Recumbent Greyhound

Entry

This Recumbent Greyhound is a rare and early example of a sculpted animal portrait executed life-size. The work can likely be termed a sculpted ‘portrait’ of a once-existing animal, in part based on the lifelike rendering, but even more so on the presence of the escutcheon on the collar around his neck, which bears the Roose coat of arms, a patrician family in Antwerp. The dog was unquestionably carved as an autonomous sculpture, as it is also signed and dated, specifically with the inscribed monogram A.Q. and the year 1657. This is additionally confirmed by the absence of any trace of a former mounting. Despite the presence of monogram, year and family coat of arms, insufficient grounds exist for a full and conclusive determination regarding the art-historical antecedents of the present work. One previously unresolved matter, for example, centres on whether the monogram belongs to Artus Quellinus I (1609-1668) or his younger namesake and cousin, Artus Quellinus II (1625-1700).⁹ Hozee, in a catalogue entry of the Amsterdam Greyhound formulated in 1977, chose to leave either option open, as both sculptors would have been capable of obtaining such a commission from an Antwerp patron in or shortly before the year 1657.¹⁰

From 1650 to 1665, Artus Quellinus I lived in Amsterdam while overseeing the sculptural production for the new Amsterdam town hall (the present-day Royal Palace on the Dam Square). During this time, however, the sculptor visited Antwerp multiple times (documented are visits in 1655, 1658 and 1659) and maintained patronage in his native city.¹¹ When unable to travel to Antwerp himself, his older brother, the painter Erasmus Quellinus II (1607-1678), assumed the role of intermediary. In this capacity, on 14 September 1656, Erasmus signed a contract ‘representing in name Sr Artus Quellinus, his brother’, for two marble statues – one of St Francis Xavier, the other of St Ignatius of Loyola – destined for the choir of the Jesuit church in Antwerp. Quellinus subsequently sculpted these saintly statues in his Amsterdam workshop, where both were seen there by Joost van den Vondel and featured in two of his laudatory poems. While he was briefly in Antwerp in July 1658 and again in July 1659, it is highly likely he also sculpted the monumental statue of St Peter for the epitaph of Pieter Saboth (Sint-Andrieskerk, Antwerp) in Amsterdam (cf. BK-2012-11). He may have carved the Recumbent Greyhound there as well, although it’s also possible he did so during an undocumented trip to Antwerp in 1657. Artus Quellinus II, in his turn, joined his older namesake in Amsterdam for approximately two years until he returned to Antwerp mid-1656. This Amsterdam sojourn is probably the only extended period when he ventured outside the Southern Netherlands. On 11 May 1657 his first son was born in Antwerp.¹²

While both sculptors would have been in the position to receive the commission of the Recumbent Greyhound, strong arguments justify an attribution of the sculpture to Artus Quellinus I. First, a variety of religious but predominantly mythological works are cited in the estate inventory of his brother, Erasmus, compiled after his death in 1678. These consist largely of study models and sketches made by Quellinus I – both modelled and cast – in clay, wax and plaster.¹³ As heir to his brother’s estate following the sculptor’s death in 1668, Erasmus Quellinus II must also have assumed the care of his existing artistic legacy. Also among the works in the 1678 inventory are a number of animal sculptures, including a rearing horse, a plaster model of a horse, pacing and jumping lions, a wild boar and a recumbent lion and lioness. These works demonstrate that Artus I had turned to the subject of autonomous animal sculptures on more than one occasion. In the known oeuvre of the younger cousin, by contrast, not one documented example of such a work exists. Although a relatively under-exposed aspect of the elder Quellinus’s work, the numerous beasts incorporated in his decorations for the Amsterdam town hall and elsewhere bely any further doubt. Most compelling in this context, however, is a Hasewint gegoten (Greyhound cast) also mentioned in the brother’s estate inventory.¹⁴ Not only does this provide tangible proof of Quellinus’s familiarity with the Greyhound theme, it also leaves one tempted to interpret this object as a study model for the life-size canine carved in oak from 1657. Since 1690, Een Hund giort af Qvilino hviid laqveret (a Dog made by Quilino, painted white) had been preserved at the royal Danish Kunstkammer. In an 1825 inventory of this collection, the same work is described as a greyhound cast in plaster by the sculptor Thomas Quellinus, a son of Artus Quellinus II.¹⁵ The work described here likely concerns a replica made from the model mentioned in the estate, which Thomas subsequently transported to Denmark, where another cast was made. With no trace existing today, this work was probably lost in a fire in 1884.

