Bruyn, Nicolaes de (Antwerp 1571 – Rotterdam 1656). Saint Hubert. The south Netherlandish princely “Wild Hunter”, after Döbel father of the par force hunting, with bugle and 6-head pack kneeling without headgear before crown stag with the cross in a rich wooden landscape in the manner of the 3^rd Gillis van Coninxloo (Antwerp? 1544 – Amsterdam 1607). On the pool behind the stag two swans as the prophesying birds of mythology, at the trunk above of the horse a hiss snake as temptress, and nearest to the stag a hound of Saint Hubert as the one and only looking at its master. Engraving. (1614.) Sheet size 69.9 x 45.8 cm.

Wurzbach 52. – Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, V, p. 1600, no. 9 (“one plate of Saint Hubert”), per January 16, 1632 proving the plate in an inventory of the Rotterdam orphan-chamber. – Not in Huyghebaert (Antwerp [sic!] 1949).

Compare Plietzsch, Gillis van Coninxloo 14 in Die Frankenthaler Maler (1910/1972) with plate V; Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting (2^nd ed., 1968), pp. 65 ff. + ills. 122; Devisscher, Kerstiaen de Keuninck (1987), pp. 36, 89 + ills. Z 10.

Early impression  as  desirable  before  the addresses (“… are the better because his fine graving work got worn out soon”, Wurzbach) by Gerard Valck (1626 – after 1694) + Peter I Schenk (1661-1715). – Here with Jan Meyssens’ (Antwerp 1612 – Brussels 1670)

publisher’s  dedication  for  just  Frederic  de  Marselaer :

“ H.  Nob(i)lissi(mum) Duo  FRADERI O  de  MARSELAEf  Equiti  Aurato  et  Lauretano  Baron(i?)  le  (Per)k  (et  E)leweyt  S. Huberti , Toparehae  liberi  Qonnau  de  Opdorp. Hærseaux  Oycke , etc. … Maⁿ.  à Consiliis  B(e?)llisennmum  Bruxellæ  Conj… me  D. Huberti  iconem  D. C. Q. Jo(a)nes  Meyssens ”.

On top of it inside of the subject itself below right

the  “MAZSELARE”  arms

formed from the stock-arms under the five pointed coronet along with the two

parforce  hounds

set up on both sides, here holding arms banners: on the left the one of the Marselear family, on the right that of the wife, Margriete van Borainage (de Bernaige, Baronaige, b. 1584, marriage 1626, more see below).

Meyssens’ address, standing for the early impressions of the younger Hollar, thus could be an intermediate state before those disqualified ones of Valck and Schenk. For de Bruyn in general Wurzbach proves dates from 1592 (W. 76) to 1650 (vol. II, p. 217). In 1601 he became a member in the Antwerp guild as plaetsnyder and coopman. And “On December 4, 1652, he is indicated as being descrepit in a document” (Thieme-Becker).

According to Bredius the Antwerp engraver and brother-in-law Assuerus van Londerseel has printed and edited several of the early works. “As results from the inventory later de Bruyn has handled printing (no. 75: Een druckpers) and publishing of his plates himself … In respect of the drawings and paintings (the latter of which are introduced in literature concretely probably for the first time here; additionally nos. 78 f.: Vyer tonnekens met verwe and Twee saxkens met smalt/cobalt resp.) … it is noticeable that almost all deal with those themes, partly occuring only rarely, which de Bruyn has engraved, too, suggesting they may have been his copies” (Bredius, op. cit., p. 1599).

On top trimmed to mark of the subject, otherwise with quite fine margins around the subject. So fully corresponding with the size given by Wurzbach (52) with 69 x 46 cm. Because of several partly only small tears or thin places professionally restored (doubled) as noticeable inside of the subject itself only relatively and not impairing the quite fascinating scenery.

nor by so many places more

and  still  quite  recently  reported  here  to  Günther  Schlieker

at preparation of his Hubert monograph, just as then

on occasion of the most completely enlarged new edition of his “Sint  Hubertus, Patroon van de Jagers in Woord en Beeld” (Antwerp [sic!] 1949 with now 361 pages + 173 illustrations against 158 pages + 34 illustrations in 1927 !!)

what  proves  the  said  rarity  the  more  significantly

as he documents Frederic de Marselear in detail (pp. 174-181 + ills. 75-80).

