.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Provenant de la collection Franz Zatzenstein-Matthiesen et restitué aux héritiers Franz Zatzenstein-Matthiesen (1898-1963) était l'un des principaux marchands de maîtres anciens de Berlin. Confronté à des persécutions croissantes à la suite de l'arrivée au pouvoir du Parti national-socialiste, Zatzenstein-Matthiesen s'est réfugié en Suisse en 1933, laissant derrière lui sa galerie et une grande partie de son stock. En 1934, un groupe d'œuvres d'art est transféré à la Dresdner Bank. Ces œuvres ont ensuite été acquises par l'État de Prusse en 1935 et réparties entre les musées d'État de Berlin. En 2024, la Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz a restitué 5 tableaux aux héritiers de Matthiesen, un sixième restant à l'amiable à la Gemäldegalerie de Berlin.
ÉCOLE BRUXELLOISE DU XVIIe SIÈCLE
Portrait d'un homme en armure
Details
ÉCOLE BRUXELLOISE DU XVIIe SIÈCLE
Portrait d'un homme en armure
traces d'une inscription 'FREDERICUS BARBAROSSA' (en haut, à gauche)
huile sur toile
126,8 x 102 cm (4915⁄16 x 40 3⁄16 in.)
Portrait d'un homme en armure
traces d'une inscription 'FREDERICUS BARBAROSSA' (en haut, à gauche)
huile sur toile
126,8 x 102 cm (4915⁄16 x 40 3⁄16 in.)
Provenance
Chez Galerie Matthiesen, Berlin ;
Déposé par celle-ci comme collatéral à la Dresdner Bank, en 1934 ;
Acquis auprès de celle-ci par l'État prussien, en août 1935, et transféré aux Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, en 1936 (comme Antoine van Dyck puis comme suiveur d'Antoine van Dyck, inv. B.18 - selon une inscription sur une étiquette au revers du châssis).
Restitué par les Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz aux ayants-droits de Franz Zatzenstein-Matthiesen, en 2024.
Déposé par celle-ci comme collatéral à la Dresdner Bank, en 1934 ;
Acquis auprès de celle-ci par l'État prussien, en août 1935, et transféré aux Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, en 1936 (comme Antoine van Dyck puis comme suiveur d'Antoine van Dyck, inv. B.18 - selon une inscription sur une étiquette au revers du châssis).
Restitué par les Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz aux ayants-droits de Franz Zatzenstein-Matthiesen, en 2024.
Literature
R. Grosshans et al., Gemäldegalerie Berlin. Gesamtverzeichnis, Berlin, 1996, p. 44 et p. 285, n°947 (comme suiveur d'Antoine van Dyck), reproduit en noir et blanc p. 285.
L. Rother, Kunst durch Kredit: Die Berliner Museen Und Ihre Erwerbungen Von Der Dresdner Bank, Berlin, 2017, p. 65 ; Annexe, p. 352, n°10, et p. 401, reproduit en couleurs p. 352 (comme suiveur d'Antoine van Dyck).
L. Rother, Kunst durch Kredit: Die Berliner Museen Und Ihre Erwerbungen Von Der Dresdner Bank, Berlin, 2017, p. 65 ; Annexe, p. 352, n°10, et p. 401, reproduit en couleurs p. 352 (comme suiveur d'Antoine van Dyck).
Further Details
BRUSSELS SCHOOL 17th CENTURY, PORTRAIT OF A MAN IN ARMOUR, OIL ON CANVAS, TRACES OF AN INSCRIPTION (UPPER LEFT)
The inscription associated with this striking painting, however indistinct it may be, indicates that the canvas was once understood as an imagined representation of Frederick I of Hohenstaufen (1122-1190). Known as Frederick Barbarossa, he was Holy Roman Emperor from 1155 until his death, and his figure inspired artists as diverse as Pisanello (c1380⁄1395-c1450⁄1455), Titian (c1488⁄1490-1576), Pieter de Grebber (c.1600-1652⁄1653), and Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1727-1804).
