Graphic HUBERT Depiction
Recoursing at the same time to Coninxloo’s
important Wooded Landscape with Hunters (Plietzsch 14)
as apparently hitherto missed
Dedicated to the
Frederik de Marselaer
— painted by Rubens —
as added only in present , supposedly 2nd state (of IV)
Bruyn, Nicolaes de (Antwerp 1571 – Rotterdam 1656). Saint Hubert. The south Netherlandish princely “Wild Hunter”, according to Döbel father of the par force hunt and appropriately with bugle and 6-head pack, kneeling with bare head before royal stag with cross in rich wooded landscape in the manner of the 3rd Gillis van Coninxloo (Antwerp? 1544 – Amsterdam 1607). On the pool behind the stag two swans as the prophesying birds of mythology, on the trunk above the horse a hissing snake as temptress, and closest to the stag a hound of Saint Hubert as the one and only looking at its master. Engraving. (1614.) Sheet size 27½ × 18 in (69.9 × 45.8 cm).
Frederic de Marselaer ?
(Antwerp 1584 – [St. Hubert-] Elewijt 1670)
Frederik Josef Ignatius de Marselaer ?
(1656 – 1718)
Conte Giovanni Maria Mazzuchelli
(Brescia 1707 – 1765)
(Jöcher VIII , 1127 ff.; Meyers Konv.-Lex., 4th ed., IX , 98)
with his 5fold stamping on the back
Schöne Beute — Bilder von der Jagd
Dr. Hanns Simon Foundation Bitburg
January 13 – March 3, 2013
Catalog Book to the Exhibition
Pages 6 (full-page detail illustration) , 13 f. & 147
Die Verehrung des hl. Hubertus im Wandel der Jahrhunderte, 2016
complete & 2 detail illustrations 19/25 (this copy)
Not among the 172 illustrations of the – as against the 1927 first edition – richly enlarged second one of Huyghebaert’s Sint Hubertus Patroon van de Jagers in Woord en Beeld, Antwerp ( sic ! ) 1949, see below.
Hollstein 114 & Wurzbach 52, each without characteristics of states, see below, but Wurzbach generally: “The impressions before the addresses of Gerard Valck (1626 – after 1694) & Peter Schenk I (1661-1715) are the better ones for his delicate needle work was worn soon”. Before those later ones then present address of Joannes Meyssens (Antwerp 1612 – Brussels 1670; painter, draughtsman, engraver, and publisher; “established one of the biggest art publishing houses in Antwerp” [Wurzbach]), too, as supposedly state II (of IV). For the, as against de Bruyn, younger Hollar (1607-1677), Meyssens stands for the early impressions.
The copy of the Rijksmuseum, acquired only 1991 ( sic! ), without Marselare arms & “1656”, see below, inside the subject and without caption. – According to Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, V, p. 1600, no. 9, the copper plate figured per Jan. 16, 1632 in an inventory of the Rotterdam Orphan Chamber per “Van Sincte Huybrecht een plaet”. – Not among the 140 de Bruyn sheets in the British Museum!
Cf. Plietzsch, Gillis van Coninxloo 14 in Die Frankenthaler Maler (1910/1972) with plate V; Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting (2nd ed., 1968), pp. 65 ff. & ill. 122; Devisscher, Kerstiaen de Keuninck (1987), pp. 36, 89 & ill. Z 10.
For de Bruyn’s engravings in general
Wurzbach documents datings from 1592 (W. 76) to 1650 (vol. II, p. 217). 1601 he was admitted to the Antwerp guild as plaetsnyder und coopman. And “On Dec. 4, 1652 he is indicated in a document as decrepit” (Th.-B.).
According to Bredius the Antwerp engraver and brother-in-law, Assuerus van Londerseel, has printed and published several of the early works. “As results from the inventory later de Bruyn has handled printing (no. 75: Een druckpers) and publishing of his plates himself … In respect of the drawings and paintings (the latter of which presumably introduced here into literature in concreto for the first time; besides nos. 78 f.: Vyer tonnekens met verwe and Twee saxkens met smalt/cobalt resp.) … it is noticeable that almost all deal with those partly only rarely occuring subjects de Bruyn has engraved, too, suggesting they may have been his designs” (Bredius, op. cit., p. 1599).