Ridder Dr. iur. Frederic (Fraderi, Frider) de Marselaer, Lord of Opdorp, alderman, treasurer, and at last Lord Mayor of Brussels, in 1611 graduation at Leuven, gentleman’s tour to Italy, author of the important two-part work on legations

Khpykeion, sive Legationvm Insigne ,

published for the first time in 1618 which interested Rubens, in touch with its author in the course of orders for Brussel’s cityhall, the more as affecting his own services in diplomatic missions, summarizing in his understanding of the value of treating envoys as well in times of peace as war, yet, quite especially during the latters. In 1623 he gave utterance to this conviction by contrast of peace + war by divine prototypes in another Antwerp title (van de Velde, op. cit., ills. 6) and in the same year this train of thought is then also subject of a discussion by correspondence with de Marselaer, who wished a new title for an overdue enlarged new edition in larger format, too, of his Legatus. Which then, 1626, however, was delivered by Theodoor van Loon, nevertheless in fancy of Rubens. Namely with Mercury and militant Minerva and these as opponents not looking at each other (van de Velde ills. 3). As giving just this, too, the omission of the recourse to the de Marselaer device

ARTE  ET  MARTE

contrary to the 1618 title by an anonymous is to be regretted. Fascinating, however, the further development of this 1626 title fifteen years later by now Rubens himself after his first occupation with it in 1623. Finally leaving behind its usually rather more lateral role as entrée book decoration it catapults to a humanitarian event: Peace & War , Mercury & Minerva , reach each other hands over the title plate of de Marselaer’s Legatus, driving back their contrary attributes. In the rural tranquility of Elewijt – in 1635 Rubens had acquired the feudal country seat Steen Castle there, whereby the long standing contacts between de Marselaer and himself had become neighborly terms, too – Rubens overlooked, so Carl van de Velde summing up his richly illustrated fine contribution in the 1981 Rubenianum commemorative publication, see above, his own carreer as diplomat and found to a more positive view, having Minerva put aside the militant attributes borrowed from Pallas Athene, finding back to her role as goddess of peace. So far this Rubens aspect important for de Marselaer’s additional positioning.

In his Hubert reference de Marselaer, by marriage (see above) became Lord and first baron of Perk + Elewijt, Lord of Herseaux, Oycke, and Loxem, finds central mentioning in the bull of the Mechelen archbishop Jacobus Boonen of October 15, 1650, by which this recognizes canonically

the  Elewijt  Hubert  insignia  as  well  as  the  Hubert  brotherhood, too,

per May 1, 1651. Existed the latter already since a very long time, so the insignia were transferred for the chapel of the castle of Elewijt by the Antwerp Capuchins after former ones were gone under by ravage by the iconoclasts. The richly decorated bull – Huyghebaert ills. 78-80 – shows as centerpiece of the wide upper border the saint as portrait-medallon with bishop’s insignia and obviously the stag-head on his right and on both sides, framed by hunting parties, two arms each for Boonen + Marselear, at which in contrast to her arms banner in the engraving here that of Lady Marselear quotes the emblems of her husband in the left field of the shield. The side borders decorated with tulips as in those days still very expensive, at which Huyghebaert believes they could be considered as reverence for Rubens who with such gladly pleased his tulip friend Justus Lipsius. Also the left group of the upper border – ills. 79 – returning from hawking and hunting on big and small game might be thought of the surroundings of Baerbeek where Rubens as well as Teniers have painted many landscapes. But

dated by Rosenberg about 1630/35 – a presumable copy presently offered for genuine on the market – seems to be unknown to him. With the sumptuous country seat Steen Castle located near Elewijt and acquired by Rubens in 1635 the hitherto connection became neighborly, too.

Likewise in 1650 archbishop Boonen already had requested per posters by public reward of a forty-day indulgence to visit the insignia “given to the chapel of the castle of the Lord of Perk and Elewijt”, hoping His Holiness could extend the limited indulgence to a full one as then per 1^st May of the following year Innocenz X had

what had been published in 1651 by poster printed under the papal coat of arms. This Elewijt full indulgence, however, was reserved only for the church-goers “on the day of ST. HUBERT the 3^rd of November each year”. How much the Marselear name stood as a synonym for the welfare of church + relicts of Elewijt even still after extinction in the male line about 1720 one with 16 x 21 cm rather large posthumous souvenir engraving by Antoon Opdebeek (1709-1759) in Mechelen with the Hubert scenery in front of the Elewijt church with the Marselear arms above of it documents. See in Huyghebeart the illustrations 75-77.

Coming from afar the crowd thronged anew in Elewijt reminding of the great pilgrimages at the beginning of the 16^th century when Hubert was requested for protection against rabies.

