Ambrosius I Bosschaert

LOT 22 THE PROPERTY OF A FAMILY AMBROSIUS BOSSCHAERT THE ELDER ANTWERP BAPT 1573 - 1621 THE HAGUE STILL LIFE OF TULIPS, MOSS-ROSES, LILY-OF-THE-VALLEY AND OTHER FLOWERS IN A GLASS BEAKER SET IN AN ARCHED STONE WINDOW OPENING, WITH A DISTANT LANDSCAPE BEYOND oil on copper 29 by 23 cm.; 11 1/2 by 9 in.

Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (Antwerp 1573-1621 TheHague) Tulips, roses, a bluebell, Narcissus tortuosis, forget-me-nots,lily of the valley and cyclamen in a flask, on a ledge with acaterpillar, butterfly and dragonfly oil on copper 7½ x 5 2/3 in. (19 x 14.5 cm.) This still life is the prime version of three known renditionsof the composition -- and the only one by Bosschaert, according to FredMeijer (written communication, 10 December 2010). Another version,bearing a signature, is recorded as having formerly been with P. deBoer Gallery, Amsterdam (op. cit., Bol, p. 64, no. 28, pl.18b). Only about fifty works by Bosschaert are known, although as one ofthe founders of the floral still life genre, he would influencemany artists throughout several generations during the seventeenthcentury. Bosschaert mastered an elegantly simple and balancedcomposition -- as is evident in the present work -- of a verticalbouquet in a narrow vase placed on a ledge. These works were doublyappreciated as a display of the beauty of the natural world as wellas the skills of the artist. This view was best expressed by thehumanist theologian Erasmus (1466-1536) who wrote in hisColloquia, 'Morever, we are twice pleased when we see a painted flowercompeting with a living one. In one we admire the artifice ofnature, in the other the genius of the painter, in each thegoodness of God.' Much has been made of the symbolic importance of still lifepainting -- especially in vanitas or memento mori subjects, but asEramsus' words indicate they were also very simply appreciated fortheir beauty. Bosschaert was at the advent of the still lifetradition when symbolic value had not yet infused every flower bulbor piece of fruit; however, his paintings are by no means simple.Every petal is painted with scientific precision, and in order toachieve this accuracy the artist would have had to have observedthe flowers from life, over the course of different seasons. Inaddition, Bosschaert clearly delighted in depicting the play oftexture, light and reflection -- thus the white ground that heapplied to the copper plate enhanced its enamel-like colors andluminous reflections.

DESCRIPTION signed with monogram lower left oil on copper PROVENANCE In the collection of a Hungarian noble family by the late 19th century; Purchased from that family by an ancestor of the present owners, circa 1955. LITERATURE AND REFERENCES L.J. Bol, The Bosschaert Dynasty: Painters of Flower and Fruit, Leigh-on-Sea 1960, p. 61, no. 16, reproduced. CATALOGUE NOTE Ambrosius Bosschaert spent most of his career in Middelburg, where he settled with his family in around 1589-90, but after 1613 led a more peripatetic existence, moving to Amsterdam, Bergen op Zoom, Utrecht and Breda. He was both a painter and an art dealer, and the latter must have occupied a good deal of his time because his paintings are quite rare and his first dated work is from 1605, when he was already 32 years old. Although his daughter Maria described him as a painter of flowers and fruit,1 very few fruit pieces survive. However, his flower pieces influenced a generation of painters, including his three sons and Balthasar van der Ast, his brother-in-law; were the model for painting in Middelburg through the 1650s; and they are still what Bosschaert is known for today. The Still Life with Tulips, Roses and Narcissi in a Glass Beaker embodies the brilliance and clarity that characterize the finest of Bosschaert's pictures. He arranges the flowers in a simple studded glass beaker set on a ledge against a