With Meyssens’ 1656 publisher’s dedication for Frederic de Marselaer :
“ I(ll?). Nob(i)lissi(mum) Do FR(E)DERI(C)O de MARSELAE(R,) Equiti Aurato et Lauretano, Baroni de (Perc)k (et E)lewyt S. Huberti, Toparchæ liberi Dominii de Opdorp. Hærseaux Oycke, etc. … Man. à Consiliis B(e)lli, septimum Bruxellæ Cons(uli, ha)nc D. Huberti iconem D. C. Q. Io(a)nnes Meyssens ”.
Above this within the subject itself below right
the “MARSELARE” arms
formed from the stock-arms below the five pointed coronet along with the erect parforce hounds on both sides, here holding arms banners: on the left the one of the Marselaer family, on the right that of the spouse, Margriete van Borainage (de Bernaige, Baronaige, b. 1584, nuptials 1626, more see below). Followed below center by the year 1656 which has been restored here in writing. These additions as against the copy in Amsterdam at the expense of marginal image fillers.
At top trimmed to the edge of the subject, at the sides with fine margin, which turns slightly wider below under the dedication line (this with minimal loss due to restauration). Due to several (tiny) tears or thin spots professionally restored by doubling, covered up ultimately withal, utterly ignoring the enormous rarity of the sheet, by the fascinating impact of the picture and its investing in an unparalleled overall concept with the
Marselaer dedication added only here as the final touch .
“ It may be presumed that Hubert
(Hugbertus, Hugobertus, Chuchobertus) was born in the years between 655 and 665 … It is certain only that he was disciple of St. Lambert, the bishop of … Maastricht (episcopal see already since c. 595) and after his assassination (698 or 705) became successor on the episcopal throne. Little is known about his episcopal career … actually only as much
that he Christianized the Ardennes …
and later  removed his episcopal see to Liège. Here … (he) died May 20, 727 and was entombed in St. Peter (built by him) in the vicinity of a side altar. November 3, 743 the remains were … raised
( — cf. color ill. Schlieker 5/1a in Rogier’s van der Weyden studio painting of c. 1440 De Vos, 1999, C11 with color detail ill. 131, else, too, the full-page color ill. 72 in the 2009 exhibition catalog Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden — )
and entombed anew by the main altar … To the then conception by this the canonization … was accomplished. The day of the removal, November 3, is still today the saint’s day (after Theodora Lepique, Der Volksheilige Hubertus in Kult, Legende und Brauch, Diss. Bonn 1951, pp. 10 & 12).
“ Although no certain data on his origins exits, it is nevertheless worth to follow a trace handed down to us. ‘May 13, 706 – quoted after Kühn 1994 – one Chuchobertus episcopus appears in a deed of gift of Pepin II (P. of Herstal, Mayor of the Palace 679-714) and his wife Plectrude for the Echternach Abbey in the list of witnesses. This bishop Chuchobertus presumably is no less a figure than St. Hubert. The position of the name in the list of witnesses as fourth after the names of the donator couple and their son Drogo is remarkable. Without stretching things one should conclude that bishop Hubert must have stood in a special relationship to Pepin and Plectrude.’ Bishop Hubert certainly will have been a relative of the above named, from which one can conclude that Hubert belonged to the then high nobility ”
(Schlieker, op. cit., page 23 [spacing/centering not in the original; additions in square brackets after Meyers Konv.-Lex., 4th ed., XIII, 1889, 751 and with regard to the ambiguous reference to Tongern as episcopal see Wikipedia March 6, 2017]).
