Antwerp School, second decade of the 17th century

Acquired by Feliks Topolski in circa 1950;
Thence by descent.

Augsburg, Rathaus, 2 August - 2 November 1975; & Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, 17 December 1975 - 7 March 1976, Johann Liss, no. A8.

Ann Tzeutschler Lurie, in Johann Liss, exhibition catalogue, Augsburg, Rathaus, 2 August - 2 November 1975; & Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art, 17 December 1975 - 7 March 1976, pp. 65-68, cat. no. A8, reproduced fig. 6 (as Johann Liss);
J. Rowlands, "'Johann Liss' at Augsburg", in The Burlington Magazine, vol. CXVII, no. 873, 1975, pp. 832 and 835 (where the attribution to the young Liss is discussed);
R. Spear, "Johann Liss Reconsidered", in The Art Bulletin, vol. 58, 1976, p. 585, reproduced p. 584, fig. 2 (expressing serious reservations about the painting's attribution to Liss);
R. Klessman, Johann Liss. A Monograph and Catalogue Raisonné, Ghent 1999, p. 193 (as 'Unknown Flemish master'; under Selection of Works Incorrectly Attributed to Liss).

ENGRAVED:
In reverse, as Otto van Veen, by Jacob Coelemans, 1700 (British Museum, London, inv. no. 1855-6-9-734).

The painting is a little brighter than the catalogue illustration suggests. The support consists of two vertical panels which are secured on the reverse by a batten. The join is visible on the recto but not obtrusive. The paint surface appears secure and clean with some scattered discoloured retouchings in the fleshtones and along the panel join. The darker tones appear sunken and rather abraded, for example in the dress of the figure upper right and in the rocks upper centre. The brighter colours are better preserved. Inspection under UV light reveals some scattered retouchings and strengthenings in the fleshtones. Overall in stable and fair condition with some areas of thinness. Offered in a period elaborate rippled frame in good condition.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This painting was long considered an early work by Johann Liss (Oldenburg circa 1595/1600-1631 Verona), probably painted in Antwerp around 1610, and was exhibited as such in the Liss exhibition in Cleveland in 1975-76 (see Literature).

An attribution to Liss was initially put forward by Sir Denis Mahon, who first saw the painting in 1974 and suggested that it was painted by the artist not long after his arrival in Antwerp from Holland, before his departure for Italy. Indeed the influence of both Rubens and Jordaens in the sensual depiction of nudes is undeniable here, as no doubt they would have been on a young artist recently arrived in Antwerp. This attribution and dating were further endorsed by Benedict Nicolson and Erich Schleier (both of whom knew the painting in the original), as well as by Gerhard Ewald of the Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart (who knew the painting from a transparency). Ann Tzeutschler Lurie, who co-curated the Cleveland exhibition, argued in favour of an attribution to Johann Liss but this was subsequently called into question by John Rowlands and Richard Spear in their respective reviews of the exhibition (see Literature). Furthermore Dr. Rüdiger Klessman, who has seen the painting in the original, does not endorse an attribution to Liss and published it under wrongly attributed works in his 1999 monograph on the artist.

The painting was the subject of technical examination in 1995¹ and infra-red reflectography at the time revealed some under-drawing, particularly in the head of the nymph in the right foreground: two attempts at her profile were drawn, neither of which were followed in the final painting. If the painting were by Liss it would be an early work and the fact that the painting demonstrates affinities with later autograph works, such as The Fall of Phaethon from the collection of Sir Denis Mahon (now in the National Gallery, London), argues in favour of an attribution to Liss. The uncertainties in the painting's design, the presence of ambitiously foreshortened figures, and the picture's strong overall mannerist feel, are all consistent with Liss' early works. Typical of mannerist compositions, the main scene - showing Actaeon's metamorphosis into a stag - is relegated to the background whilst the tumbling bodies of the naked nymphs in the foreground reflect the turmoil caused by Actaeon's surprise entrance.

The fact that there is no convincing contender working in Antwerp at this time, apart from the artist to whom this panel was traditionally attributed, means that an attribution to Liss must remain as a serious possibility.

1.  A report by Rachel Billinge from the National Gallery, London; dated 31 March 1995, is available on request.