The Moralizing Mode in Late Sixteenth Century Dutch Mannerism：

A Study of Bloemaert’ s Moses Striking the Rock

Noriko Kotani Introduction Abraham Bloemaert is famous as one of the foremost exponents of Dutch Mannerist painting, and he played a crucial role in the development of the Utrecht school．Indeed, he is credited with the rise of Mannerist painting there, and he was important as teacher of many of the Utrecht Caravaggisti. However, this relationship was reciprocal. For instance, Bloemaert adopted the techniques of the Caravaggisti in his own paintings, even though he was not the initiator of that movement, nor had he ever been to Rome. That is to say, his artistic style was enriched by what he learned from his pupils, such as Hendrick ter Brugghen and Gerrit van Honthorst, who went to Rome in the 1620’s ． When seen from this perspective, it is clear that the almost mythological portrait that is often painted of this artist as the innovative fountainhead of Dutch Mannerism must be re-examined in a more critical light. In short, one cannot see Bloemaert’s painting productions clearly unless one understands the artistic context of Utrecht during his lifetime． The cultural context of Utrecht, the city where Abraham Bloemaert decided to settle in 1593, forms an important backdrop for his painting of 1596, Moses Striking the Rock (Fig. 1)．Until recently, the work remained in the private hands, but it was

acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1972 as the first Dutch Mannerist painting in the collection. Classed as history painting, it depicts the well-known story from the Old Testament (Exod. 17:6), and formal analysis reveals close stylistic similarities to works by Bartholomaus Spranger, Hendrick Goltzius and Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem. In addition, it demonstrates Bloemaert’s interest in nature and his understanding of the Old Testament, while representing many of the most salient characteristics of Dutch Mannerist painting. However, a limited understanding of its stylistic context and its hermeneutic possibilities has hampered scholarship on this painting. Moreover, it is not known whether this painting was commissioned, meant to be sold, or done for the artist himself; nor is the owner of the painting in the seventeenth century clear. The absence of precise details concernlng Bloemaert’s motivation for painting this work has lead scholars to uncritically

202

follow the observations of former authors, especially Wolfgang Stechow, who published on this piece in an exhibition catalogue of 1970.(1)

In this paper, I shall challenge this reigning typological interpretation of Moses Striking the Rock (described below), suggesting another way of viewing the painting that takes better account of its rich depth in terms of its cultural context. Not only can one examine the forms and technical skill represented therein, but also the indigenous characteristics that mark the painting as a product of Utrecht Mannerism. Below, we shall examine such features as the placement of the narrative subject in the background, the clear distinction between background and foreground, the mysterious bravo figures as observers, and the darkly erotic quality of the central female figure. As I mentioned before, Abraham Bloemaert had never been to Rome or Italy. Instead ， he learned Mannerism not directly, but rather through Fontainebleau or via Haarlem, which had strong art academies at that time. Thus, I shall emphasize the connection of Bloemaert’s painting with other near contemporary Mannerists artists, not only in terms of style, but also in the moralizing modes they share． Focussing on human figures and their gestures, clothing, and arrangement, my paper begins with a formal description of the painting itseif. The second part of the paper will introduce some contemporary prints that stylistically resemble Moses Striking the Rock, and it will suggest a moral meaning inherent in the painting. Although this paper only strives to convey one particular aspect of the work, in so doing it can help to us reassess the significance of the work in Bloemaert’s larger oeuvre, and to understand its signifiance to late sixteenth century Utrecht Mannerist painting． (1) Wolfgang Stechow, ed. Dutch Mannerism: Apogee and Epilogue (Poughkeepsie: Vassar College Art Gallery, 1970)， p. 19.

203

Formal Analysis

Though relatively small (79.7 ×

107.9cm),Bloemaert’s Moses Striking the Rock of 1596 is populated by a surprising array of people. The two dozens figures scattered throughout the rocky landscape represent the event of Moses striking the rock in the desert．They adopt sundry postures, and some are nude while others are clad in various types of garments. Their exaggerated gestures embody the agonies of thirst, the desire to drink, and the pleasure of slaking it. Although he is ostensibly the main figure, Moses is relegated to the middle distance on the left, holding a stick in his right hand and stretching his left arm towards the center of the picture. He does not stand out in the painting, remaining entirely in the shade. On the other hand, the most prominent figure is a statuesque woman with a water pitcher. Her form provides a vertical pivot slightly to the right of the central axis of the painting. She balances a pitcher on her left shoulder with both her hands; her right foot is on a rock, thrust forward, while her hips swings towards left, making an S curve. With downcast eyes, she shows her breasts and armpits. Wrapped in a turquoise blue, olive-green and enamel pink striped dress, her milky skin stands out from the overall brownish scenery. A crimson red cloak wafts up in a voluptuous whirl in order to accentuate her presence. Pinkish nipples, a belly button seen through the garment, a deep shadow and drapery around her genitals all accentuate her sexual attraction. She is dazzling, sensual, and provocatively erotic． Other than this figure, such conspicuously exaggerated gestures are used only for four other male figures. One is prostrate in the left foreground, with his back to the viewer and his hips revealed. The second is a clad figure at the left, looking up- wards and raising his left hand towards the central