In analogy to Schlieker’s inference of high nobility then also Meyers VIII, 751 f.:
“ Son of Bertrand, Duke of Guienne
The old Aquitaine in the SW of France with Bordeaux as ducal seat
came by marriage to Henry Plantagenet, since 1154 as Henry II King of England, who 1169 ceded it to his son Richard the Lionheart, since 1189 as Richard I King of England, by which, due to his French and English possessions, he advanced to the mightiest sovereign of Europe after emperor Frederick Barbarossa and as such the same year assumed the command of the Third Crusade (1189-1192) for the reconquest of Jerusalem from the troops of sultan Saladin, then, 1196, ceded Aquitaine/Guienne to his nephew Otto IV of Brunswick, 1198-1218 (uncontested yet only 1208-1211) Roman-German king and 1209-1218 emperor of the Holy Roman Empire with the Staufen Frederick II (“On the Art to hunt with Birds”) as anti-emperor since 1215. – In the later course of time first only temporarily, then from 1453 as the latest reverted permanently to France (after Meyers VII, 910 f. & Wikipedia as above).
“ first lived at the court of the Frankish king Theoderic, later with Pepin of Herstal [near Liège], he withdrew from the world after the loss of his wife and was appointed bishop by pope Sergius I … according to the legend a passionate hunter until he, much affected by the appearance of a stag showing between golden antlers a cross in an aureola, abdicated the pleasure of the hunt (and became)
the patron saint of hunters and his tippet
the most effective means against the bite of mad dogs in folk belief . ”
On the latter Schlieker page 15 and then further page 25:
“ According to the legend an angel had delivered the tippet to Hubert abiding with the pope – before the episcopal consecration – as present of the Blessed Virgin. The tippet was the thing most affected by the saint’s charism. For the faithful the tippet was so to speak a part of the saint …
“ September 21, 825 the remains of St. Hubert … were raised anew and brought to the Andain Abbey (soon after renamed to Saint-Hubert) – situated in the Ardennes – … Already here it shall be mentioned that the remains of the saint, which had been preserved through centuries in a precious shrine at Saint Hubert … are not to be found – whole – since the 17th century …
“ About (recte, see below, for) the mid of the 9th century, thus about 100 years after the death of St. Hubert, a monk of Saint-Hubert Abbey reports of miracles which had happened by the grave of bishop Hubert … However, there is none which could be related to a patronage of the hunt or rabies (Lepique p. 75). ”
According to Schlieker, only for the 10th century there are at first “traces of a veneration of Hubert in a calendar of the diocese of Treves”, followed by miracle stories of a monk of Hubert Abbey from the late 11th century, which shall have happened in the 10th, probably even in the 9th century, always according to Lepique (pp. 20 & 75 f.). First in regard of rabies, then (p.27) getting in medias res:
“ ‘For it was time-honored among the nobility of the whole Ardennes to commute, through all seasons, the firstlings among the tithe of any game for St. Hubert’ (L. p. 48).
The hunters asked Hubert for protection and presented him with their bounties .
“ He should protect them from the many hazards the practice of any hunting brings with it, especially as in those days the hunt for powerful game in the impenetrable woods – armed with just arrow, bow, lance, and spear – frequently was very dangerous.
He was their patron , their patron saint . ”
And this general need for patronage ultimately has not changed, irrespective of in any respect more comfortable circumstances today. So the Swiss collector of Frans Snyders’s game still-life Robels 84.I later offered here became a victim of his passion. During a battue for boars he was struck by even two bullets. Deadly.
And as there are things between heaven and earth which give food for thought, so still two decades ago for not a few huntsmen it was huntsmanlike self-conception to know Hubert being about them on the wall or in the collection. If only in analogy to that as resolute as worldly-wise lady who used to light candles in chapels in Godesberg. For it could not hurt after all.
“ Protector from Rabies, Patron of Hunters, Shooters and Equestrians ”,
father of the par force hunt
and “ up to our day one of the most popular saints ”
And on the actual source of the conversion motif continued page 33:
“ The motif of the deer origins from the legend of St. Eustace venerated in the Roman church since about the 8th century. According to this legend about the year 110 AD, at the time of emperor Trajan, the heathen Roman general Placidus turned to Christendom after the encounter with a stag [whose picture of Christ Crucified ‘addressed him: Placidus, why do you pursue me who wants your salvation?’, so Meyers, op cit., V, 941] …
Already in the myths of antiquity a deer’s antlers were deemed
a symbol of a supranatural power .