Yet the history behind the conception of this portrait is far more intriguing than that of a simple tronie. In fact, it constitutes a true 'portrait' of elements of armour produced in Burgundy around 1500 for the royal armoury of Philip the Handsome (1478-1506), ruler of the Burgundian Netherlands from 1482 to 1506 and son of Maximilian I (1459-1519), Holy Roman Emperor. These elements were subsequently preserved in the royal armouries in Brussels, where they were still recorded in the seventeenth century.
The question arises: how can we be certain that this armour truly existed and, moreover, belonged to the Habsburgs? The answer lies in The Allegory of Touch, painted in Antwerp around 1618 by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625) and Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), now in the Prado Museum, Madrid (fig. 1, inv. P001398). This painting forms part of a series of five works, each representing one of the senses, probably commissioned by Archduke Albert of Austria (1559-1621) and his wife Isabella (1566-1633), governors of the Spanish Netherlands; the iconography of the series celebrates the wealth and splendour of their court. The Allegory of Touch depicts a female figure (Venus) embracing a putto within a sumptuous armoury. In order to render the armour elements with precision, Brueghel had access to the royal armoury, where he sketched pieces from the collection. And, remarkably, in the lower left of the composition appears exactly the same cuirass as that worn by the bearded man in the present painting (fig. 2, detail).
Stefan Krause, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Curator at the Metropolitan Museum, whom we would like to thank for his assistance with this entry, has suggested that several artists in Brueghel’s circle may have had access to the master’s sketches. In their works, one finds depictions of armour shown in precisely the same positions as in Brueghel’s compositions. This exact repetition implies that Brueghel’s contemporaries were not working directly from the objects in the armoury, which would have resulted in variations of angle, but rather from drawings that they were afraid to alter. A comparison between the orientation of the cuirass in The Allegory of Touch and that in our Portrait of a Man in Armour shows them to be identical, indicating that our artist likewise worked from drawings. This would explain the pronounced twist in the sitter’s pose, as well as the placement of the helmet on the table, which in reality could not have remained in that position without support.
What makes the artist’s choice of this particular armour even more remarkable is that it is a jousting armour, specifically designed for the 'joust of peace' (Gestech in German), a specialised form of tournament that gained popularity in Renaissance Europe. The armour displays characteristic features of Burgundian jousting cuirasses, such as the shield mount (the targe) with its conical tip on the left side of the cuirass, and the six knobs on the right that would have secured the lance rest. An example of this type of armour, also originating from the armoury of Philip the Handsome, is now preserved in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (fig. 3).
In 2001, Christie’s sold a left forearm and a mitten-gauntlet from the Habsburg arsenal in Brussels, which may correspond to those worn by the figure depicted here (fig. 4, R.T. Gwynn Collection of Arms and Armour; Christie’s, London, 24 April 2001, lot 68). It is possible that the helmet used as a model is now in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels (inv. 10057,01). Made in Brussels around 1490, this helmet for the joust of peace is distinguished by its hinge adorned with crown-shaped finials, which served to fasten the helmet to the cuirass. The same form of hinge appears in the present painting. The crown affixed to the top of the helmet is the only element that seems to be purely the artist’s invention.
In the past, several names have been associated with the author of the present painting, including Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641), Pietro della Vecchia (1603-1678), and Johann Heinrich Schönfeld (1609-1684). However, the clear connection with the Brussels armoury, as well as with artists working in the orbit of Brueghel and Rubens, renders these hypotheses difficult to sustain (with the exception of van Dyck, who can nevertheless be ruled out on stylistic grounds). The identity of the artist thus remains an as-yet unresolved mystery.
We would also like to thank Tobias Capwell for his assistance in identifying the armour depicted.
The inscription associated with this striking painting, however indistinct it may be, indicates that the canvas was once understood as an imagined representation of Frederick I of Hohenstaufen (1122-1190). Known as Frederick Barbarossa, he was Holy Roman Emperor from 1155 until his death, and his figure inspired artists as diverse as Pisanello (c1380⁄1395-c1450⁄1455), Titian (c1488⁄1490-1576), Pieter de Grebber (c.1600-1652⁄1653), and Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1727-1804).
