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
proposed attribution and dating of this work as a painting by Hans, that is approximately of the same date as that of the recently auctioned picture. Whereas not much can be said about the small figures added as Staffage to this work, much more can be discerned in regard to the attribution of both architecture and figures in another caprice on exhibit in Schloss Köpenick in Berlin 42 (Figure 7). While the attribution of this painting has wavered between Hans and Paul, comparison to the handling and type of the works in Vienna datable to 1596 and now to be given to Paul, point strongly to the attribution of the architecture to Paul. 43 In this context the Staffage in this painting also is of special interest. These figures may be given firmly to Pieter Isaacsz. The somewhat awkwardly depicted anatomy of the undraped figure in the lower right by the fountain resembles that of a nude male in the lower left corner of a painting of the „Baptism of Christ" in Houston, while its awkwardly foreshortened face, turned back to the right is almost commonplace in Isaaz, being found in the figure to the right of that just mentioned in the Houston painting, as well as in the figure to the left of the foreground table on a „Banquet of the Gods" sold at auction in London in 1975. 44 The top knot of the figure next to this one in the Berlin De Vries, as well as that worn by the figure in the center of the painting, are also found frequently in Isaacsz. compositions. So too are figures with dancing poses, like that of the woman to the left center who carries a basket on her head, or that in the center background. Moreover, it is known that Isaacsz. collaborated with Paul Vredeman de Vries. An auction of 1621 records that the two artists executed a depiction of the story of Queen Esther. This subject is found in the oeuvre of Paul Vredeman de Vries, although the Staffage seen in pictures of this subject attributed to Paul do not seem to be by Isaacsz. The date inscribed on the painting in Berlin, 1602, postdates the sojourn of Paul Vredeman de Vries's in Prague. At this time Paul Vredeman de Vries was living in Amsterdam, since he married there in 1601, later, in 1604, obtaining the rights of a citizen. 47 Pieter Isaacsz. was also located in Amsterdam in 1602, because in this year he borrowed money there from Henrik Hudde. 48 The time and place of their collaboration can thus be established. The pertinence of this information for art in Rudolf IPs Prague is that it demonstrates that even after leaving imperial service, Paul Vredeman de Vries took up with an artist who had had connections with the court circle. It should be remembered that Isaacsz. had been the pupil of Rudolfs court painter and trusted servant Hans von Aachen. Karel van Mander reports that Von Aachen sent Isaacsz. a picture, mentioning specifically the self-portrait the framing elements of whose engraving by Saenredam of 1601 Isaacsz. designed. 49 This opens up other possibilities for considering the existence of a kind of network of friends and associates, and accordingly of a lasting collaboration among artists who had been connected with Prague, even after they had left imperial service. 50 This situation establishes a context for consideration of the final painting to be discussed in this essay. This painting from the Chrysler Collection is signed in monogram by Paul Vredman de Vries, and dated 1607 51 (Figure 8). The church interior here is quite close in appearance to that seen in another painting in Vienna, which I have previously attributed to Paul. 52 This sort of variation seems to be a recurrent phenomenon in Paul's œuvre, where paintings of church interiors with nearly identical architecture, if different Staffage, are repeated. The Staffage in this work is again noteworthy. The figures in this painting seem to be by two different hands. One artist seems to have painted the group surrounding and disputing with Christ in the right foreground, the man walking to the left in the left foreground, possibly the family group in the middle ground to the left, and the man praying in the background center. Another hand seems to have painted the man seated on the ground in the foreground left center, possibly the clean-shaven head of a youth behind the group in disputation, and most noticably the man in the middle ground, center, of the composition, who is conspicuous in wearing attire of the epoch c. 1600, as opposed to that imaginable as contemporary with the time of Jesus. The figure in attire of the period c. 1600, and hence those other figures related to him, can be attributed to Van Ravesteyn. This man bears a close resemblance in attire, stance, and physiognomy, with heavily hooded eyes, and curly hair, to figures seen in the middle ground to the left in the architectural caprice with musicians dated 1596 in which Van Ravesteyn added the Staffage to a work by the De Vries. 54 The man seen in profile also resembles that of other figures viewed in profile in Van Ravesteyn's Staffage in another painting of 1596, which work is also signed by Paul Vredeman de Vries. 5 In 1607 Paul was probably in Amsterdam. In order for Van Ravesteyn to have finished the figures on this goodsized panel, he would also have had to have been in the Netherlands at this time, or perhaps he could have added the figures slightly thereafter. Some of the figures, particularly the man in the center foreground, have become transparent, demonstrating what one would have otherwise assumed, namely that they have been added later to the architecture, although it is of course impossible to say exactly when: it is possible that Van Ravesteyn's figures were placed in the picture after the other Staffage. In any event, Van Ravesteyn's collaboration would establish this picture as the latest datable work by his hand, and therefore provide a final point of reference for a reconsideration of the chronology of the artist's œuvre, as well as of his biography. After Rudolf IPs death, on 1 August 1612 the imperial Hofzahlamt confirmed the distribution of sums for monthly payment to Van Ravesteyn through 30 June 1608. This does not necessarily mean that Van Ravesteyn remained in Prague until this date. In fact, the same document records payment as being made for a period commencing 1 February 1599, 56 but another document of 31