“ After his baptism Placidus received the name Eustace … As patron of the hunt he carried weight in France … It can only be speculated why the legend of Eustace was transferred to Hubert. For once it might be a confusion since in old calendars the name day of Eustace occasionally is listed at the beginning of the month of November, although the saint’s actual feast day is celebrated September 20. But supposedly the nobility in France will have furthered the transfer since in the 1st version of the legend of the 12th century (Vita III), in which he is mentioned as count palatinate, was of noble birth, too, and therefore one of them. Perhaps it also was the influence of the monks of Saint-Hubert Abbey who wanted to expand the already existing legend of St. Hubert spectacularly by the impressive motif of the stag. ”
the scenery elucidating the wonder much truer than Dürer
— in this regard most recent research identifies Italian models for Dürer —
as emanation of quite a different self-conception, rooted in indeed its natural and thus, foremost, also intellectual ambience.
St. Hubert kneels before the stag (detail)
For while self-debunking with the “self-confident, high-handed”, in the self-portrait in Madrid even “almost provocatively dressed up” Dürer (1501; aforementioned quotations by Eduard Beaucamp and Henning Ritter resp. in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of December 4, 2002 and autumn 2003 resp.) the capped ( sic ! ) hunter kneels left of the horse, which optically therefore stands between this and the stag, so with Bruyn before the horse set in the left part of the picture. In fact, on small clearing, in greatest imaginable nearness to the 10-pointer. And while Dürer’s knight in analogy straightens his back markedly, which is accentuated by the high-lying proud castle as well as the sleek face (according to Winkler, page 97, by the way the lineaments of Emperor Maximilian!) and hands bidding welcome after social graces, with de Bruyn he kneels adequately to the event slightly bent forward, by face and arms extended downwards
making the mystery of this moment experienceable .
And reverently put down before himself the befitting headgear. Meaningful, too, the addition of the swans, the snake, the Hound of St. Hubert. The rich landscape pure nature. Accordingly then Wurzbach I, 217 f.:
“ … (Bruyn) is an excellent draughtsman, his heads are full of expression and truth, his costumes fantastically interesting and the abundance of his figures surprising. ”
The latter in the manner of van Leyden, “whose forms he had adopted so much that one is tempted to regard many of his original engravings as sheets after drawings (of the same)” (Wurzbach, 1906). And Thieme-Becker V, 1911, 160:
“ the majority (of his sheets), however, after own invention – so the one here, too! – and herein de Br. shows himself as a most original artist (AKL XIV, 1996, 617: ingenious engraver), who continued skillfully the art language of Lucas van Leyden (Bredius at the same time recalls Hendrick Goltzius, too) still one century after his death … His very rich œuvre …
belongs to the most interesting of his period .
“ With sure chisel he has engraved a great many series of representations from the Scriptures in large size which one finds frequently glued into old Bibles. ”
Beside such hard-to-preserve oversizes, also general susceptibility for wear as thesis sheets, the latter then also may be an additional reason for the scarceness of these works both Nagler and Wurzbach reproach for a deficiency in chiaroscuro. What at least for the impression of present Hubert is not supported by any means. The landscape originating from Gillis van Coninxloo III (Antwerp 1544 – Amsterdam 1607) as repeatedly engraved by de Bruyn, of a differentiating chiaroscuro leading into the depth as after Bachmann (on occasion of the early work of van der Neer – “the wood itself, the interior of the wood” – , Oud Holland LXXXIX, 1975, p. 214/II, par. 2) so characteristic for the late Coninxloo only. This of quite substantial interest as Plietzsch points out that the engravers after Coninxloo with de Bruyn at the forefront had reproduced only the “landscapes from his first period or from the time of the transition to the second” (op. cit., p. 27). So it is quite evident that already one hundred years ago
de Bruyn’s Hubert had remained unknown to Plietzsch , too .