female figure. Lastly, in the right background, two nude male figures sliding down the hill gesticulate dramatically. In contrast, the poses of the subsidiary female figures are all subdued. Moreover, along with the central woman, they are all portrayed with milky white skin and garments and are associated with water － that is, they either have water pitchers or are actually drinking water. In short, the figures seeking to have their thirst quenched are all male, except Moses and a naked elder figure with a long beard who offers water to a female figure (to the left of the central figure). Close observation of figures crowded into in the painting uncovers the artist’s distinction of several different groups of people. There are some who are not necessarily the Israelites following Moses from Egypt, as they are clad in a clothing style which appears to be nearly contemporary to the painting; they also do not beg for the water. Unquestionably, they are observing the event, but nothing more can be said for certain about their identity. One group of them is situated in the right background: two male figures with “bravo” type hats and a mother in fancy clothes and a colorful headgear holding a naked child. The other group is located behind the rock landscape at the left. They are facing towards Moses and talk among themselves. Here too, the woman wears a fancy hat in pink and olive-green, which is exactly the same as that of the mother sitting on the hill across the creek. From these details, it is clear that Bloemaert was not attempting to paint a purely “historical” work, but rather included a lot of details that stand out as significant genre elements. The artist’s interest in peripheral details is also evident in his inclusion of several forms not necessarily essential to the narrative. A cow, a horse, and a dog are depicted rather near the foreground, but one also sees a camel in the far background in front of a group of tents. Bloemaert’s interest in

204

nature is also displayed by the rocky landscape with trees, while his love of eclectic detail is evinced throughout the painting, in such details as the pot and a pan depicted in the foreground． As Marcel Roethlisberger points out, Bloemaert’s figures contain many references to previous painters from Michelangelo and Italian Mannerism to Cornelis van Haarlem.(2) For example, the male kneeling figure seen from the back makes visual reference to Michelangelo’s famous Battle of Cascina, which was a favorite image of the painters of this generation.(3) Similar figures appear also in Cornelis van Haarlem’s The Flood and Massacre of Innocents，so that one may also confirm that Bloemaert exhibited interests similar to his Mannerist contemporaries.(4) Based on stylistic features of this painting, it is clear that this painting exhibits the typical forms and figures of Italianate Mannerism that derive from Rome, but the arrangement of these elements diverges in significant ways from the mainstream iconography and style of those models. For example, the exhibition of daily objects, genre details, and existence of bravo type figures, as well as the subdued treatment of the subject matter set this work apart from Italianate epigones. Thus, it may suggest a formulation of the subject unique to the cultural context of Utrecht in the late sixteenth century. It is possible, as shall be argued below, that this painting should be viewed through a moralizing lens. That is, Bloemaert drew on one of the conventional modes for understanding northern Dutch paintings at that time that sought the significance of narrative events in terms of their relationship to the quotidian world and their concomitant moral force. A classic example of this (2) Marcel G. Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and His

Sons: Painting and Prints (Ghent: Davaco Pub., 1993), p. 92．

(3) Joaneath A. Spicer and Lynn Federle Orr, eds., Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age (Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1997), p. 134.

(4) Ibid., pp. 133-4.

mode is the group of paintings of the Prodigal Son that chastened the viewer by demonstrating the folly of debauchery. Likewise, Moses Striking the Rock offers another clear example by partially locating the event in the contemporary world, highlighting the dangers of carnal lust and vanity. Interpretations Undoubtedly, the composition of Bloemaert’s Moses Striking the Rock, compels a viewer foremost to visually engage statuesque central female figure. Considering every element such as color, composition, light and shadow, and gesture, it is surely not Moses but the woman who is the most conspicuous figure in the painting. Therefore, it is natural to assume that she is a key to unraveling the meaning of this painting. According to Wolfgang Stechow’s now-dominant interpretation, she epitomizes the motif of salvation through water in a typological reference to Christ’s baptism.(5) Anne Walter Lowenthal also follows this explanation in her 1975 work on Moses in Dutch Mannerism.(6) Nevertheless, from the theological perspective, Moses striking the rock is commonly linked typologically to Christ’s side wound, which produced blood and water － an analogy that seems to contradict the reigning interpretation.(7) Thus, while Wolfgang Stechow’s impressionistic explanation is superficially convincing, the interpretation is only partial, as I shall demonstrate below. Using contemporary evidence, Marcel G. Roethlisberger tried to prove Stechow’s the link between water, the urn, and the statuesque female figure and Baptism in late sixteenth century.(8) As evidence, he introduced an allegorical print of 1586 after Goltzius, depicting Aqua with the baptism of Christ in the background (Fig. 2). This linkage is also followed in a catalogue entry written by Gero Seelig in 1997 and seems to have become the