dark background. The flowers, many of which though common today, were extremely rare in the early seventeenth century. Included here are pink roses, the highly prized and expensive flame tulips, a variety of narcissi, a pink cyclamen with its variegated leaves, a deep red autumn pheasant's eye and a large yellow double kingcup (or marsh marigold). A large, rather bold looking fly has staked out the right side of the ledge, while a caterpillar creeps along the stem of a blue columbine at the left and a small butterfly is perched on the flame tulip at the right. Bosschaert arranges the flowers in a roughly symmetrical manner, anchoring the composition with the large rose at the top, the two tulips at the sides and the double kingcup below. He creates a sense of space and volume, by setting the fat fly in the foreground and the beaker further back on the ledge. He uses the flowers themselves to reinforce this sense of space, bending the two sprigs of lily of the valley so they curve around the beaker itself and turning the roses away from the viewer. At the upper right he adds a sprig of rosemary, which points backward, leading our eye into the depths of the background. Fred Meijer has suggested a date of 1614 or slightly earlier for The Still Life with Tulips, Roses and Narcissi, based on its relationship to the Still Life with a Basket of Flowers in the Getty Museum, Los Angeles, and the Still Life with Flowers in a Roemer in the National Gallery, London (fig. 1) which are both dated to that year.2 While there are no dated paintings between 1610 and these two pictures, the London picture is closely related to the present work in its overall composition as well as specific motifs. Both are small coppers (the London painting is slightly larger, measuring 26 by 20.5 cm. or 10 1/4 by 8 1/8 inches) and depict colorful bouquets in glass vessels. Many of the same flowers are repeated, including a yellow and white polyanthus narcissus at the center, a rose seen from behind, and bluebells, as well as a caterpillar, a butterfly and an equally impertinent fly. However, in addition to the specific motifs, the compositions are very similar in their striking stability and balance. In contrast to Bosschaert's early paintings, these bouquets are denser and more fully integrated, with no large holes to lead our eyes away. The flowers seem to fill the space, but without any sense of crowding. We can only fully appreciate the brilliance of Bosschaert's technique in The Still Life with Tulips, Roses and Narcissi because of its near pristine condition. While he presents most of the flowers from a characteristic point of view, which harkens back to the early botanical illustrators, he is not afraid to layer one on top of another for the sake of the overall composition. His brushstroke is remarkably fine and virtually disappears, so that all we are aware of are the flowers themselves. Light shimmers off the smooth surfaces of the tulip in the upper left and the thick leaves of the rosemary. Just to the left is a small hole that an insect has eaten in the soft petal of the large pink rose. Although a great deal has been written about the possible meaning of seventeenth century flower pieces, with an emphasis on their ephemeral nature and the passing of time, in looking at a work like this we are more struck by the beauty of the blooms and Bosschaert's skill in depicting them. The combination of flowers is, of course, one that could never occur in nature, for some are early spring flowers and others much later blooms. It is a testament to Bosschaert's artistry that he is able to combine them so convincingly that we never question the reality of what he sets forth. We are very grateful to Fred G. Meijer for his help in cataloguing this picture. 1. Translated into English by L.J. Bol, see Literature above, p. 14. 2. F. G. Meijer, email communication, November 10, 2008.