Although as autonomous by no means to be attributed to said copy engravings after Coninxloo, so
for both landscape and ultimately subject de Bruyn nevertheless calls to mind
Coninxloo’s important 1598 late work Wooded Landscape with Hunters in Vaduz
(Plietzsch 14; “… while Coninxloo [as the greatest harbinger of seventeenth-century Dutch forest painting] was painting his revolutionary forest landscapes in Amsterdam”, so Stechow still 1968) at first glance and shows de Bruyn at the height of art. For this “amazing” (Stechow), “most significant” (Devisscher, seeing, however, rather Paul Bril instead of Coninxloo) wooded landscape by Coninxloo was considered by the old literature as together with the 1595 Wooded Landscape Ertz 16 of the elder Jan Brueghel in Milan as
downright model of a new , now natural wooded landscape .
And in 1968 Stechow still summed up after divers consideration “But even this is relegated to a minor position when compared with Coninxloo’s amazing Forest of 1598 in the Liechtenstein Gallery” (op. cit., p. 66).
That de Bruyn, turned backwards, thereby elevates Coninxloo’s deliberately and logically small and therefore marginally set hunters & deer to the subject proper and even redesignates it to the highest consecration should not be mistaken as irony. His objective was a different one, just as he then also suggestively replaced Coninxloo’s storks animating a marshy pond on the left as mythologically less momentous by swans as the birds of prophecy and removes their pool behind the stag on the right edge. Yet the ambience for his presentation should be dernier cri, indeed. By which he undoubtedly contrived a great success in fact. For still three hundred years later his landscape model is called in generally in the elucidation of its historical merit:
“ … (Coninxloo) presents himself as one of the most important representatives of the transition period in the history of Netherlandish landscape painting, which … leads over from the fantastic side in the middle of the 16th century to the plain near-natural landscape art of the 17th century, and at the same time is one of the first who … transfers impulses from Belgium to Holland … In place of the landscape built up fantastically from rocks and mountains gradually another, far simpler one enters, indeed still arranged deliberately, but yet risen from the observation of the native nature. (Especially in some woodland pictures in Vienna at Liechtenstein’s.) The flatlike composition is replaced by an arrangement which results in a prospect developing evenly from front to back. At the same time the viewpoint, supposed very high in the early works, constantly moves down. At last C. succeeds in giving the whole landscape in his final pictures from 1604 a homogeneous hue and overcoming the schematic division in a brown foreground, a green middle distance, and a blue distance … Generally his art seems to have exerted an important influence on many Dutch landscapists, as then also van Mander reports that since his appearance the presentation of the trees in the works of his compatriots has changed essentially ”
(Zoege von Manteuffel in Thieme-Becker VII , 302 ff., as taken over as generally unvariedly valid still by Ertz in AKL XX , 522 ff., too).
Hence also in regard of this Coninxloo landscape aspect de Bruyn’s Hubert is of quite essential evidence and Nagler (“no idea of chiaroscuro”) and Wurzbach (“all kept as in even lighting”) may have misinterpreted him in this respect. So by treatment of the motif and most topical native wooded landscape de Bruyn provides his Hubert in contrast to Dürer with
the authenticity par excellence .
That is from every point of view the saint’s native setting !
(“For his sheets of own invention created from c. 1603 onward B. takes over essential characteristics of the Flemish wooded and panorama landscape, yet sets the chief accent on the narrative of the picture”, AKL, op. cit.)
Seen from said rarer worm’s-eye view
at which also Christian von Heusinger, curator em. of the Brunswick Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum famed for its Netherlanders, explicitly drew the attention upon on occasion of a visit. Therewith yet creating that
“ general impression of great effect ”
Herwig Guratzsch emphasizes especially on occasion of the Lazarus pictures of the only later following Rembrandt — a listing of literature on request — and Fabritius (cf. his Die Auferweckung des Lazarus in der niederländischen Kunst von 1400 bis 1700, Kortrijk 1980, I, p. 159). And therewith imparting by this artifice the singular scene an unrivalled ultimate visual effect beside its anyway almost matchless adequate size of
27½ × 18⅛ in (70 × 46 cm; sic! ) .
Its new edition of 1656 with fat Marselaer relatedness
hardly likely on occasion of de Bruyn’s demise than rather as
to the birth of the Marselaer grandson and heir Frederik .
