.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This drawing, which reappeared only in 2011 when it was sold by the heirs of the Rubens scholar Ludwig Burchard, is the most recent addition to a group of studies by the artist of male écorché figures, most of them in pen, some with brown wash, a few others in red or black chalk. The largest group came to light when eleven sheets were sold for the Newdegate Settlement at Christie’s, London, 6-7 July 1987, lots 57-67. At least two of the Newdegate drawings entered public collections, the J. Paul Getty Museum (inv. 88.GA.86) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art (inv. 1996.75), while a third found its way to the Fondation Jan Krugier, Geneva, inv. FJK 112 (these three drawings correspond to lots 61, 66 and 60 in the 1987 sale). A second écorché study previously owned by Burchard was first sold at Christie’s, London, 6 July 1999, lot 223 (more recently at the sales Sotheby’s, New York, 30 January 2013, lot 283; and Sotheby’s, Hong Kong, 5 April 2016, lot 2831). The only autograph écorché study by Rubens to be published before the 1987 rediscovery was a sheet that had reappeared in 1959 with Hans Calmann, who sold it to Martin Bodmer, and was later sold for the Fondation Bodmer, Geneva, at Christie’s, New York, 23 January 2002, lot 153.
Not counting a drawing in Chatsworth showing the flayed head of a man, but not his body (inv. 1200; see M. Jaffé, The Devonshire Collection of Northern European Drawings, Turin, London and Venice, 2002, I, no. 1133, ill.), the Bodmer drawing and a copy of the Kasper sheet in the Albertina (inv. 8309), which was previously thought to be an original, prompted a first discussion of Rubens’ interest in the anatomy of the male body (M. Jaffé, Van Dyck’s Antwerp Sketchbook, London, 1966, I, p. 43, pls. XXXIX, XLIV; E. Mitsch in Die Rubenszeichnungen der Albertina. Zum 400. Geburtstag, exhib. cat., Vienna, Albertina, 1977, no. 2, ill.). The further extent of the écorché studies was previously known from seven engravings by Paulus Pontius, published after Rubens’ death in the so-called Drawing book (Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700, XVII, Amsterdam, 1976, p. 200, no. 157; F. Van den Wijngaert, Inventaris der Rubeniaansche prentkunst, Antwerp, 1940, pp. 84-85, no. 557); as well as from a group of nineteen sheets among the so-called ‘Cantoor’ drawings, a large collection of copies after Rubens by his pupil Willem Paneels at the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen (J. Garff and E. de la Fuente Pedersen, Rubens Cantoor. The Drawings of Willem Panneels, Copenhagen, 1988, I, nos. 82-87, 107, 162-164, 214-220, II, pls. 84-89, 109, 164-167, 216-223).
Among the latter is a second copy after the Kasper drawing, on which Panneels made the remark – in code – that ‘these legs I have also taken from the cantoor, and the outlines are good’ (ibid., I, no. 214, II, pl. 216: ‘desebeenenhebbeick oockalvantcantoorgehaelt endesijngoet vanomtreck’). On other copies, Paneels specifies that the écorché studies were made ‘after Rubens’s anatomical book [‘annotomibock’] which I have taken from the cantoor’ (ibid., p. 82, under no. 84). The explicit mention of the existence of this book suggests, as Michael Jaffé wrote, that Rubens ‘accumulated material for the illustration of an Anatomy Book, presumably with a view to an engraved edition for publication’ (1987 auction catalogue, p. 58). The style of the drawings, in particular of those executed in pen, also point to their being made as models for engravings. Pontius’s plates, which were probably only made and certainly published after Rubens’s death, give a good idea of what Rubens must have had in mind. Why he never published the book himself will never be known.
The style and Italian watermarks of the drawings (see those of lots 60, 62, 64 and 67 in the 1987 sale) point to their early date within the artist’s œuvre, during the years he spent in Rome and elsewhere in Italy between 1600 and 1608. Recent discussions of the group have proposed different, more precise datings, but the variation in technique and style of the drawings make it probable that they were done over a fairly extended period of time (J.M. Muller in Rubens Cantoor. Een verzameling tekeningen ontstaan in Rubens’ atelier, exhib. cat., Antwerp, Rubenshuis, 1993, pp. 78-94, under nos. 1-25B, ill.; A.-M. Logan, with M.C. Plomp, Peter Paul Rubens. The Drawings, exhib. cat., New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005, p. 98-100, under no. 16, ill.; U. Heinen et al. in Rubens. A Master in the Making, exhib. cat., London, National Gallery, 2005-2006, pp. 102-110, under nos. 33-44, ill.).
