L11036

/

Lot 21
  • 21

Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael

Estimate
100,000 - 150,000 GBP
bidding is closed

Description

  • Jacob Isaacksz. van Ruisdael
  • northern landscape with a torrent
  • signed lower left: JvRuiSdael (JvR in ligature)
  • oil on canvas

Provenance

Reputedly purchased in Rome in 1752 by Ralph Howard, 1st Earl of Wicklow (1726-1789);
Thence by descent in the collections of the Earls of Wicklow at Shelton Abbey, Ireland;
With J.A. Tooth, London, by whom acquired from the above in October 1950;
Miss G. Holden, Blacko, near Nelson, Lancs., by whom acquired from the above in May 1951;
With Galerie Sanct Lucas, Vienna, by 1980;
Acquired from the above by Hans P. Wertitsch (1939-1996), Vienna;
Thence by descent.

Exhibited

London, British Institution, 1853, no. 147;
Hull, Ferens Art Gallery, Dutch Painting of the Seventeenth Century, June - July 1961, no. 85;
Vienna, Galerie Sanct Lucas, Winter exhibition, 1981-82, no. 23.

Literature

S. Slive, Jacob van Ruisdael. A Complete Catalogue of His Paintings, Drawings and Etchings, New Haven and London 2001, pp. 240-241, no. 291, reproduced.

Condition

The following condition report is provided by Hamish Dewar who is an external expert and not an employee of Sotheby's. Structural Condition The canvas has been lined and this is ensuring an even and secure structural support. There is an overall pattern of very slightly raised craquelure which is entirely stable. Paint surface The paint surface has a rather glossy but even varnish layer. Inspection under ultra-violet light shows quite extensive retouchings, the majority of which are undoubtedly excessive and larger than is really necessary. I would be confident that should they be removed during the cleaning process the amount of retouching could be considerably reduced. The most significant areas of retouching are: 1. in the blue pigments of the sky in the upper left of the composition, 2. lines highlighting the outlines of the fir trees, the bridge and the details in the dark pigments in the foreground. There are a number of other retouchings. Inspection under ultraviolet light also shows how discoloured the varnish layers have become and there may be other retouchings beneath the varnish layers which are not identifiable under ultraviolet light. Summary The painting therefore appears to be in stable condition and while no further work is required for reasons of conservation, cleaning, restoration and revarnishing should be beneficial and improve the overall appearance and reduce the number of retouchings.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

Catalogue Note

Slive considers this a late work by Ruisdael, and dates it to the 1670s, when the artist showed a predilection for distant views and panoramic effects. He compares it, for example, to the Mountainous landscape with a river in spate today in the City Art Gallery in Bristol, in which a very similar compositional scheme is employed.1  The towering Norwegian spruces lend a strong Scandinavian accent to the landscape, and were employed to this effect by Ruisdael in a number of works in the 1660s and 1670s, for example those now in the Wilhelm-Lehmbruck-Museum in Duisberg and in a Swedish private collection.2  In these, Ruisdael was undoubtedy influenced by the work of his fellow countryman Allart van Everdingen, whose own landscapes in this vein from the late 1640s onwards were based upon his first hand experience of the Scandinavian countryside.

If the painting was indeed bought by Ralph Howard during his stay in Rome in January and February of 1752, then this would be a very rare example of a work by Ruisdael being found south of the Alps by the mid-18th century. Only one work, the celebrated Great Oak now in the Los Angeles County Museum, which belonged to Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga (1690-1756), can certainly claim this distinction.

1. Inv. K2421. See Slive, under Literature, 2001, p. 168, cat. no. 158, reproduced.
2. Ibid., cat. nos 185, 283.