Pre-lot TextPROPERTY FROM A EUROPEAN PRIVATE COLLECTION Lot Description Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder Antwerp 1573-1621 The Hague A still life of flowers in a vase oil on panel 17 x 13 in. 43.2 x 33 cm. Lot Notes We would like to thank Fred Meijer for proposing the attribution of this painting and for providing the following catalogue note. This most interesting flower painting first appeared on the art market in 1990 as a German work from the late sixteenth century. Soon after it was attributed to Ludger tom Ring the Younger (1522/30-1584) by the Swedish still-life expert Professor Ingvar Bergström. Although this attribution initially seemed convincing because of a certain similarity in the palette and the choice and rendering of some of the flowers, the present painting is more refined in its execution, more versatile in its choice of flowers and less rigid in its composition than tom Ring's known flower paintings. Moreover, none of the flowers shown here are exact matches to flowers in tom Ring's flower paintings and floral studies. Dr. Sam Segal, in his elaborate article on Ludger tom Ring's flowers, animals and still lifes in the two-volume catalogue of the 1996 Münster exhibition (A. Lorenz, ed., Die Maler Tom Ring, Münster, Das Landesmuseum, 1996, no. 81) was the first to question the attribution in the literature, spelling out twelve arguments against it. Some of those are more valid than others, but on the whole they are conclusive. Instead, Segal connected this painting with a group of floral still lifes that he situated between tom Ring's bouquets and Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder's earliest works. In this context he also mentioned the enigmatic flower painter Lodewijck Jansz. van de Bosch, whose work Carel van Mander described in his Schilderboeck of 1604 but whose paintings are completely unknown to us at present. Apart from the possibility that this group is the work of another, unrecorded artist, Segal also suggested that these paintings might represent an early phase of the work of Bosschaert, who was already a guild member in 1593 but whose earliest known dated flower painting is from 1605. However, the different style of those earliest known Bosschaerts made him dismiss that possibility as unlikely. Nevertheless, various arguments can be forwarded to connect this painting directly with Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder himself. The painting is closely related to two still lifes by Bosschaert that precede his earliest dated flower painting from 1605. The first is a small bouquet in a glass on copper (28.5 x 20 cm.) in the collection of the Piet en Nellie de Boer Foundation, Amsterdam (fig. 1; Exhibition catalogue, Masters of Middelburg, Waterman Gallery, Amsterdam, 1984, no. 3). This painting, signed in monogram, comes very close in style and handling to the flower painting offered here. Also directly related in several ways is a painting that was included in the Münster exhibition as German School, late sixteenth century (oil on panel, 43.5 x 31.5 cm; Lorenz, op. cit., no. 81) and that appeared on the European art market in 2005. Dendro-chronological dating of the panel at the time of the exhibition revealed that it was ready for use in 1603 or slightly after. This squares perfectly with the fact that, from a stylistic point of view, it would appear to only marginally precede Bosschaert's earliest dated still lifes from 1605 and 1606. Moreover, the measurements and cut of the panel are characteristic for Middelburg. The measurements of the present panel are virtually identical to those of the painting in the exhibition and the two share several flowers, among them the white narcissus at lower left, the yellow iris and the snowflake at the far left. In its turn, the exhibition painting shares several flowers with the de Boer work, such as the pansy and the columbine, and the white butterflies in both are virtually identical. Both works also have several (separate) flowers in common with Bosschaert's dated flower painting from 1606 in Cleveland (oil on copper, 35.6 x 29.3 cm., signed in monogram and dated 1606; see exhibition catalogue Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands 1550-1720, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, 1999/2000, no. 5). That painting, in its turn, repeats the black-tailed skimmer seen at lower right in A still life of flowers in a vase. There are two further still lifes of flowers that inter-connect the paintings mentioned above to Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder. In his article, Segal ( op. cit., fig. 28) mentioned a painting of flowers in a glass at Anglesey Abbey, near Cambridge, which he described as from the circle of Ambrosius Bosschaert (fig. 2; oil on panel, 37.5 x 27.5 cm., Fairhaven Collection, Anglesey Abbey). In comparison with the other works discussed here, the Fairhaven bouquet has very little breathing space, which suggests that the panel may originally have been larger, close to the Middelburg standard of about 43.5 x 31.5 cm. (I have not seen the back of the panel). The AB monogram on it, however, is authentic and in my view the painting is without doubt an autograph work by Bosschaert (I examined the painting in situ in July of 2004 and concluded that the monogram is not a later addition). A variant of the painting at Anglesey Abbey, an old photo of which is kept at the RKD, The Hague, may also be an autograph work by Bosschaert (oil on panel, 35 x 25 cm., probably