The attribution of the life-size Recumbent Greyhound to Artus Quellinus I can also be justified on stylistic grounds, particularly when comparing it to other animal figures in the sculptor’s oeuvre. A small number of these sculptures have survived, with most executed in clay. One example is a terracotta statuette of a standing horse signed and dated 1638, of which a Plaester Peerdeken mentioned in the estate inventory is perhaps a cast or model.¹⁶ From the same list, the recumbent Lion and Lioness can also be linked to various terracotta versions.¹⁷ Stylistically, two terracotta dogs in the Amsterdam Museum show a direct affinity to the dogs and other animals appearing in Quellinus’s reliefs for the Amsterdam town hall.¹⁸ Other similar works include the trusty little dog gazing up at his master on the monumental tomb of Field Marshall Otto Christoph von Sparr in the Marienkirche in Berlin.¹⁹ Also attributed to Quellinus is a bronze Bellowing Bull in the Rijksmuseum’s collection (BK-16944).²⁰ All of these sculpture share the same strong sense of naturalism, with fluidly modelled physical forms commonly articulated with loosely furrowed coats and hides. The same characteristics can be discerned on the Recumbent Greyhound, including the highly delineated ribs visible on the dog’s flanks, the bone structure and muscle of the two front legs, and the dynamically carved surface of the hind legs, thighs and furrows of the neck.

Comparable stylistic traits also appear with a number of Quellinus’s animals carved in wood: the sitting heraldic lions on the choirstalls from 1658 in the Sint-Jacobskerk in Antwerp and the lions on those in the abbey church of Averbode. In Gabriëls’s estimation, these works were produced in the sculptor’s artistic milieu.²¹ To be considered in the same context are two oak-carved medallions that surfaced on the London art market in 1990:²² the head of a dog and the head of a wild boar, both encircled by a wreath of oak-tree leaves. Their refined execution and notable size (diameter 14.5 cm) suggest these works were likely made as autonomous cabinet sculptures – the sharp-witted hunting dog versus the untamed boar – to be displayed hanging in a collector’s art cabinet. Their autonomous character is likewise affirmed by the presence of the monogram ‘A.Q.’ found on one of the medallions. Especially the carved rendering of the dog’s head bears a close similarity to the somewhat larger head of the Recumbent Greyhound.

The use of the monogram ‘A.Q.’, as it is found on the Amsterdam Greyhound and one of the two medallions, corresponds to that of a second monogram – an ‘A’ and a ‘Q’ interlocked within a circle – on the axe held by the marble high-relief of Mars in the gallery of the Amsterdam town hall.²³ Here the signature has been placed surreptitiously, made to resemble a quality mark commonly found on wrought-iron objects of that era. A number of Antwerp sculptures also bear hidden, similarly subtle signatures. Examples include Guillielmus Kerricx’s monogram disguised as a quality mark made in a ‘metal’ cooper’s tool on the gate of the cooper’s guild (Antwerp, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraal), and Pieter van Baurscheit’s monogram ‘PVB’, inscribed on the ‘pewter’ lid of a beer tankard in his terracotta group of Two Drinking Fellows.²⁴ As with the ‘A.Q.’ on other works, the monogram on the Mars’s axe begs the question of the sculptor’s precise identity, Artus Quellinus I or II. On the basis of quality and style, however, its authorship must most likely be credited to the eldest of the two.²⁵

