Lot Essay
The present painting has been unanimously accepted as the work of van Dyck and is thought to have been executed before his departure for Italy in October 1621. Ludwig Burchard wrote a certificate, dated 25 November 1959 in which he stated that it 'is in my opinion a genuine and important work by Sir Anthony van Dyck painted before he left for Italy...of non-religious subjects of this period, only a few paintings taken from mythology or history, have come down to us ... The appearance of the present picture is therefore a most welcome addition to van Dyck's oeuvre'.
Burchard believed that the hounds were executed by van Dyck in Snyders's style, with which - as he noted - Horst Vey agreed. Burchard also believed that the landscape background was executed by van Dyck in Wildens's style, on which point Vey also concurred. More recently Jeremy Wood has stated that the landscape was similarly treated to that in the related Portratis of the Marquess of Buckingham and his Wife as Venus and Adonis (see below), which he believed to be the work of an assistant, a view shared by Sir Oliver Millar (concerning the latter picture, see O. Millar, review of Van Dyck 350 Studies in the History of Art, 46, The Burlington Magazine, CXXXVII, 1995, p. 467).
A preparatory drawing is in the British Museum (fig. 1), for which see, most recently, Christopher Brown, cited above. Van Dyck was to prefer a more tender Adonis in the painting and abandoned both his and Venus's gestures. Also altered was the drapery partially covering Venus; in the painting it was more decorously arranged while revealing the goddess's shapely left leg. So as to act as a foil the muscular legs of the more youthful Adonis were exposed. In the drawing is also indicated the trees and foliage behind the couple; van Dyck's intentions concerning the left hand part of the composition at this stage, must remain unknown, as the drawing is cut.
Michael Jaff believed the present work was executed by van Dyck 'as a prodigiously precocious teenager', that is before March 1618 (1615-18). Christopher Brown dated the preparatory drawing 'circa 1618-1621', but believed that the painting preceded the related Portraits of the Marquess of Buckingham and his Wife (see below) which he thought was executed in London in 1620/1, thus following Michael Jaff, op. cit., p. 703 ('post Antwerp, pre Genoa') and Susan Barnes in the exhibition catalogue, Anthony van Dyck, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1990, no. 17. However, Jeremy Wood believes it was begun circa 1618-20; and that the present painting preceded it. Larsen (1992) revising his earlier opinion, believed it was executed after van Dyck's return from London in the early Spring of 1621 and before his departure for Italy in October of the same year. In the absence of a consensus for a precise dating, it seems sensible to apply to the painting Christopher Brown's time bracket of circa 1618-21 for the date of execution of the drawing.
Vey first noted the influence of Rubens's Venus and Adonis at Dusseldorf of circa 1610. McNairn also suggested that the pose of Susannah in Rubens's Susannah and the Elders (Real Academia de Bellas Artes, Madrid) of about the same date was influential in the development of the pose of Venus. The bounding hound recurs in van Dyck's Portraits of the Marquess of Buckingham and his Wife (see the 1990 Washington exhibition catalogue, Anthony Van Dyck, loc. cit.).
Michael Jaff (op. cit., p. 703) has clarified the provenance of the present work. He rejected the suggestion first published by Vey that it was the picture listed by Cochin in the Pallavicini collection, Genoa. Larsen refers to a picture in a sale on August 25, 1762 lot 52; this sale took place in Antwerp; lot 52 was described as 'Een Venus en Adonis, na A van Dyk, hoog 6, breet 6 voeten' (=68in. sq.=172.1cm. sq.). So this, if correctly described, was a large copy, perhaps after the present picture.
Burchard believed that the hounds were executed by van Dyck in Snyders's style, with which - as he noted - Horst Vey agreed. Burchard also believed that the landscape background was executed by van Dyck in Wildens's style, on which point Vey also concurred. More recently Jeremy Wood has stated that the landscape was similarly treated to that in the related Portratis of the Marquess of Buckingham and his Wife as Venus and Adonis (see below), which he believed to be the work of an assistant, a view shared by Sir Oliver Millar (concerning the latter picture, see O. Millar, review of Van Dyck 350 Studies in the History of Art, 46, The Burlington Magazine, CXXXVII, 1995, p. 467).
A preparatory drawing is in the British Museum (fig. 1), for which see, most recently, Christopher Brown, cited above. Van Dyck was to prefer a more tender Adonis in the painting and abandoned both his and Venus's gestures. Also altered was the drapery partially covering Venus; in the painting it was more decorously arranged while revealing the goddess's shapely left leg. So as to act as a foil the muscular legs of the more youthful Adonis were exposed. In the drawing is also indicated the trees and foliage behind the couple; van Dyck's intentions concerning the left hand part of the composition at this stage, must remain unknown, as the drawing is cut.
Michael Jaff believed the present work was executed by van Dyck 'as a prodigiously precocious teenager', that is before March 1618 (1615-18). Christopher Brown dated the preparatory drawing 'circa 1618-1621', but believed that the painting preceded the related Portraits of the Marquess of Buckingham and his Wife (see below) which he thought was executed in London in 1620/1, thus following Michael Jaff, op. cit., p. 703 ('post Antwerp, pre Genoa') and Susan Barnes in the exhibition catalogue, Anthony van Dyck, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1990, no. 17. However, Jeremy Wood believes it was begun circa 1618-20; and that the present painting preceded it. Larsen (1992) revising his earlier opinion, believed it was executed after van Dyck's return from London in the early Spring of 1621 and before his departure for Italy in October of the same year. In the absence of a consensus for a precise dating, it seems sensible to apply to the painting Christopher Brown's time bracket of circa 1618-21 for the date of execution of the drawing.
Vey first noted the influence of Rubens's Venus and Adonis at Dusseldorf of circa 1610. McNairn also suggested that the pose of Susannah in Rubens's Susannah and the Elders (Real Academia de Bellas Artes, Madrid) of about the same date was influential in the development of the pose of Venus. The bounding hound recurs in van Dyck's Portraits of the Marquess of Buckingham and his Wife (see the 1990 Washington exhibition catalogue, Anthony Van Dyck, loc. cit.).
Michael Jaff (op. cit., p. 703) has clarified the provenance of the present work. He rejected the suggestion first published by Vey that it was the picture listed by Cochin in the Pallavicini collection, Genoa. Larsen refers to a picture in a sale on August 25, 1762 lot 52; this sale took place in Antwerp; lot 52 was described as 'Een Venus en Adonis, na A van Dyk, hoog 6, breet 6 voeten' (=68in. sq.=172.1cm. sq.). So this, if correctly described, was a large copy, perhaps after the present picture.