reduced on all sides; see De Helsche en fluweelen Brueghel, kunsthandel P. de Boer, Amsterdam, cat. no. 255, as by A. Bosschaert I). The original measurements may well have been identical to those of the painting offered here. Both the Angelsey Abbey painting and the now lost work recorded at the RKD share motifs with the present work, as well as with the paintings mentioned above. All still lifes in this group possess an almost identical stone plinth upon which the vase is placed, painted in an opaque creamy white. The treatment of the vase's shadow is also similar in all of them. In both the present painting and the one at Anglesey Abbey there is a bluebottle on the ledge. That fly would become almost a signature motif for Bosschaert. Despite the many similarities and shared motifs mentioned above, it is an indisputable fact that the character of the bouquet offered here is different from the still lifes that can be quite firmly established as works by Ambrosius Bosschaert that predate 1605. The most conspicuous difference is the fact that Bosschaert buildt his bouquets around a number of fairly large blooms, usually cultivars, which he then interspersed with a host of smaller flowers. Here, the center of his bouquet consists of a cloud of small flowers, many of them indigenous, surrounded by a few larger blooms. Moreover, many of the flowers would appear to have been copied from herbals and prints rather than from life. Another issue is the vase in which the flowers are presented. Bouquets in vases, particularly the lavish ones portrayed by still-life painters, were not a common feature in Netherlandish households at the time, and may not even have existed. The same, consequently, goes for flower vases. In many of Bosschaert's early floral still lifes, he uses a simple rummer, a drinking glass, as a container, as did his contemporary Jan Brueghel the Elder. The Chinese porcelain vases Bosschaert (and his younger brother-in-law Balthasar van der Ast) painted were in fact non-existent objects, conceived in the artist's mind. The same is probably true for the glass vase shown in this painting. The present painting also clearly connects with Bosschaert through a free copy of it in the Museum in Basle, into which shells and flowers from later Bosschaert compositions were added by the copyist (oil on panel, 53 x 39 cm., inv. no. 1499). The execution of that painting, judging from a good photo, is not up to Bosschaert's standard. On the whole, these observations would appear to confirm that this painting is probably one of Bosschaert's earliest floral still lifes, one that precedes the paintings from around 1604 to 1606 discussed above, and one for which he, at least in part, had to rely on printed models, rather than on living flowers. For this painting, he may well have been inspired by one or two works by Ludger tom Ring that he may have seen, or perhaps even owned in his capacity as an art dealer. It would seem to fit in entirely as an early experiment by a highly talented artist, whose developments would be substantial in the course of the following years. In this respect it is interesting to note that there can be no doubt that sometime in 1606 Bosschaert saw some of Jan Brueghel's flower paintings for the first time. This clearly had a firm impact on his style and manner of composing, which can be followed closely in his dated works from 1606 and 1607, showing that he even copied flowers from Brueghel's bouquets into his own works. Having established the conclusions above, we must confirm that the puzzle of the early seventeenth-century genesis of flower painting in Holland is far from solved. The work of Lodewijck Jansz. van den Bosch, about which van Mander tells us so enthusiastically, remains unknown to us, while at least one other painting that is closely connected with the works discussed here remains unattributed (oil on panel, 43.3 x 31 cm., measurements that again suggest Middelburg; see Lorenz, op. cit., no. 82). This painting catalogued as circle of Ludger tom Ring includes the same narcissus, snowflake and sprig of lily-of-the-valley that appear in this painting. Its composition and execution is much more free than Bosschaert's early efforts as we now know them. Fred Meijer 10 August 2007

signed in monogram lower left oil on copper this lot contains 1 item(s). ambrosius bosschaert is considered to be the father of dutch still-life painting, and was the first painter anywhere to build a career entirely upon the depiction of flowers. he was almost certainly painting pure flower still lifes before jan brueghel and his fellow antwerp painters, since bosschaert was admitted to the middelburg guild of saint luke in 1593. some of his compositions reveal that he was aware of jan brueghel's work, but his technique of using subtly built-up glazes is far removed from brueghel's legible brush-work. bosschaert's career flourished in middelburg, where there was a strong local tradition of collecting, and where he owned property. it is therefore not clear why he moved to bergen-op-zoom, where he was resident by 1615, and later that year to utrecht, accompanied by his brother-in-law and principal pupil, balthasar van der ast. even less clear is why he left utrecht, which was rapidly becoming an artistic centre for the production of painted and engraved still lifes, and removed to breda in august 1619. there he seems to have settled, and his last few years were most productive. he died in the hague in 1621 while delivering a flower piece. literature