This recently rediscovered landscape is a rare and remarkably fine work by Herri met de Bles (circa 1510–after 1550) that not only almost certainly belonged to Sir Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) but was also remodelled by the artist himself. As well as combining all the elements that contributed to Herri met de Bles's lasting success, this painting sheds light on a fascinating aspect of Rubens's creative working practice. Following the death of Joachim Patinir (fl. 1515–24) in 1524, Herri met de Bles became the most celebrated exponent of the new genre of landscape painting and one of its earliest practitioners in The Netherlands. Here we see the Holy Family with the Infant Saint John the Baptist in an extensive verdant landscape punctuated by fantastical jagged rock formations and a river valley in the distance. In addition to the main figural group, the artist has also included an abundance of detail and lively observation in the form of figures and animals, including a small owl sitting on the cage of one of the travellers in the lower right corner. Owls concealed in Herri’s landscapes are often interpreted as signatures, but this prominently placed owl in the right foreground, piggybacking a traveller clearly is one: Herri’s nickname in Italy where his works were much admired, was ‘Civetta’, which means ‘Little Owl’.²

Rubens’s intervention in this work is solely to be found in the arrangement of the figural group depicting the Holy Family, notably the figures of the Christ Child and Infant St John, which are thought to have been originally executed by an anonymous figure painter working as a collaborator in the style of Lambert Lombard, and most likely within Herri’s workshop, or in a neighbouring workshop. Met de Bles's landscape, rich in fine and meticulous underdrawing, remains unaltered. Infrared reflectography and X-radiography reveal the original underlying composition and clearly show the changes implemented by Rubens. In infrared, the original placement of the figure of the Christ Child is visible, leaning forwards towards the Infant Saint John the Baptist, his arms raised in an act of blessing (fig. 1). Also visible, is the re-working of the folds in the drapery of the Virgin’s dress, followed by the addition of white painted highlights to enliven the composition. Two concentrated darker areas of overpaint appear respectively to the right of the figure of the Christ Child and by the Virgin’s left foot. An X-ray of the work reveals their significance (fig. 2): to the right is the kneeling figure of the Infant St John, holding in his right hand a reed cross, and to the left it becomes apparent that the Virgin’s foot has been significantly reduced in size and placed further inwards. The figure of St Joseph appears largely to have been left untouched, apart from a few retouches to the drapery surrounding his proper right elbow.

The original placement of the figures was clearly a popular arrangement and is found in two other works by Met de Bles, both upright in format, respectively in the Kunstmuseum Basel (fig. 3) and the Historisches Museum Bamberg.³ These stand out in the artist's œuvre for the inclusion of large-scale, classicising figures, which take up almost half of the composition. Of the two, the Basel picture is of significantly higher quality, both in terms of execution of the figures and the landscape, and compares closely to the present work. Apart from adopting a similar diagonal arrangement of the cliffs and valleys, several comparable motifs feature in both works, such as the rock formation and tree by the figure of St Joseph, the winding path leading upwards in between the figures of St Joseph and the Virgin, and the panoramic vista extending to the right. As observed by Luc Serck, Herri Met de Bles’s landscapes are all consistent in style and are characterised by repeating motifs;⁴ for example, the clearing with the row of cottages to the extreme right is repeated in the landscape backgrounds of several other works including two versions of The Parable of the Good Samaritan, respectively in the Musée des Arts anciens du Namurois, Namur, and the Museo di Capodimonte, Naples,⁵ and in Landscape with the Offering of Isaac in the Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati (fig. 4). Moreover, the fantastic rocky outcrop pierced with cavernous openings and crowned with a fortified building also recurs with minor variations in a number of works, including the aforementioned Landscape with the Offering of Isaac and Landscape with a Foundry in the National Gallery, Prague. Although many of Met de Bles’s compositions are known in several versions, suggesting that he had an active workshop or following, the present panel appears to be the only extant example of this design and is particularly refined. As none of his works is dated, it is hazardous to attempt to construct a chronology of his œuvre, which in terms of the painted landscape, remains remarkably accomplished and consistent.

We do not know for certain where Herri met de Bles worked, but he may well be the Herry de Patenir who joined the Antwerp guild in 1533. Like all Netherlandish landscape painters of his age he was indebted to Joachim Patinir, and this painting is unimaginable without Patinir’s influence. It is intriguing, however, that both painters are thought to have been from Dinant on the edge of the Ardennes in present-day Belgium, and in both artists’ work the rocky outcrops bear a noticeable resemblance to the deep craggy gorges of the Meuse and its tributaries in that region, which is still known for its mine-workings that are also found in works by Herri, as well as Patinir. It may thus be more than a coincidence that the heavily classicizing figures in this and the Basel and Bamberg paintings are reminiscent of those of artists from nearby Liège, situated on the Meuse, such as the painter and draftsman Lambert Lombard and the engraver Lambert Suavius.

