(‘s-Hertogenbosch 1565/70–1619 Prague)
Truth punishing Falsehood,
oil on canvas, 142.5 x 102 cm, framed

Provenance:
Federico Zeri Collection, Mentana (Rome);
Private European collection

We are grateful to Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann for confirming the attribution of the present painting on the basis of a high resolution photograph and for his help in cataloguing this lot.

According to DaCosta Kaufmann the standing female figure with a flail bears the characteristic features of characters in several of Ravesteyn’s paintings. Her face seen in three quarter view has the same pinched mouth, high forehead, small eyes as do women in other paintings by the artist; she has the same proportions, with small, high breasts, large hips and belly, and long thin arms and legs as do others. She wears similar pearl studded jewelry, which in the instance of her necklace, like many other nude figures in van Ravesteyn, shows off her charms - as does her diaphanous drapery.

The subject is identifiable by the largely clothed figure at her feet whom she is shown beating. Resting her hand on a mask, this is probably falsehood or deceit. In this context, the nude figure is most likely truth, who after all is often shown nude, as in nuda veritas.

However, the nude female depicted in this way appears frequently in Van Ravesteyn’s work, and is probably a marker of its appeal to Rudolf II, or more generally of this artist’s style. The combination of nude figures and allegory in Van Ravesteyn’s work is frequent, best known from the Allegory on the Reign of Rudolf II, signed and dated 1603, now back in the Picture Gallery of Strahov Monastery, Prague, but appearing in paintings from 1593 onwards. Because of the repetition of such works, and the sporadic dates, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date in which this picture was made, although DaCosta Kaufmann would be inclined to date this picture before 1600.

The relatively large size of this picture suggests it may have been made for an important patron, but there is no clear indication in surviving inventories about who that might be. While the struggle of a virtue and a vice is frequent in the history of art, as DaCosta Kaufmann pointed out (see T. DaCosta Kaufmann, Empire Triumphant: Notes on an Imperial Allegory by Adriaen de Vries, in: Studies in the History of Art, vol. 8, 1978, pp. 63-75) such psychomachic conflicts are in Rudolfine art often incorporated into praise for the emperor. It is however hard to state with any degree of certainty that this picture was made for Rudolf himself, and the same argument might apply to another princely patron. Similarly, it is hard to determine to whether a specific reference was intended. In any case this is an important addition to the oeuvre of the artist.