Rocznik Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie (3(39).2014)

328

Attribution and Technological Research on Old Master Paintings and Drawings

work. Normally such a modello would have been an intermediate oil-sketch. But in this case
it seems possible that the Warsaw drawing, detailed as it is, would have been able to perform
this function, provided it was supplemented by verbal instructions about colouring.
Might the drawing then have been created during Rubens’s stay in Paris in 1622, when
he visited Peiresc for the first time?77 The artist could have executed it during the discussion
on the possible commission for a painting for Charles du Lys, the authorities of Orléans or a
person involved in the inscriptions project. The picture was presumably meant to convey the
appearance of the Orléans sculpture, which explains this particular pose of Joan, referring to
the monument.78 It is worth remembering that Peiresc, who was no art connoisseur, would
be concerned about precision and clarity of the drawing, which would make it immediately
understandable to those interested in Joan, including the commissioner himself. Rubens
may have modified his style accordingly. This could explain the detailed representation of the
heroine in comparison with the more sketchy background. If we accept some such course of
events, Rubens would have returned to Antwerp with the sketch which could then be given to
one of the artists he cooperated with in order to execute the commission. The project, however,
was ultimately not finalized and the unfinished painting remained in the workshop for years
to come. This hypothesis is supported by the manner of executing the drawing: the point of
departure was a figure much closer to that in Gaultier’s print (as proved by the traces of the
initial sketch in black chalk). Only later did Rubens depart from the original position of the
body, but he did not introduce significant changes. While the similarity between Joan’s figure
and the sculpture from Orléans could have been prescribed by the terms of the commission,
the idea of showing her in an unidentified palace interior, kneeling in front of a crucifix against
a curtain, columns, balustrade and the sky was an original element. The sketchy rendering of
the background in the drawing could stem from the fact that the appearance of this section
was not that important for the commissioner.
There is also another possibility regarding the fonction of the drawing and the circum-
stances of its creation. Even though Müller Hofstede suggested that it might have been a design
for a print79 this notion has hitherto not been taken into account. This way the drawing would
be directly connected with the initiative of du Lys and Peiresc and the publication they planned.
Müller Hofstede thought that the detail of the Warsaw composition turned it into an ideal tem-
plate, conveying individual elements of the curtain, armour and face with appropriate detail.80
Indeed, the elements of the composition he mentioned would have been easily interpreted by
the engraver, especially Joan’s torso, which was depicted using light and shade effects.
Here it is worth emphasizing that this would not have been the first project of Peiresc and
Rubens related to prints. In 1621, the French scholar wrote to the artist, asking him to lend him
the drawing after the Gemma Augustea.81 Soon afterwards, the pair began to plan a publication
that would contain some thirty images of antique cameos (i.a., from the painter’s collection);

77 This idea developed from a suggestion made to me in an e-mail by Elizabeth McGrath of4 December 2013.
78 For information on how non-standard Joan of Arc’s depiction is in many aspects see McGrath, op. cit.,
vol. 2, pp. 320-21.
79 Müller Hofstede, op. cit., p. 305.
80 Ibid.
81 Peter Paul Rubens, Gemma Augustea, pen and brown ink and brown wash, 22.5 x 25 cm, inv. no. AB245,
Sankt Annen-Museum, Lübeck. See Marjon van der Meulen, Copies after the Antique, vol. 2 (London, 1994),
pp. 179-80, cat. no. 164a; vol. 3, fig. 314. Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, 23.