Yet the history behind the conception of this portrait is far more intriguing than that of a simple tronie. In fact, it constitutes a true 'portrait' of elements of armour produced in Burgundy around 1500 for the royal armoury of Philip the Handsome (1478-1506), ruler of the Burgundian Netherlands from 1482 to 1506 and son of Maximilian I (1459-1519), Holy Roman Emperor. These elements were subsequently preserved in the royal armouries in Brussels, where they were still recorded in the seventeenth century.
The question arises: how can we be certain that this armour truly existed and, moreover, belonged to the Habsburgs? The answer lies in The Allegory of Touch, painted in Antwerp around 1618 by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625) and Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), now in the Prado Museum, Madrid (fig. 1, inv. P001398). This painting forms part of a series of five works, each representing one of the senses, probably commissioned by Archduke Albert of Austria (1559-1621) and his wife Isabella (1566-1633), governors of the Spanish Netherlands; the iconography of the series celebrates the wealth and splendour of their court. The Allegory of Touch depicts a female figure (Venus) embracing a putto within a sumptuous armoury. In order to render the armour elements with precision, Brueghel had access to the royal armoury, where he sketched pieces from the collection. And, remarkably, in the lower left of the composition appears exactly the same cuirass as that worn by the bearded man in the present painting (fig. 2, detail).
Stefan Krause, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Curator at the Metropolitan Museum, whom we would like to thank for his assistance with this entry, has suggested that several artists in Brueghel’s circle may have had access to the master’s sketches. In their works, one finds depictions of armour shown in precisely the same positions as in Brueghel’s compositions. This exact repetition implies that Brueghel’s contemporaries were not working directly from the objects in the armoury, which would have resulted in variations of angle, but rather from drawings that they were afraid to alter. A comparison between the orientation of the cuirass in The Allegory of Touch and that in our Portrait of a Man in Armour shows them to be identical, indicating that our artist likewise worked from drawings. This would explain the pronounced twist in the sitter’s pose, as well as the placement of the helmet on the table, which in reality could not have remained in that position without support.
What makes the artist’s choice of this particular armour even more remarkable is that it is a jousting armour, specifically designed for the 'joust of peace' (Gestech in German), a specialised form of tournament that gained popularity in Renaissance Europe. The armour displays characteristic features of Burgundian jousting cuirasses, such as the shield mount (the targe) with its conical tip on the left side of the cuirass, and the six knobs on the right that would have secured the lance rest. An example of this type of armour, also originating from the armoury of Philip the Handsome, is now preserved in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (fig. 3).
In 2001, Christie’s sold a left forearm and a mitten-gauntlet from the Habsburg arsenal in Brussels, which may correspond to those worn by the figure depicted here (fig. 4, R.T. Gwynn Collection of Arms and Armour; Christie’s, London, 24 April 2001, lot 68). It is possible that the helmet used as a model is now in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels (inv. 10057,01). Made in Brussels around 1490, this helmet for the joust of peace is distinguished by its hinge adorned with crown-shaped finials, which served to fasten the helmet to the cuirass. The same form of hinge appears in the present painting. The crown affixed to the top of the helmet is the only element that seems to be purely the artist’s invention.
In the past, several names have been associated with the author of the present painting, including Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641), Pietro della Vecchia (1603-1678), and Johann Heinrich Schönfeld (1609-1684). However, the clear connection with the Brussels armoury, as well as with artists working in the orbit of Brueghel and Rubens, renders these hypotheses difficult to sustain (with the exception of van Dyck, who can nevertheless be ruled out on stylistic grounds). The identity of the artist thus remains an as-yet unresolved mystery.
We would also like to thank Tobias Capwell for his assistance in identifying the armour depicted.
Brought to you by
Olivia Ghosh
Specialist