205

standard line on the painting.(9) In addition, since Bloemaert is known to have produced some paintings related to Baptism after he made Moses Striking the Rock, the link between those two themes makes sense even from the biographical point of view. At the end of his work, Seelig summarizes his findings thus: “On the basis of these correspondences, we get the distinct impression that Abraham Bloemaert, too, depicted Aqua rather than a story from the Old Testament.” What Seelig sets forth is certainly one way to understand the painting, but it does not answer some important questions. For example: who are the small figures with fancy clothes, who observe the event from afar ? Why is there a gender distinction such that only male figures demonstrate the agonies of thirst and female figures take on the

(5) Wolfgang Stechow, ed. Dutch Mannerism: Apogee and Epilogue (Poughkeepsie: Vassar College Art Gallery,

1970). p. 19. (6) Ann Walter Lowenthal, “Wtewael’s Moses and Dutch

Mannerism” Studies in the history of Art 6 (1974): p. 133.

(7) Spicer and Orr, p. 408. (8) Roethlisberger, p. 92. (9) Spicer and Orr, p. 168.

roles of offering or slaking ? If Bloemaert intended to depict Aqua of the five elements, why did he choose Moses striking the rock rather than a Baptism scene for the background, which is more easily associated with the print and with salvific water ? With the absence of the concrete information concerning to the work, it is very difficult to assert a conclusive interpretation of the painting. However, we can still entertain the possibility that the painter was working in a moralized mode that may be a key to its interpretation. The story of Moses striking the rock, as recounted in the Exodus, richly depicts the temporary desire of human beings in times of crisis: From the wilderness of Sin, the whole congregation of

the Israelites journeyed by stages, as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. The people quarreled with Moses, and said, “Give us water to drink.” Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me ? Why do you test the Lord ? But the people thirsted there for water; and the people complained against Moses and said, “Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst ?”So, Moses cried out to the Lord, “What shall I do with these people ? They are almost ready to stone me.” The Lord said to Moses, “Go on ahead of the people, and take some of the elders of Israel with you; take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink.” Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. He called the place Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarreled and tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not ? ”

(Exodus17: 1-7) From the Israelites’ point of view, water is salvation; but on the other hand, this story also illustrates a temporary human desire－thirst－which caused

206

quarrel, complaint, and doubt. Therefore, is not inappropriate in the context of Bloemaert’s time to understand this as a work adopting a moralizing mode that compelled its viewers to reflect on a display of lack of faith by their spiritual forebears． At this time，Utrecht as a whole and Bloemaert in particular could be said to have been religiously ambivalent when the painting was produced. In 1579, Utrecht joined the rebellious Dutch provinces against Philip Ⅱ. The subsequent adoption of the Reformation led to the suppression and demolition of the more than twenty Catholic monasteries and other religious buildings. In such a situation, the devout Catholic Bloemaert would have been torn between his religious education, which would have tended to emphasize a more straight typological function of art, and the more Protestant-oriented moralizing mode. However, given that he was a devout Christian, it is natural to assume that Bloemaert had deeply reflected on the significance of the story of Moses striking the rock and was able to offer his own visual interpretation of the scene.

Furthermore, there are some contemporary prints that portray personified morals, such as Temperance (Fig. 3), by Jacob Matham (1571－1631).(10) This print was done in 1588 as a series of

(10) Walter L, Strauss, ed., The Illustrated Bartsch v.4 (New York: Abrais Books, 1980), p.247.

standing Virtues and Vices, and it was based on one by the artist’s stepfather, Hendrick Goltzius. Since Jacob Matham also had some experience with making copies after Bloemaert’ work, the connection between these two artists is quite important and should not be overlooked. Like the water-bearing woman in Bloemaert’s painting, Matham’s personified Temperance is also a half-nude female showing her breasts. She has a pitcher in her right hand, and she pours water into a cup in her left. She looks vaguely at the ground and her eyes are downcast, almost exactly in the same angle as the gaze of Bloemaert’s female figure. The latter figure seems to curvein the opposite direction from Matham’s figure, but since Matham’s work is a print, the original plate would have had a very similar posture. Moreover, both figures have the same braided hairstyle and long toes. Thus, the connection between these two works is almost impossible to deny． Another print, by Goltzius himself, also depicts the personification of Temperance (Fig. 4).(11) This engraving portrays a female figure from the back,