The escutcheon on the greyhounds collar – bearing a chevron with three roses – can be identified as that of the regental family Roose of Antwerp.²⁶ Around 1573, founding father Johan Roose settled in the city, where all three of his sons would eventually rise to hold prestigious political functions. The eldest, Jan Roose (c. 1575/85-1641), served as treasurer, alderman and, in the years 1634, 1635, 1637, 1639 and 1640, burgomaster of the city Antwerp.²⁷ He died in 1641. Many years later, circa 1670, Artus Quellinus II completed work on the tomb monument in the Sint-Jacobskerk in Antwerp, built for Jan and his wife, Anna Fredericx van der Bouchorst, who had passed in that same year, and commissioned by Jan’s sons.²⁸ Ambrosius Roose (c. 1575/15-1640), Johan’s second son, went on to become municipal pensionary of Antwerp in 1637 and a councillor in the High Council. He died in 1640.

By comparison, it was nevertheless the youngest of Johan Roose’s three sons, Pieter (1586-1673), who experienced the most illustrious career.²⁹ Educated as a lawyer at the University of Leuven, Pieter worked for some time as an attorney in Brussels. In 1616, he was appointed as fiscal councillor in the Council of Brabant. Six years later, he was promoted to the functions of councillor and fiscal councillor in the Secret Council, the governing heart of the Southern Netherlands. In 1630, he was made a member of the Council of State, together with the Jacob Boonen, Archbishop of Mechelen, and Antoon Triest, Bishop of Ghent. Thanks to his monarchical-political leanings, Roose was a personal confidant of the Spanish king, Philip IV. As a member of the High Council, he spent two years in Madrid preparing for the arrival of the king’s brother Cardinal-Infante Don Fernando, in his new role as governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Upon returning to Brussels in 1632, Pieter was appointed president of the Secret Council and chairman of the Council of State, making him de facto the most powerful political figure in the Southern Netherlands. He would hold both functions until 1654, albeit interrupted for a period of time starting in 1649 while residing at the Spanish court for a second time. When again returning to the Southern Netherlands in 1653, Pieter was honourably discharged from his functions, very much to his own dismay. For the remainder of his years, he lived in seclusion at his country estate Ham-sur-Sambre in the vicinity of Namur. On 27 February 1673, Pieter Roose died – unwed and childless – in Antwerp. Following his death, a tomb monument was erected in the Sint-Goedelekerk in Brussels, built by the Mechelen sculptor François Langhemans. In his testament of 1663, Pieter bequeathed his possessions entirely to his nephew, Pieter Ferdinand, son of his brother Ambrosius.³⁰

Jan and Ambrosius Roose died respectively in 1641 and 1640. Pieter, being the sole surviving family member from his generation, is certain to have commissioned the Recumbent Greyhound. It also perfectly suited his personal situation at this stage in his life. At the time the sculpture was commissioned, he had already withdrawn from politics and was instead leading a life of leisure surrounded by his library and art collection, unwed, childless and the eldest surviving member of the family. Undoubtedly in his possession were a number of the painted portraits still surviving to the present day, attributed to artists such as Anthony van Dyck and his pupil Peter Thys, including a full-length portrait from the 1630s showing Pieter sitting at his writing table.³¹ In the lower right corner, the painter added a remarkable detail: a small dog with his gaze turned upwards and to the right, apparently surprised by an imaginary visitor outside the painting’s limit. Perhaps nothing more than a painterly improvization, but the motif could also have been added to convey Pieter Roose’s personal affinity for dogs. Such an affinity is likewise conveyed in other portraits of Roose family members, including a now indeterminate portrait of one of Pieter’s cousins, described as follows in the expansive, multi-volume estate inventory from 1703 of his universal heir, Pieter Ferdinand Roose, Baron van Bouchout: ‘Idem the portrait of a brother of sir Baron [= Pieter Ferdinand Roose] having the hand on the head of a dog […]’.³² A painting from circa 1622 by Hieronymus Francken II and Jan Brueghel I shows the archducal pair Albert and Isabella viewing the art collection of Pieter Roose, himself depicted standing between his two illustrious guests. Accompanying the trio are several dogs, both sitting and standing, including a standing greyhound visible at an angle behind Isabella’s chair, immediately adjacent to Roose on the right.³³

