Lot Essay
Joseph Heintz was born in Basel, where he was probably trained by his architect-mason father Daniel Heintz. He left Switzerland for Italy in 1584, visiting Venice, Florence and Rome. It was probably in Florence in 1587 or 1588 that Heintz first met Giambologna and drew a portrait of him, now in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (T. DaCosta Kaufmann, catalogue of the exhibition Drawings from the Holy Roman Empire 1540-1680. A Selection from North American Collections, The Art Museum, Princeton University, 3 Oct.-21 Nov. 1982, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 27 Jan. 1982-11 April 1983, and Museum of Art, Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh, 23 April-19 June 1993, pp. 152-3, no. 55, illustrated). Once in Rome, Heintz joined a circle of German and Netherlandish artists, including the Cologne-born painter Hans von Aachen, twelve years Heintz's senior. Van Mander notes that Heintz was von Aachen's pupil; while this specific relationship is doubtful, there exists a painted portrait of Heintz by von Aachen in the Národní Galerie, Prague, to prove that the artists were closely connected in Rome in the 1580s (T. DaCosta Kaufmann, The School of Prague. Painting at the Court of Rudolf II, Chicago and London, 1988, p. 35, fig. 28).
As DaCosta Kaufmann speculates (op. cit., 1982, p. 153), Heintz's association with Giambologna may also have had an effect on his subsequent career. Like Maximilian before him, Rudolf II had tried to lure Giambologna to Prague, knighting him in 1588, but his attempts were unsuccessful. A sheet in Sandrart's Teutsche Academie (J. von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie, Nuremburg, 1675, I, fig. HH) shows Heintz, von Aachen and Bartholomäus Spranger - the third member of the trio of major Rudolfine figurative painters - together with Giambologna. It is tempting to think that it was the sculptor who recommended the young Swiss to the Imperial court. Heintz had left Italy by 1589, returning to Basel, and by December 1591 he had entered the service of Rudolf II as Imperial Kammermaler. In 1592 he was sent back to Rome by Rudolf to draw and copy works of art and antiquities and possibly to acquire works of art. He returned to Switzerland in 1596 and by 1598 was in Prague.
The subject of Rudolfine painting is a complex and fascinating one because of the diversity of the artists drawn to the Imperial court, many of whose names were, and remain, little known. It was the brilliant triumvirate of painters, Heintz, von Aachen and Spranger, along with the printmaker Aegidius Sadeler and the sculptor Adriaen de Vries, who were to bring the greatest acclaim to Rudolf.
What distinguished Rudolf's taste from other great contemporary patrons was his penchant for secular paintings and portraits. Very few religious paintings were executed under his patronage, which makes the present picture of singular interest. We know that Rudolf had tried, unsuccessfully, to acquire Hans Holbein's Oberried Altarpiece (Kaufmann, 1988, op. cit., p. 63; J. Rowlands, The Paintings of Hans Holbein the Younger, Oxford, 1985, p. 126, no. 9, fig. 11), and Holbein's bearded shepherd with the plumed hat recurs at the right side of the present picture, no doubt included by Heintz in order to please his patron.
Three other versions of this composition are known, all on copper and of almost identical size: that in the Národní Galerie, Prague, is considered the prime version by Jürgen Zimmer (Joseph Heintz der Ältere als Maler, Weissenhorn, 1971, p. 73, no. A 1.1, pl. 1). The others are in the Augustinermuseum, Freiburg im Breisgau and the Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel (ibid., pp. 73-4, nos. A 1.2 and A 1.3, pls. 4 and 5); of these only the latter is monogrammed and dated. The date has been variously read as 1592 and 1599, but the appearance of the present, hitherto unknown picture, confirms Zimmer's preferred dating of the Basel picture to 1599. Of the versions the present picture differs most from the others in the position of the head of the angel above the Madonna. In the others the head is tilted toward the Child, but in the present picture, and in a copy on vellum in the Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck (ibid., no. A 1.0.2.1), which is evidently taken from the present picture, the head is pointed down and is seen in profile.
A painting of this subject is recorded as number 33 in the 1610-19 Vienna inventory; it is possible, as DaCosta Kaufmann points out, that one of the versions can be identified as that picture.
As DaCosta Kaufmann speculates (op. cit., 1982, p. 153), Heintz's association with Giambologna may also have had an effect on his subsequent career. Like Maximilian before him, Rudolf II had tried to lure Giambologna to Prague, knighting him in 1588, but his attempts were unsuccessful. A sheet in Sandrart's Teutsche Academie (J. von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie, Nuremburg, 1675, I, fig. HH) shows Heintz, von Aachen and Bartholomäus Spranger - the third member of the trio of major Rudolfine figurative painters - together with Giambologna. It is tempting to think that it was the sculptor who recommended the young Swiss to the Imperial court. Heintz had left Italy by 1589, returning to Basel, and by December 1591 he had entered the service of Rudolf II as Imperial Kammermaler. In 1592 he was sent back to Rome by Rudolf to draw and copy works of art and antiquities and possibly to acquire works of art. He returned to Switzerland in 1596 and by 1598 was in Prague.
The subject of Rudolfine painting is a complex and fascinating one because of the diversity of the artists drawn to the Imperial court, many of whose names were, and remain, little known. It was the brilliant triumvirate of painters, Heintz, von Aachen and Spranger, along with the printmaker Aegidius Sadeler and the sculptor Adriaen de Vries, who were to bring the greatest acclaim to Rudolf.
What distinguished Rudolf's taste from other great contemporary patrons was his penchant for secular paintings and portraits. Very few religious paintings were executed under his patronage, which makes the present picture of singular interest. We know that Rudolf had tried, unsuccessfully, to acquire Hans Holbein's Oberried Altarpiece (Kaufmann, 1988, op. cit., p. 63; J. Rowlands, The Paintings of Hans Holbein the Younger, Oxford, 1985, p. 126, no. 9, fig. 11), and Holbein's bearded shepherd with the plumed hat recurs at the right side of the present picture, no doubt included by Heintz in order to please his patron.
Three other versions of this composition are known, all on copper and of almost identical size: that in the Národní Galerie, Prague, is considered the prime version by Jürgen Zimmer (Joseph Heintz der Ältere als Maler, Weissenhorn, 1971, p. 73, no. A 1.1, pl. 1). The others are in the Augustinermuseum, Freiburg im Breisgau and the Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel (ibid., pp. 73-4, nos. A 1.2 and A 1.3, pls. 4 and 5); of these only the latter is monogrammed and dated. The date has been variously read as 1592 and 1599, but the appearance of the present, hitherto unknown picture, confirms Zimmer's preferred dating of the Basel picture to 1599. Of the versions the present picture differs most from the others in the position of the head of the angel above the Madonna. In the others the head is tilted toward the Child, but in the present picture, and in a copy on vellum in the Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck (ibid., no. A 1.0.2.1), which is evidently taken from the present picture, the head is pointed down and is seen in profile.
A painting of this subject is recorded as number 33 in the 1610-19 Vienna inventory; it is possible, as DaCosta Kaufmann points out, that one of the versions can be identified as that picture.