Of simple origin in the 12^th century building activities from the 17^th to 19^th centuries formed one of the most splendid manors of the Brussels area with more than 200 rooms amidst a 222 acres immense park. Via marriage of the Katharina de Wavre (Waver), daughter of Jan de Wavre flourishing between 1347 + 1378 and his heiress of Perk + Elewijt, with Johann van Weede/Bernaige

Home of this rise was the dominion Opdorp, today incorporated to Buggenhout whose present double arms showing the former one of Opdorp, namely that of the Marselears, on the left. As baronial Gwijde van Dampierre, count of Flanders, had donated it in the 13^th century to Willem van Grimbergen for rendered services. By marriage with Elisabeth van Grimbergen it came on Geeraerd van Marselear remaining then in his family for centuries. In 1435 Adriaen van M. erected the chapel there, in place of it threehundred years later a church was erected – with active aid by the Ursuline sister Maria Therese van M., daughter of the above Frederic Jozef Ignatius, and her heir Jan Willem d’Alvarado y Bracomonte, Burgrave of Lippelo and Lord of Opdorp. In between, 1641, Anton Sanderius wrote in his Flandria Illustrata “This dorp makes a show of a fine castle or palais erected by the lords of Marselears” (illustration there).

deemed not as illogical also in so far as the secured Mazzuchelli provenance following chronologically practically seamlessly to the extinction of the Marselears in the male line, for which in respect of topically, but a little contradictorily, genealogical material to the family the years about 1720 are to be scheduled. If relations to the Mazzuchellis existed is unknown here. Nevertheless, there were such ones to the Spanish family of the Arrazola de Oñate, though politically branched out to Brussels, by marriage of two Marselear daughters, Margriete Frederika Hieronyme (1620-1695, at further relations into the family della Faille, de La Faille, to be localized at different places) + Johanna Angelica (1623 – 18^th Dec. 1656, which latter date appearing less substantially for the written date “1656” placed 8 cm to the left of the Marselear arms. Possibilities to think of Mazzuchelli furthermore are given by marriage of a granddaughter of Frederic and a son (but whose wife died already only twenty-two-year-old) + daughter each of just the thought grandson Frederic Jozef Ignatius as great-grandson and great-granddaughter resp.

shows his fivefold ( sic! ) back stamping “Con. Gio. Mazzuchelli” under the count’s coronet. With 21 titles mentioned by Jöcher he counts “to the Brescia patrician familiy whose name is perfectly represented on the field of Italian literature by several members ” (ADB XXI, 150 on occasion of the later Alois Count M.).

(c. 1501) as emanation from a quite different self comprehension rooted in just its natural and therewith, especially, also intellectual ambience.

Contrary to this Dürer shows a vain knight with straightened back and  a cap on his head ( sic! ) next to a proud castle and separated from the stag by his horse. Corresponding with that the sleek face of the knight (after Winkler, p. 97, by the way the lineaments of emperor Maximilian!) added by the hands bidding a welcome after social graces. And, what wonder, without swans, snake and – Hubert hound, too.

What different attitude at Bruyn! Kneeling  in  front  of his horse in thinkably greatest nearness to the stag, easily bent forward,

making  the  mystery  of  this  moment  experienceable

by face and arms showing downwards. And reverentially taken off before himself the suitable headgear. The rich landscape pure nature. Correspondingly then Wurzbach I, 217 f.

“ (Bruyn) is an excellent draughtsman, his heads are full of expression and truth, his costumes phantastically interesting and the fullness of his figures surprising. ”

Latters in the manner of van Leyden, “whose forms he had made so to his own, that one is tried to hold many of his original engravings for sheets after this” (Wurzbach, 1906). And Thieme-Becker V, 1911, 160:

“ the majority (of his sheets), however, after own invention – so the one here, too! – and herein de Br. shows himself as a most original artist (AKL XIV, 1996, 617: ingenious engraver), who continued skilfully the art language of Lucas van Leyden (Bredius reminds together of Hendrick Goltzius, too) still one century after his death … His very rich œuvre …

belongs  to  the  most  interesting  of  his  time .

With sure chisel he had engraved a great many series of representations from the scripture in large size which one more often finds mounted in old Bibles. ”

Beside of such oversizes as badly to be conserved and also a general susceptibility for wear as theses sheets, both also may be an additional reason for the rareness of these works criticized by the way by Nagler and Wurzbach in respect of their chiaroscuro. What at least for the impression of the Hubert here is by no means supported. The landscape being dued to Gillis van Coninxloo III (Antwerp 1544 – Amsterdam 1607), repeatedly engraved after by de Bruyn, of a differentiated chiaroscuro leading to the depth as after Bachmann (on occasion of the early work of van der Neer – “the forest itself, the interior of the wood” – , Oud Holland LXXXIX, 1975, p. 214/II, break 2) so typical only for the late Coninxloo. This of quite important interest as Plietzsch points out that the engravers after Coninxloo with de Bruyn at the top should have reproduced only the “landscapes of his first period or from the time of the change to the second” (Plietzsch, op. cit., p. 27). So it is quite evident that already one hundred years ago

de  Bruyn’s  Hubert  has  been  unknown  to  Plietzsch , too .