For the grandfather’s social position was superb :
Mayor of Brussels ,
Chairman of the Brotherhood of St. Hubert
Keeper of the Grail
Hubert – Insignia at Elewijt
( A. Waumans, Levensschets van den H. Hubertus. Zijne vereering te Elewijt. 1927,
as source unbeknownst to Schlieker ).
Frederik de Marselaer
(Antwerp 1584 – [St. Hubert-] Elewijt 1670)
Jöcher, Gelehrten=Lexicon III , 208 & VIII , 789;
Biographie Nationale XIII [1894/95], col. 854-860;
confiscates 1631 the 80 copies delivered to Madrid of Marselaer’s Legatus
[several editions between 1618 & 1668, among them Weimar 1663]
dedicated to Philip IV of Spain [sic!]
as well as the Spanish edition of the Ortelius Atlas
published also by Moretus in Antwerp and shipped there, too;
Peter Paul Rubens
Half-length portrait of Marselaer, oil, 1635/40
[Rosenberg, 2nd ed., 1906, ill. p. 333]
1638 sketch for the title to the Legatus, engraved by Cornelis Galle II
between Dec. 1656 & June 1665 for the 1666 Moretus edition
[Corpus Rubenianum XXI, 1977, pt. 1, pp. 344-348, no. 84 & pt. II, ill. 286;
van de Velde, see below, ill. 1],
after he had dealt with such one already in the early 1620s
and had inspired the one by van Loon of the 1626 edition
[van de Velde ills. 3];
Lusus Anagrammaticus super Illustri a Centum Lustris Nomine
DE MARSELAER , Brussels 1662;
Anthony van Dyck
Marselaer portrait engraved by Adriaen Lommelin
[active Antwerp 1654-1677];
Portrait engraving of de Marselaer at the age of 80 & view of his mausoleum
[Thieme-Becker XX, 1927, p. 85; ills. & inscription of the portrait at Hooc, s. b., p. 31];
Een Brusselse Magistraat van het Ancien Régime:
Frederic de Marselaer
in Gemeentekrediet van België XXIII, 1969, pp. 27-35,
with illustrations of the [commemorative] medals, too;
C. van de Velde
Rubens, Frederic de Marselaer en Theodor van Loon
in Festbundel beij de opening van het Kolveniershof en het Rubenianum, 1981, pp. 69-82.
Ridder Dr. iur. Frederic (Fraderi, Frider) de Marselaer
Khpykeion, sive Legationvm Insigne ,
— which interested Rubens, in touch with its author in the course of orders for Brussel’s cityhall, all the more as affecting his own services in diplomatic missions —
published first 1618, summarizing in Marselaer’s understanding of the value of negotiating envoys as well in times of peace as war, indeed, quite especially during the latters. In another Antwerp title sheet he gave utterance to this conviction in 1623 by juxtaposition of peace & war by divine prototypes (van de Velde, op. cit., ill. 6) and the same year this train of thought is then also subject of a discussion by correspondence with de Marselaer, who wished for a new title for an overdue enlarged new edition of larger format, too, of his Legatus. Which then, 1626, however, was delivered by Theodoor van Loon, nevertheless in fancy of Rubens. That is with Mercury and combative Minerva and these as opponents looking past each other (van de Velde ill. 3). As conveying just this, too, the omission of the recourse to the de Marselaer device
ARTE ET MARTE
contrary to the 1618 title by an anonymous is to be regretted. Fascinating, however, the further development of this 1626 title fifteen years later by now Rubens himself after his first occupation with it in 1623. Finally leaving behind its usually rather more marginal character as entrée book decoration it catapults to a humanitarian event: Peace & War, Mercury & Minerva, join hands over the title plate of de Marselaer’s Legatus, driving back their contrary attributes. In the rural tranquility of Elewijt – in 1635 Rubens had acquired the feudal country seat Steen van Elewijt, by which the long standing contacts between de Marselaer and himself had become neighborly terms, too – Rubens reviewed, so Carl van de Velde summing up his richly illustrated fine contribution in the 1981 Rubenianum commemorative publication, see below, his own carreer as diplomat and came to a more positive view, had Minerva put aside the combative attributes borrowed from Pallas Athene and find back to her character as the goddess of peace. So far this Rubens aspect important for de Marselaer’s additional positioning.
