Hercules, Nessus and Deianeira

Entry

Numerous replicas of Adriaen de Vries’s (1556-1626) Hercules, Nessus and Deianeira group in the Louvre⁴ are known to exist. Long viewed as original, seventeenth-century works, these bronzes have commonly been attributed to De Vries.⁵ Following an in-depth technical analysis and comparison of known casts with the original version of De Vries’s group – documented in the French royal collections from 1681 on and bearing the engraved inventory number (No. 301) from the collection of King Louis XIV – all proved to be in fact sand-cast replicas made in the nineteenth century, furnished with a high-quality finishing and an ostensibly authentic patina.

As far as has been determined, all (excepting the Louvre original) are assembled from individually cast parts, subsequently joined with screws. In addition, the figures are composed of smaller components attached, as it were, without joins.⁶ Joins are sometimes discernible through the patina, such as on the neck of the Karlsruhe Hercules. Inventive solutions are also employed to camouflage the assembly joins: the rear foot of the same figure is cast together with a small section of the ground on which he stands. As a result, where one normally expects to see a join – between the sole of the foot and the base – one finds nothing.

Among these replicas are a number of variants. Apart from minimal differences such as the modelling of the hair, there are two versions of Hercules: with or without cache-sexe. A second general determinant for distinguishing different versions is the base, occurring in a rectangular or round variant. Finally, the colour and structure of the patinas vary. The Rijksmuseum bronze has a dark-brown patina with grey areas of wear, versus the Kansas City bronze with its warm, chocolatey brown, much of which is covered by a faded dark lacquer patina.

Conclusive evidence regarding the maker of these copies is conveyed by a work sold in London in 1990, a bronze bearing the signature and date Crozatier 1847.⁷ Referring to the Parisian sculptor and bronze founder Charles Crozatier (1795-1855), an artist renowned for his bronze replicas and pastiches of old sculpture active during the Second Empire. Crozatier’s oeuvre included works after sculptors such as Giambologna, Algardi, Puget, Lepautre, Coustou, Clodion and Dardel.⁸ In addition, he devised eclectic compositions by combining parts of existing objects, e.g. candelabras, torchères and bronze pendules. Crozatier regularly supplied works to the French court but also prestigious clients abroad, including the English royal house, the Duke of Sutherland and Prince Torlonia.⁹

Access to Adriaen de Vries’s original Hercules, Nessus and Deianeira in the French royal collection was likely obtained through his contacts with the Mobilier de la Couronne. Given the observable differences in facture among the various bronzes, Crozatier’s foundry was very unlikely responsible for every replica. Two of the cited works, including the bronze in the Musée Lambinet (Versailles),¹⁰ bear the founder’s mark of Victor Paillard, who perhaps obtained the casting moulds of the Hercules, Nessus and Deianeira following Crozatier’s death in 1855 and continued producing these works for some time.

De Vries made the original group of Hercules, Nessus en Deianeira for Emperor Rudolph II in Prague. In 1602, the emperor expressed his desire for two works cast in silver by the Dutch sculptor Hubert Gerhard (c. 1540/50-before 1621), who resided at this time in Innsbruck, working in the service of Rudolph’s younger brother, Archduke Maximilian III of Tirol. This imperial request was granted in the very same year, as a message received from Prague on 1 August of that same year confirmed that the two works by Gerhard had been received. Particularly intriguing is the emperor’s personal, critical commentary regarding one of these works: ‘the work on it is subtle and pure, only the positioning of the figures was somewhat poor, the Master Adriaen as Ir. Mt. sculpture founder does the same much better […].’¹¹ Rudolph’s words clearly betray an element of competition between the two art-loving brothers and collectors. At the same time, however, he also sends an implicit appeal to his own Meister Adrian (Adriaen de Vries), that he may surpass Gerhard’s work, in which the stöllung (the positioning of the figures) was apparently unsatisfactory.

In August 1604, Rudolph II requested a sculpture by Gerhard once again, this time in bronze and allowing the sculptor to freely choose the subject. It was not until October 1605 that this work was delivered to the imperial court. Upon receiving it, the emperor’s response was that he already possessed a larger bronze of the same subject.¹² There is no doubt that the bronze Hercules, Nessus and Deianeira today preserved in Vienna is Gerhard’s bronze from the commission of 1604-05.¹³ In all probability, the work to which Rudolph was referring – a bronze having the same theme, held in the imperial collection by this time, and somewhat larger than Gerhard’s piece – is Adriaen de Vries’s version today preserved in the Louvre, which indeed measures 24 centimetres higher.¹⁴ The same group is mentioned in Rudolph II’s 1607-11 Kunstkammer inventory, recorded as standing next to Gerhard’s version and thus inviting a visual comparison between the two works.¹⁵

The two sculptures may have indeed arisen as a result of a certain artistic competition, whether directly or indirectly engineered by the emperor himself.¹⁶ The most likely chain of events is that Gerhard created his work in response to De Vries’s superior sculpture, as perhaps suggested in Lang’s letter from 1605: ...alss kenden dieselbigen nicht aigentlich wissen, Ob E. Fr. Drt. selbigen gleichfalss gesehen, und darnach habeen formieren lassen.¹⁷ Regardless of how events transpired, De Vries’s bronze is not only larger, but more importantly, more dynamic in its composition and more fluid in its movement when compared to Gerhard’s rendition. With De Vries, Deianeira is physically lifted from the ground, as opposed to Gerhard’s figure, who appears as if suspended in Hercules’s arms.

De Vries’s composition – like Gerhard’s – is indebted to his Florentine teacher, Giambologna. Without question, Giambologna’s marble Rape of the Sabines from 1581-82 (Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi), together with small-scale variants thereof, unmistakably formed the starting point for three-figure compositions of this kind. Unlike his teacher, however, De Vries introduced the twisting motion as the compositional axis of his work. Modified as such, the composition no longer functions in the round. Nevertheless, in De Vries’s work the reverse obtains a significance all its own, thanks to his effective use of the centaur. The floored figure of Nessus, bent over backwards, introduces a marked, almost baroque tension. Extraordinarily successful is the combination of the horse’s muscled body and his exalted, absent gaze.

In a letter to the emperor, inevitably written in the years 1607-08, De Vries mentions a Herculo dianira Centauro made six years earlier and for which the sculptor was as yet to receive 450 taler. On this basis, the original group must be dated circa 1602-03.¹⁸

Frits Scholten, 2024