prague allegory by Van Ravesteyn also contains a figure of abundance. As is often true in Rudolfine art, it is possible that the allegory thus refers to the emperor or his reign.

33 If this painting was made for the emperor, it may be possible to associate it with documents for court payments: while Van Ravesteyn was mentioned in court documents as receiving a monthly salary of 8 gulden, on 1 September 1593 his salary was raised to 10 gulden, where it remained so long as he was in court service.

34 Could this raise be connected in some way with a favorable response to this painting of the same year? Whatever the case may be, this painting undoubtedly is important as a touchstone for other attributions as well as for the dating of Van Ravesteyn's work. Since it provides the earliest evidence of his hand, it can be used as a check not only for dating, but also for other attributions of presumed early works by the artist.

35 The latest trace yet of Van Ravesteyn's hand yet known is also found in another painting sold at the Chrysler auction, but it is perhaps best to consider a series of works by the Vredeman de Vries, with whom Van Ravesteyn collaborated, before returning to this particular picture. First among these is an architectural painting, sold at auction in London in 1990, monogrammed and dated by Hans in 1598

36 (Figure 6). The proud indication of the artist's age as 71 resembles a similar claim that is found on the architectural background of „Annunciation" from the exterior of the wings of an altarpiece on which the collaborated in Prague with Hans von Aachen, Bartholomäus Spranger, and Joseph Heintz. This altarpiece is dated 1598, but must have been painted later in the same year, since on the „Annunciation" Vredeman states his age as 72.

37 The composition also resembles those of three other architectural caprices of the Vredeman de Vries to which Van Ravesteyn added the Staffage, two of which are dated 1596.

38 In all of these a structure with a loggia or arcade, other classical architectural elements, and grotesque interior decoration, is set to the left, while to the right there rises a fantastic building or complex of buildings replete with towers, lanterns, and obelisks. The newly discovered painting, like many other inventions by the elder Vredeman, recalls Netherlandish arhitecture of the later sixteenth century.

39 Unlike these three examples, on the newly recovered work Hans indicates his authorship of both the invention and the execution, just as he claims the execution of (the background of) the „Annunciation". The presence of this claim by Hans in the recently sold work, which also evinces other apparent differences from these other works of 1596 that are clearly visible even in photograph, would support the previous attribution of the handling of these three paintings to Paul, as earlier arguments, based on Paul's signature on one of them, the caprice with strollers, have also suggested.

40 The close similarities to a fourth caprice in Vienna would, on the other hand, bolster the previously