In his Hubert-relatedness de Marselaer, by marriage (see below) Lord and first baron of Perk & Elewijt, Lord of Herseaux, Oycke, and Loxem, gets central mention in the bull of the Mechelen archbishop Jacobus Boonen of October 15, 1650 by which this recognizes canonically per May 1, 1651
both the Elewijt Hubert insignia and the Hubert brotherhood .
While the latter already existed for a very long time, so the insignia were transferred by the Antwerp Capuchins for the chapel of the castle of Elewijt after former ones were lost by ravage of the church in the course of iconoclasm. The richly decorated bull – Huyghebaert ills. 78-80 – shows as centerpiece of the wide upper ledge the saint as portrait-medallion with bishop’s insignia and apparently the stag’s head on the right and on both sides two arms each for Boonen & Marselear framed by hunting parties, at which, in contrast to her arms banner in present engraving, that of Lady de Marselear cites her husband’s emblems in the left field of the crest. The lateral fields decorated with tulips as then still very precious, at which Huyghebaert considers possible they might be designed as reverence for Rubens who used to regale with suchlike his tulip loving friend Justus Lipsius. Also for the left group of the upper ledge – ill. 79 – returning from hawking and hunting on high and small game the region of Baerbeek might be considered where Rubens, as Teniers, have painted many a landscape. Whereas
Rubens’ half-length portrait of Frederik de Marselaer
dated by Rosenberg about 1630/35 – a presumed copy offered as genuine presently on the market – seems to have remained unknown to him.
Likewise in 1650 archbishop Boonen already had requested per posters by public reward of a forty-day indulgence to visit the insignia “presented to the chapel of the castle of the Lord of PERK and ELEWIJT”, hoping His Holiness might extend the limited indulgence to a full one as then per 1st May the following year had been
“ granted for the certain relics of ST. HUBERT within the church of Elewijt /
and granting the licence for that to the brotherhood of ST. HUBERT ”
by Innocence X and published 1651 by poster printed under the papal coat of arms. However, this Elewijt full indulgence was reserved to just the churchgoers “on the day of ST. HUBERT the 3rd of November each year”.
How much the name of Marselear was metonymic as a synonym for the welfare of church & relicts of Elewijt even after the male line became extinct about 1720 is documented by a with 6¼ × 8¼ in (16 × 21 cm) rather large posthumous souvenir print by Antoon Opdebeek (1709-1759) of Mechelen with the Hubert scenery in front of the Elewijt church, above which the Marselear arms float. See illustrations 75-77 in Huyghebeart.
In respect of publicity the licensing of the Hubert brotherhood
with the grant of full indulgence was a great success .
Coming from afar, the crowd thronged anew at Elewijt, reminding of the great pilgrimages in the early 16th century when Hubert was appealed for protection against rabies.
Substantially older Perk Castle
as the Marselear ancestral seat at the time of Frederic .
Of humble origins in the 12th century, building activities from the 17th to 19th centuries created one of the most splendid manors of the Brussels area with more than 200 rooms amidst an immense park of 222 acres. Via marriage of Katharina de Wavre (Waver), daughter of Jan de Wavre flourishing between 1347 & 1378 and his heiress of Perk & Elewijt, with Johann van Weede/Bernaige the estates came upon Frederic de Marselear by marriage with said Margriete van Borainage,
pooling in his person estate & mind as familial zenith .
Ancestral root of this rise was the dominion Opdorp, nowadays incorporated to Buggenhout whose present double arms show the former one of Opdorp, that is of the Marselears, on the left. In the 13th century Gwijde van Dampierre, count of Flanders, had given it as baronial to Willem van Grimbergen for rendered services. By marriage with Elisabeth van Grimbergen it passed on to Geeraerd van Marselear in whose family it then remained for centuries. In 1435 Adriaen van M. erected the chapel there, in place of it threehundred years later a church was erected – with active aid by Ursuline sister Maria Therese van M., daughter of above grandson and heir Frederic Jozef Ignatius, and her heir Jan Willem d’Alvarado y Bracomonte, Burgrave of Lippelo and Lord of Opdorp. In between, 1641, Anton Sanderius wrote in his Flandria Illustrata “This village makes a show of a fine castle or palais the lords of Marselear have built” (illustration there).