The inventories of Pieter Ferdinand’s bequeathed possessions at Granvelle Palace – his residency in Brussels – provide a good picture of Pieter Roose’s and his nephew’s vast art collection and library.³⁴ The inventory of October 1703 mentions at least six portraits of Pieter Roose: four painted portraits and two modelled portrait busts on wooden socles.³⁵ More relevant to the present context, however, is the inventory of Pieter Ferdinand’s possessions drawn up between 15 December 1700 and 30 July 1701. Here we find an entry of ‘Idem one wooden Dog’, mentioned along with several other animal sculptures, including a stone dog, three deer and a wooden lion.³⁶ Other than eenen witten Hondt gesneden in houdt (a white Dog carved in wood) located in the room above the carriage house, this is the only mention of a sculpture of a dog in Pieter Ferdinand’s inventory. This in itself justifies an identification of the object described here as the present Recumbent Greyhound by Quellinus, with additional grounds in support of this theory being the fact that the sculpture was displayed with other animal sculptures in de lange saele met schilderijen (the long room with paintings) at Granvelle Palace, i.e. as part of the art collection in the painting gallery. It was therefore seen not merely as a decorative piece, but as a work of greater artistic value.

Quellinus’s Recumbent Greyhound belongs to a relatively small group of pre-nineteenth-century ‘dog portraits’ in sculpture. The earliest examples of this genre date from antiquity, e.g. the half-seated marble Molossian Hound – known in five different versions and likely traceable to a Greek original in bronze – or the Hellenistic and Roman dog sculptures in the Sala degli Animali (Vatican Museums), which were restored in the late eighteenth century by the sculptor Franzoni.³⁷ These include various greyhounds depicted in a variety of poses. One may reasonably suppose Artus Quellinus saw some of these works with his own eyes during his years in Rome (1635-1639).³⁸ Since the sixteenth century, autonomous sculptural portrayals of (grey-)hounds – whether or not rendered after life – are a regular phenomenon, thus confirming an appreciation for these dogs as house pets arising as early as the Early Modern period, especially in aristocratic circles. In pose and naturalistic expression, the recumbent dog in Jacopo Bassano’s Two Dogs (Musée du Louvre, Paris) displays a remarkable agreement to Quellinus’s Recumbent Greyhound.³⁹ Similarly, in paintings of courtly companies and portraits of members of the nobility and patrician families, dogs – especially greyhounds – are a common motif. In many cases, emphasis is placed on the interdependence of master and his beloved pet. In sculpture, the earliest autonomous representations of dogs date back to the first half of the sixteenth century, with Cellini’s bronze relief from 1545 depicting a standing saluki (Persian greyhound) – possibly a favourite of Cosimo I de’ Medici – is one of the best-known examples. Twenty years before, Frederico Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua – who owned more than a hundred dogs –¬ even hired Giulio Romano to design a tomb monument for his favourite dog following its death.⁴⁰ A number of sculptural dog portraits dating from the sixteenth and early seventeenth century – depicted sitting or standing – were clearly made as works of cabinet sculpture intended for collectors, as indicated by their small size.⁴¹ Given the frequency with which greyhounds appear in painted portraits of members of patrician families in Antwerp during the first half of the seventeenth century, the commissioning of a portrait of a personal house pet about this time proves less exceptional than one might suppose. Nevertheless, Quellinus’s Recumbent Greyhound, commissioned by a member of the Roose family, remains one of the rare life-size depictions of a house pet made in three dimensions.

Frits Scholten, 2025