(11) Walter L. Strauss, ed., The Illustrated Bartsch v.3

(Commentary), NewYork: Abrais Books, 1980, p.83.

but she carries a pitcher in her right hand, and pours water into a cup in her left. Although her rather ponderous frame does not resemble the women in the Bloemaert painting much at all, they share similar downcast faces and have the same braided hairstyle. Furthermore, both figures rest their right foot on a rock. Thus, this print also strengthens the connection of moralizing images of Goltzius and Matham with Bloemaert’s work. By interpreting the painting in the moralizing mode, the question about the presence of observing people with stylish clothes is also clear. They can be understood to be the contemporary observers of the event who learn the moral from the proceedings. Moreover, the distinction of the genders is also more understandable when one considers the painting with the moralized mode. That is, if thirst is taken to be a symbol of sexual lust (to which the males are seen to be more susceptible), it is, like the interest in fashion, seen as a temporary desire of human beings that distract them from the central question of religious salvation. Finally, the ponderous sensuality of the central figure can be explained as representing “Temperance” from evil temptation at the same time as symbolizing the embodiment of that temptation. Therefore, in contrast to, or perhaps seen as co-existing with Stechow’s typological interpretation, the moralized mode helps explain many of the remaining questions about the intent of Bloemaert’s Moses Striking the Rock. Conclusion

Stylistically, the influence of other Dutch Mannerist artists on Abraham Bloemaert is accepted in general, and scholars have often mentioned the current of Mannerism from Prague, through Haarlem and Amsterdam, to Utrecht. However, When it comes to interpretlng individual works of Bloemaert，there is a tendency

207

to concentrate on his unique Characteristics or style, to the detriment of understanding him in his larger artistic context. Thus, the artist’s oeuvre is often understood only in isolation, and is not considered in terms of the wider art historical context in which it was made.

Stylistic similarities often belie common interpretive frameworks for works in question. In late sixteenth century Haarlem, and especially in works by Cornelis van Haarlem and Jacob Matham, moralizing paintings such as the Prodigal Son represented a significant portion of artistic production. Not only in style but also in theory, both artists － Cornelis van Haarlem and Abraham Bloemaert－interacted closely and Moses Striking the Rock should be interpreted in such a context． Bloemaert enjoyed a good reputation in his own time and contributed to the establishment of a distinctive Utrecht style of painting. Nevertheless, his reputation waned in the scholarly community for a long time (even up to 1993), for a catalogue raisonné of his entire oeuvre was lacking. Nevertheless, as a representative of late sixteenth century Dutch art further studyn of his work will lead us to more clearly understand Dutch Mannerism. Beyond the context of this paper, the idea of the moralized mode of interpretation provides one important perspective for comprehending some of the most remarkable characteristics of Dutch Mannerism, such as the major figure being placed in the background. In short, an historical narrative was adopted to reinforce and to enrich the moral, which was a constant concern for Abraham Bloemaert and his contemporaries. Bibliography Bader, Alfred. The Bible through Dutch Eyes: from Genesis through the Apocrypha Milwaukee: Milwaukee Art Center,

1976．

Broos, Ben. Great Dutch Paintings from America. The

Hague: Waanders Publisher, Zwolle, 1990. Kahr, Madlyn Millner. Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century. NewYork: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1978.

Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta, The School of Prague. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Luijten, Ger and Suchtelen, Ariane van. etc. ed., Dawn of the Golden Age. Amsterdam: Waanders Publisher, Zwolle,

1993. Melion, Walter S. Shaping the Netherlandish Canon: Karel

van Mander’s Schilder-Boeck. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1991.

Miedema, Hessel ed. Derry Cook-Radmore, trans. Karel van Mander: The Lives of the illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters. Doornspijk: DAVACO, 1999.

Roethlisberger, Marcel G. Abraham Bloemaert and His Sons: Painting and Prints, Ghent: Davaco Publisher, 1993.

Slive, Seymour. Dutch Painting, 1600-1800, New Haven: Yale UP, 1995.

Spicer, Joaneath A. and Orr, Lynn Federle. Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht during the Golden Age. Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery,1997. Stechow, Wolfgang ed. Dutch Mannerism Apogee and

Epilogue.Poughkeepsie: Vassar College Art Gallery,1970.

208