DOI Heft:
Nr. 3
DOI Artikel:Jaffé, Michael: Rubens drawings in the Warsaw University Library
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18861#0104
9. Pieter de Jode II (after Rubens), Ambrogio Spinola, Teyler Museum, Antwerp
by Bellori was taken as a matter of course by Rooses in 18901G; and Rooses thought it probable
that Rubens's postscript of 2 September 1627, „Ho ben depinto il ritratto del inarchese Spinola
dal naturale" słiould refer only to ,,une etude d'apres naturę", while the postscript of 9 December,
,,I1 ritratto del Sr Marchese si mettera ąuanto primo in opera", should refer to ,,le portrait acheve
et defiuitif". We are left uncertain whether the Belgian scholar believed that finished portrait
to be the painting which he knew in the Nostitz Palais or tbe repetition of the Brunswick painting
which Gustav Waagen had admired in the Duke of Leuchtenberg's gallery in St. Petersburg".
Rooses was followed in his 1625 dating of the Brunswick portrait by Rudolph Oldenbourg in the
1921 edition of the Klassiker der Kunst vohime for Rubens.
The third point is item 98 in the 1640 Tnventory of Rubens's collection in Antwerp, for which
the descriptions in French and in FJemish match: „Un pourtrait du Marąuis Spinola" and ,,Een
portret van den Marąuis Spinola". It is not specified unfortunately whether this portrait was on
panel, as are the finished paintings at Brunswick and Prague, or on canvas, as was the Bunbury
painting; and we have no documentary clue to ist appearance.
16. Rooses, op. cii., IV, 270, no. 1059.
17. G. Waagen, Dic Gemiildegalerie der Ermitage in St. Petersburg, Munich, 1870, 383; Rooses, op. cit., IV, no. 1061.
94
by Bellori was taken as a matter of course by Rooses in 18901G; and Rooses thought it probable
that Rubens's postscript of 2 September 1627, „Ho ben depinto il ritratto del inarchese Spinola
dal naturale" słiould refer only to ,,une etude d'apres naturę", while the postscript of 9 December,
,,I1 ritratto del Sr Marchese si mettera ąuanto primo in opera", should refer to ,,le portrait acheve
et defiuitif". We are left uncertain whether the Belgian scholar believed that finished portrait
to be the painting which he knew in the Nostitz Palais or tbe repetition of the Brunswick painting
which Gustav Waagen had admired in the Duke of Leuchtenberg's gallery in St. Petersburg".
Rooses was followed in his 1625 dating of the Brunswick portrait by Rudolph Oldenbourg in the
1921 edition of the Klassiker der Kunst vohime for Rubens.
The third point is item 98 in the 1640 Tnventory of Rubens's collection in Antwerp, for which
the descriptions in French and in FJemish match: „Un pourtrait du Marąuis Spinola" and ,,Een
portret van den Marąuis Spinola". It is not specified unfortunately whether this portrait was on
panel, as are the finished paintings at Brunswick and Prague, or on canvas, as was the Bunbury
painting; and we have no documentary clue to ist appearance.
16. Rooses, op. cii., IV, 270, no. 1059.
17. G. Waagen, Dic Gemiildegalerie der Ermitage in St. Petersburg, Munich, 1870, 383; Rooses, op. cit., IV, no. 1061.
94