As Jaffé and the authors quoted above have stressed, Rubens’s sources of inspiration in making the écorchés are manifold, among them Leonardo da Vinci’s anatomical drawings, which he would have been able to study in Italy; the muscular depiction of the male body in the work of antique sculptors and more recent masters such as Michelangelo; and the modern practice of dissection at universities such as that of Padua. But a more direct source seems to have been a small, adjustable écorché sculpted by the Dutchman Willem Danielsz. van Tetrode, which survives in several bronze casts (Heinen, op. cit., nos. 33, 34, ill.). Even if working after a statuette rather than a real, dissected body, Rubens managed to infuse his studies with life, as he did in his studies after the antique. Notwithstanding the scientific and pedagogical impulse that presumably brought Rubens to make the drawings in the first place, they are also as remarkable a demonstration of many of the qualities that distinguish his works as a history painter and one of the foremost artists of his century. In the simplicity of the motif, the monumentality of its depiction, and the intricacy of the penwork, the Kasper drawing is an outstanding example of Rubens’s ability to convey strength and vitality.
Not counting a drawing in Chatsworth showing the flayed head of a man, but not his body (inv. 1200; see M. Jaffé, The Devonshire Collection of Northern European Drawings, Turin, London and Venice, 2002, I, no. 1133, ill.), the Bodmer drawing and a copy of the Kasper sheet in the Albertina (inv. 8309), which was previously thought to be an original, prompted a first discussion of Rubens’ interest in the anatomy of the male body (M. Jaffé, Van Dyck’s Antwerp Sketchbook, London, 1966, I, p. 43, pls. XXXIX, XLIV; E. Mitsch in Die Rubenszeichnungen der Albertina. Zum 400. Geburtstag, exhib. cat., Vienna, Albertina, 1977, no. 2, ill.). The further extent of the écorché studies was previously known from seven engravings by Paulus Pontius, published after Rubens’ death in the so-called Drawing book (Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700, XVII, Amsterdam, 1976, p. 200, no. 157; F. Van den Wijngaert, Inventaris der Rubeniaansche prentkunst, Antwerp, 1940, pp. 84-85, no. 557); as well as from a group of nineteen sheets among the so-called ‘Cantoor’ drawings, a large collection of copies after Rubens by his pupil Willem Paneels at the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen (J. Garff and E. de la Fuente Pedersen, Rubens Cantoor. The Drawings of Willem Panneels, Copenhagen, 1988, I, nos. 82-87, 107, 162-164, 214-220, II, pls. 84-89, 109, 164-167, 216-223).
Among the latter is a second copy after the Kasper drawing, on which Panneels made the remark – in code – that ‘these legs I have also taken from the cantoor, and the outlines are good’ (ibid., I, no. 214, II, pl. 216: ‘desebeenenhebbeick oockalvantcantoorgehaelt endesijngoet vanomtreck’). On other copies, Paneels specifies that the écorché studies were made ‘after Rubens’s anatomical book [‘annotomibock’] which I have taken from the cantoor’ (ibid., p. 82, under no. 84). The explicit mention of the existence of this book suggests, as Michael Jaffé wrote, that Rubens ‘accumulated material for the illustration of an Anatomy Book, presumably with a view to an engraved edition for publication’ (1987 auction catalogue, p. 58). The style of the drawings, in particular of those executed in pen, also point to their being made as models for engravings. Pontius’s plates, which were probably only made and certainly published after Rubens’s death, give a good idea of what Rubens must have had in mind. Why he never published the book himself will never be known.
The style and Italian watermarks of the drawings (see those of lots 60, 62, 64 and 67 in the 1987 sale) point to their early date within the artist’s œuvre, during the years he spent in Rome and elsewhere in Italy between 1600 and 1608. Recent discussions of the group have proposed different, more precise datings, but the variation in technique and style of the drawings make it probable that they were done over a fairly extended period of time (J.M. Muller in Rubens Cantoor. Een verzameling tekeningen ontstaan in Rubens’ atelier, exhib. cat., Antwerp, Rubenshuis, 1993, pp. 78-94, under nos. 1-25B, ill.; A.-M. Logan, with M.C. Plomp, Peter Paul Rubens. The Drawings, exhib. cat., New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005, p. 98-100, under no. 16, ill.; U. Heinen et al. in Rubens. A Master in the Making, exhib. cat., London, National Gallery, 2005-2006, pp. 102-110, under nos. 33-44, ill.).
As Jaffé and the authors quoted above have stressed, Rubens’s sources of inspiration in making the écorchés are manifold, among them Leonardo da Vinci’s anatomical drawings, which he would have been able to study in Italy; the muscular depiction of the male body in the work of antique sculptors and more recent masters such as Michelangelo; and the modern practice of dissection at universities such as that of Padua. But a more direct source seems to have been a small, adjustable écorché sculpted by the Dutchman Willem Danielsz. van Tetrode, which survives in several bronze casts (Heinen, op. cit., nos. 33, 34, ill.). Even if working after a statuette rather than a real, dissected body, Rubens managed to infuse his studies with life, as he did in his studies after the antique. Notwithstanding the scientific and pedagogical impulse that presumably brought Rubens to make the drawings in the first place, they are also as remarkable a demonstration of many of the qualities that distinguish his works as a history painter and one of the foremost artists of his century. In the simplicity of the motif, the monumentality of its depiction, and the intricacy of the penwork, the Kasper drawing is an outstanding example of Rubens’s ability to convey strength and vitality.