On the left the hissing temptress-snake, on the right the prophesying swans (detail)
If a provenance attribution of present copy to Frederic de Marselear and the grandson Frederic Jozef Ignatius resp. is deemed conceivable shall in so far not be considered inconsistent as the ascertained Mazzuchelli provenance follows chronologically practically seamlessly to the extinction of the Marselears in the male line, for which in respect of current, albeit not entirely consistent, genealogical records on the family the years about 1720 are to be set. If relations to the Mazzuchellis existed is not known here. Nevertheless, there were such ones to the Spanish family of the Arrazola de Oñate, though politically branched out to Brussels, by marriage of two Marselear daughters, Margriete Frederika Hieronyme (1620-1695, with further relations into the family della Faille, de La Faille, to be localized at different places) & Johanna Angelica (1623 – Dec. 18, 1656).
Mazzuchelli options apart from those by marriage of a granddaughter of Frederic’s and a son (whose wife yet died already at the age of 22) & daughter each of just the aforemetioned grandson Frederic Jozef Ignatius as great-grandchildren.
So far the facts. And regarding the address of Meyssens the as prosaic as value-defining résumé that
Marselaer dedication & affinity to Rubens
have left behind any field for good and far in the dust .
Thereby in any state attained not even by Schwerdt and missing in so many places more up to the British Museum as otherwise one having everything, see above, and – speaking volumes – indeed only since 1991 in the Rijksmuseum as downright Nibelung hoard of Netherlandish art. So then only made known here to Günther Schlieker during the decades-long preparation of his monumental Hubert documentation Die Verehrung des hl. Hubertus im Wandel der Jahrhunderte published 2016. Just as before, too,
remained unknown to already Huyghebaert
even after in turn further 21 years of research
with most comprehensively enlarged new edition of his Sint Hubertus, Patroon van de Jagers in Woord en Beeld ( Antwerp [ sic ! ] 1949 with now 361 pages & 173 illustrations as against but 158 pages & 34 illustrations in 1927 ! ! ),
what proves said rarity the more significantly
as he documents Frederic de Marselaer in great detail (pp. 174-181 & ills. 75-80) !
On the modern impact of Hubert see in addition to Schlieker also Heinz Brüll per subchapter Die Bedeutung der Hubertuslegende (Lindner commemorative vol. Et Multum et Multa, 1971, pp. 19 f.), E. Ueckermann, St. Hubertus – Legende und Wirklichkeit (unsere Jagd 11/96, pp. 26 f., with respect to the stag by the way with the remark “mostly with antlers of eight points”, with de Bruyn, Dürer, Reinhart there are ten, with Cort ten odd, for both the latter see below) and Peter Bußmann & Georg Haasis in Die Pirsch 23/96, pp. 108-111.
Hubert — “Protector from rabies , patron of hunters , shooters and riders .”
How precious present St. Hubert then was to Conte Giovanni Maria Mazzuchelli , too , is documented by said 5-fold ( sic ! ) stamping “Con. Gio. Mazzuchelli” below count’s coronet on the back. Represented in Jöcher with 21 titles, he reckons “among that Brescia patrician family whose name is represented perfectly in the field of Italian literature by several members” (Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie XXI, 150 on occasion of later count Alois of M.).
De Bruyn’s Hubert – for the first time present here then with the full claim to its Marselaer reference, its outstanding general rarity, certainly also with the marks of its centuries, yet
generally as a wonderful sheet .
HUBERT — FOR MORE WARMTH . ABOUT US , WITHIN US .
Offer no. 16,180 | price on application
Splendour , experience + joy
at and with both the two prooven companions of our whole life as hunters :
“ Beautiful Rugendas colour print arrived! Thanks very much for keeping me informed. Best regards ”
(Mr. J. R. L., June 11, 2004)