Emblematic Still Life with Flagon, Glass, Jug and Bridle

Entry

This circular panel, which is monogrammed and dated 1614, is a still life with a pewter wine flagon, a glass rummer, an earthenware ewer of water and two tobacco pipes balancing on the edge of a shelf to which a piece of paper with musical notation and words is attached. Hanging above them in the centre is a bridle. The composition as a whole leaves no doubt that this is an allegory of moderation, with the saying on the piece of paper, stating that immoderation will be severely punished. The objects underscore this moral message, with the flagon, ewer and rummer urging the viewer to dilute wine with water, and the bridle standing for restraint.⁶

The painting was discovered in 1913 in the house of the Sachse family in Enschede, where it was being used as a lid for an opened barrel of raisins.⁷ After restoration in the Rijksmuseum, which brought the monogram and date to light, it was realized that this was the still life by Torrentius that had been described in a list of paintings in a private collection in Lisse in 1629.⁸ The branded owner’s mark of King Charles I of England on the reverse of the support makes it likely that Torrentius himself took the still life to England in 1630.⁹

The similarity between this painting and the emblem Elck wat wils (To each his own) in Roemer Visscher’s Sinnepoppen of the same year, which also features a ewer of water, a rummer and a wine flagon, led to the suggestion that Torrentius took that emblem as his model.¹⁰ Brown even went so far as to suggest that Visscher may have commissioned the painting, but that is utterly speculative.¹¹ Kloek downplayed the connection between the two works by pointing out the differences between them and their inscriptions, and by stressing that the theme of moderation was often depicted in still lifes of the period.¹²

The two letters, ER, preceding the text on the sheet of music have given rise to some discussion. Van Riemsdijk assumed that they referred to Erasmus,¹³ whereas those who believe that Torrentius was indeed a Rosicrucian interpret them in that light, regarding the symbol following the ER as a cross, with ER+ thus standing for Eques Rosae Crucis – an interpretation that was still being followed in the more recent literature.¹⁴ As part of his musicological analysis of the still life, Fischer interpreted the letters as the abbreviation of ‘Extra Ratione’, the Latin equivalent of the ‘bu-ten maat’ (immoderation) on the paper.¹⁵ The most plausible interpretation was proposed by Legêne, who regarded the letters as the abbreviation of ‘Erasmus Roterodamus’ (Erasmus of Rotterdam), and cited a number of that humanist’s adages which are close to the Dutch saying in the painting.¹⁶ In this interpretation the symbol following ER is rightly seen not as a cross but as a quotation mark preceding the saying, which is closed off with the same mark.

Although the meaning of the still life is perfectly clear and can be fitted within the contemporary iconography, the composition and style make this an exceptional painting. With its circular format, the trompe l’oeil effect of the objects teetering on the edge of the shelf and its striking symmetry, there are few other still lifes of the period that can be compared with it. The remarkable manner of execution, with the invisible brushstrokes and the soft contours of the highlights and shadows creating a remarkable soft-focus effect, appear to give the artist a position distinctively his own.

It was Constantijn Huygens who assumed that Torrentius made his still lifes with the aid of a camera obscura,¹⁷ and that has given rise to considerable speculation as to whether it was also used for this painting. Some authors felt that it was possible,¹⁸ some doubted it,¹⁹ while others consigned the idea to the realm of fable.²⁰ A reconstruction using a 17th-century camera obscura demonstrated that the projected image had remarkable similarities to Torrentius’s still life, most notably in the soft contours of the objects, the soft-focus effect and the intensely deep, dark shadows.²¹ In addition, the examination of cross-sections of paint samples showed that much of the scene was applied with a single paint layer, which would confirm the ‘photographic’ way in which the projection of the camera obscura was painted.²² The underdrawing revealed by infrared reflectography appears to be limited to a few vertical, horizontal and diagonal lines made with a ruler or some other aid. The purpose of those lines is unclear, but they could be associated with the positioning of the painting relative to the projected image cast by the camera obscura.²³

Further technical examination was carried out to test Torrentius’s own statements that he used ‘different paints from other painters’ and that he placed the panel flat on the floor, as a result of which ‘a noise or soughing’ often came from the paint after it had been applied.²⁴ Analysis of the paint samples has shown that there is nothing exceptional about Torrentius’s pigments, but he may have used a carbohydrate-based binding medium that was unusual for the period, which could explain the hissing sound.²⁵ However, the sugars could also have come from the barrel of raisins for which this panel served as the lid.²⁶ Thus it appears that even detailed technical examination cannot resolve this point, but Torrentius would have been delighted to learn that his painting technique still remains shrouded in mystery.

Yvette Bruijnen, 2007

See Bibliography and Rijksmuseum painting catalogues
See Key to abbreviations and Acknowledgements

This entry was published in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, I: Artists Born between 1570 and 1600, coll. cat. Amsterdam 2007, no. 280.