In reworking the figures in Herri’s painting, Rubens significantly altered the relationship between the Virgin, the Christ Child and the Infant St John, making the interaction between them the central focus of the composition. By doing so, he created a more intimate, tightly knit composition, drawing attention to the tender exchange between the figures. Into this originally static treatment of the scene, Rubens injected dynamism and vitality, much influenced by inventions drawn from Italian Renaissance models, particularly the work of Raphael and Titian. His inventory lists a great number of paintings and drawings after these artists, most of which he had copied and adapted himself. Of particular interest is a drawing after Raphael and retouched by Rubens in a private collection, which depicts the Virgin and Child in a similar arrangement to the present work (fig. 5). The composition is related to a drawing in the Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf, attributed to Giulio Romano (fig. 6); however, the prototype for this design is likely to be by Raphael as a similar figure group can be found in an earlier drawing by him in the Musée Condé, Chantilly.⁶

Rubens’s habit of copying and adapting works by other masters is well known and a practice he sustained throughout his career. These were usually original designs by known or anonymous artists, or copies after well-known paintings, sculptures or graphic models. Although he is better known for reworking drawings,⁷ there are several cases in which he reworked paintings by other masters. As Jeremy Wood noted, Rubens retouched a number of paintings by other artists, the majority of which are now lost.⁸ Moreover, such works were usually inferior or damaged paintings touched up by Rubens, for his own interest, or possibly to make them more saleable. Of interest are three scenes of Netherlandish feasts recorded as early as the mid-1640s in the inventory of Arnold Lunden, Rubens’s brother-in-law.⁹ All three are copies, deriving from compositions by Marten van Cleve, depicting respectively The Feast of Saint Martin, Rubenshuis, Antwerp (fig. 7); Twelfth Night or The King Drinks (Private collection, Brussels); and The Procession of Lame Men on Copper Monday or The Lame Bishop (current whereabouts unknown).¹⁰ Wood points out Rubens’s changes to the pictures are economical but effective, serving to focus attention on significant details and enhance the scenes’ vivacity and expressive power, rather than reworking the entire painted surface.¹¹ As in the present composition, by accentuating expressions and gestures, the painter was able to transform certain archaic and picturesque forms into his own more engaging and dramatic baroque visual language.

Because the descriptions in Rubens’s 1640 inventory are generally – and infuriatingly – cursory, art historians have long struggled to make from them positive identifications with individual extant paintings. In the past some have simply made assumptions and turned those into assertions, but it would be irresponsible not to précis any such assertion with ‘probably’, as we have done here, no matter how likely – as here – that identification is. His inventory does however leave us in no doubt that Rubens’ collection including a number of paintings of extremely high quality, including works by Northern artists. One such is the Pieter Bruegel the Elder Landscape with the Flight into Egypt now in The Courtauld Gallery, London, a work of the same subject that might, as Jeremy Wood has tentatively suggested, have hung as a pendant to the present work.

Aside from the present landscape, the posthumous inventory of Rubens’s collection dated 1640 (see Literature) lists several other works retouched by the artist. Unlike pictures which were commercial collaborations that are listed in the inventory with both artists' names, such as those between Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder or Cornelis Saftleven,¹² these are only recorded as works by an individual artist and Rubens’s intervention is only known from the inventories of later owners or from the works themselves. A significant example is Landscape with Psyche and Jupiter by Paul Bril (fig. 8).¹³ In an unusual case of painted intervention, Rubens completely revised the iconography of the work, which originally depicted solely a figure of St Jerome beside an hourglass.¹⁴ He appears to have overpainted this figure, replacing it with Psyche and Jupiter. He also retouched elements of the landscape, introducing the rainbows and shimmering effects of spray from the waterfall on the right. Like the present painting, this landscape stands out among other retouched works as the original composition is a high-quality landscape by a prominent master. The inventory also lists other examples; however, these are now lost, notably a Balthasar’s Feast by Jusepe de Ribera,¹⁵ and a Psyche with a bottle of water from the Styx by Titian.¹⁶

Whether Rubens regarded the pictures in his collection as saleable items is unclear; however, the repainting of these works was surely done for his own pleasure as a creative exercise. His early biographer Roger de Piles was probably correct in suggesting that Rubens retouched artworks ‘pour exiter sa veine & pour échauffer son genie’ (‘to stimulate his senses and to heat up his genius’).¹⁷ In other words, this Holy Family by Met de Bles posed a challenge to his creative spirit and inventiveness. In retouching existing artworks, Rubens did not simply modify their style, he drew on the work of earlier masters and completely transformed these sources into his own manner. When discussing this practice, Sir Joshua Reynolds observed: ‘[…] what was stolen by Rubens, the possesser knew not how to value; and certainly no person knew so well as Rubens how to use’.¹⁸ There is surely no doubt that Rubens was here fully aware that he was reworking to improve its weakest part: the contribution of the anonymous figure painter (Rubens would surely have known that the Holy Family is not from Herri’s hand). While in other works he completely reworked figures including portraits by major artists, he was fully aware of Herri’s genius as a landscapist, and thus left the majority of the painted surface alone, concentrating on the figures.