Though as autonomous by no means to be assigned to the thought copying engravings after Coninxloo, so at a glance

(Plietzsch 14; „… while Coninxloo [as the greatest harbinger of seventeenth-century Dutch forest painting] was painting his revolutionary forest landscapes in Amsterdam“, Stechow), showing de Bruyn artistically up to date. After all for old literature this “amazing” (Stechow), “most significant” (Devisscher, seeing, however, rather Paul Bril instead of Coninxloo) wood landscape by Coninxloo together with the 1595 Forest Landscape Ertz 16 by the elder Jan Brueghel in Milan passed for as standard of a new, now natural wood landscape in general. And still in 1968 Stechow resumed after divers consideration “But even this is relegated to a minor position when compared with Coninxloo’s amazing Forest of 1598 in the Liechtenstein Gallery“ (op. cit., p. 66).

That by this de Bruyn, turned back, makes Coninxloo’s deliberately and logically small and therefore marginally set hunters + stags to the theme itself and even developes it to highest consecration should not be misread as irony. His matter was another one so he then also replaced suggestively as mythologically less momentous Coninxloo’s storks animating a marshy pond on the left by swans as the birds of prediction and places their pool behind the stag at the right border. But the ambience for his presentation should be dernier cri, indeed. Whereby he undoubtedly contrived a great success in fact. For still three hundred years later his landscape model is found as called in generally in the illustration of its historical merit:

“ Coninxloo has to be seen as one of the most important representatives of the transition period in the history of the Netherlandish landscape painting, which leads over from the fantastic orientation in the middle of the 16^th century to the unpretentious landscape art of the 17^th century in its nearness to nature, and is together one of the first whose ideas carry over from Belgium to Holland … Instead of the landscape built up fantastically from rocks and mountains another one, far simpler, enters gradually, arranged with deliberately, indeed, but yet risen from the observation of the  native nature. (Especially in some woodland pictures in Vienna at Liechtenstein.) The flatlike composition is replaced by an arrangement giving a prospect developing evenly from front to back. At the same time the viewpoint supposed very high in the early works constantly moves down. At last C. is successful to give in his last pictures of 1604 a homogeneous hue to the whole landscape and to overcome the schematic arrangement in a brown foreground, a green middle distance, and a blue distance … Generally it seems that his art had exerted an important influence on many Dutch landscapists as then also van Mander reports that since his appearance the representation of the trees in the works of his compatriots has changed essentially ”

(Zoege von Manteuffel in Thieme-Becker VII [1912], 302 ff., as taken over as unchanged valid in general still by Ertz in AKL XX [1998], 522 ff., too).

Under this Coninxloo landscape aspect, too, Bruyn’s Hubert is of quite essential worth of demonstration and Nagler (“no idea of the chiaroscuro”) and Wurzbach (“all held as in uniform lighting”) could have misunderstood him to this. So by handling of the motif and most topically  native  woodland de Bruyn then gives his Hubert contrary to Dürer

the  authenticity

in general. Namely in every respect

the  home  environment  of  the  Saint !

(“For his sheets of own invention worked from ca. 1603 onward B. takes over essential characteristics of the Flemish wood and panorama landscape, but set the chief accent on the narrative of the picture”, AKL, op. cit.)

And  with  70  x  46  cm ( sic! )

just the adapted size to the singular scene. But therewith seeking its own kind with the one as well as the other. And with the

For the first time then present here with the full claim to its outstanding rarity, also with the marks of its centuries, indeed, but

as  a  wonderful  sheet  as  a  whole .

See to his modern meaning Heinz Brüll per subparagraph “(The Significance of the Legend of Hubert)” (Lindner Commemorative vol. “Et Multum et Multa”, 1971, pp. 19 f.), E. Ueckermann, (Saint Hubert – Legend and Reality) (unsere jagd 11/96, pp. 26 f., in regard of the stag by the way with the remark “mostly with an antler of eight points”, at Bruyn and Dürer there are ten) + Peter Bußmann and Georg Haasis in “Die Pirsch” 23/96, pp. 108-111.
Offer no. 15,036  /  price on request

„ Vielen Dank für Alles, liebe Grüße und schönes Wochenende von der Mosel Herzlichst “

(Frau A. B., 4. April 2003)