We are grateful to Professor Christopher Brown for endorsing the attribution to Rubens upon first-hand inspection of the painting and to Professor Jeremy Wood for independently endorsing this attribution on the basis of digital images. Furthermore, Wood observes that the present work and the painting listed in Rubens’s inventory under no. 190 must be one and the same picture. He further points out, that it is listed in the inventory next to Pieter Brueghel the Elder’s Landscape with the Flight into Egypt (no. 191; The Courtauld Gallery, London). Though this may suggest a thematic link in their possible display, he considers that the works are not close enough in size to establish that they were hung as pendants.

¹ As this fragment appears to be affixed on the reverse of the 20th-century marouflage, its age and origin cannot be determined.

² G.P. Lomazzo, Trattato dell’arte della pittura, Milan 1584, p. 475 (refers to the artist as ‘Henrico Blessio Boemo, chiamato de la civetta, principal pittore di paesi’). The co-author of this note once drove a civetta with a wounded wing to the centre for recuperation of raptors – LIPU – in Parma.

³ Both works are reproduced in L. Serck, Autour de Henri Bles, J. Toussaint (ed.), exh. cat., Namur 2000, pp. 179 and 181, no. 13.

⁴ Namur 2000, pp. 139–41.

⁵ Namur 2000, pp. 182, 183, 186 and 187, nos 14 and 16, both reproduced in colour.

⁶ J. Wood, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XXVI: Copies and Adaptations from Renaissance and Later Artists, Italian Artists, I. Raphael and his School, vol. I, p. 232–34, no. 34, reproduced vol. II, n. p., figs 76–78.

⁷ We know of about 250 works on paper retouched by Rubens, of which the Italian works far outnumber those of northern origin. For an in-depth discussion of these works see K. Lohse Belkin, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XXVI: Copies and Adaptations from Renaissance and Later Artists, German and Netherlandish Artists, vols I and II, London 2009, and J. Wood, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, XXVI: Copies and Adaptations from Renaissance and Later Artists, Italian Artists, London 2011.

⁸ J. Wood, ‘“Damaged by Time and Rubens”, Rubens’s restorations and retouchings’, in Apollo, CXLII, December 1995, p. 17.

⁹ H. Vlieghe, ‘Une grande collection anversoise du Dix-Septième Siècle: Le cabinet d'Arnold Lunden, beau-frère de Rubens’, in Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, vol. 19, 1977, p. 180, no. 29.

¹⁰ Lohse Belkin 2009, vol I., pp. 201–207, nos 96–98, reproduced vol. II, n. p., figs 207, 272 and 275.

¹¹ Wood 1995, p. 20. These three works are also discussed in detail in H. Vlieghe, ‘Rubens emulating the Bruegel tradition’, in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 142, November 2000, pp. 681–86.

¹² Van Meurs 1640, nos 269, 270, 294, 295, 297 and 298.

¹³ Van Meurs 1640, no. 26 (‘Vn paysage de Paul Bril auec l’histoire de Psyche’).

¹⁴ These changes are clearly visible in X-rays of the work. For more information about these see L. Pijl, ‘Paintings by Paul Bril in Collaboration with Rottenhammer, Elsheimer and Rubens’, in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 140, October 1998, pp. 660–67.

¹⁵ Van Meurs 1640, no. 28 (‘Vn bancquet du Roy Baltazar, de Spagnolet’). This picture was later described in the mid-1640s as retouched by Rubens when listed in the inventory of Arnold Lunden, see Vlieghe 1977, p. 198, no. 122 (‘Le Banquet de Balthazar par l’Espagnolet retouché par Rubens’).

¹⁶ Van Meurs 1640, no. 11 (‘Vne Psyche auec vne bouteille à la main, retouchee pas Titian’). This work then entered the collection of Frans Snyders where it is described as a work by Titian retouched by Rubens, see J.M. Muller, Rubens: The Artist as Collector, Princeton 1989, p. 96, no. 11.

¹⁷ R. de Piles, Conversations sur la connoissance de la peinture, et sur le jugement qu'on doit faire des tableaux, où par occasion il est parlé de la vie de Rubens, & de quelques-uns de ses plus beaux ouvrages, Paris 1677, p. 218.

¹⁸ E. Malone (ed.), The Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, Knight; Late President of the Royal Academy, vol. II, London 1798, p. 281.