In about 1600, Hendrick Goltzius, who was famous across Europe for his extraordinary abilities as a draftsman and printmaker, turned his talents to painting. In 1616 he painted this magnificent image of Adam and Eve reclining in the Garden of Eden like mythological lovers. By placing the almost life-size figures so close to the front of the picture plane, Goltzius entices the viewer to become emotionally engaged in this biblical narrative. Traditionally, images of the Fall emphasize shame, punishment, and the origins of humanity’s mortality, but Goltzius has chosen to present the event as a seduction based on physical attraction. Eve, with her back to the viewer, has already taken the first bite of the apple and turns with a knowing gaze toward Adam, who is utterly mesmerized by his companion.
Animals provide symbolical commentary. The serpent’s sweet female face represents the deceptiveness of appearances. The elephant in the distant field refers to the Christian virtues of piety, temperance, and chastity and serves as a symbolic contrast to Adam’s weakness of the flesh and infidelity to God. Goltzius included two goats, sometimes symbols for Eve, signifying a lack of chastity. The cat, representing the unjust judge, solemnly reminds viewers not to enjoy what they should condemn, lest they too cause more harm than good. Through these many symbolic references Goltzius suggests that humanity’s fall from grace is tied to Adam and Eve’s inability to restrain their physical appetites. The work exists within the classicist tradition, yet with this lavish painting Goltzius created an early example of what would be called the baroque style, a naturalistic manner of representation that depends upon the viewer’s empathetic response to fulfill its meaning.
In this magnificent image, Adam and Eve recline like mythological lovers in the Garden of Eden, portrayed at the very moment they become aware of their mutual desire.
I would like to thank Lynn Russell and Lieneke Nijkamp for their assistance with this text.
Portrayals of fig trees or figs in emblem books signified abundance as well as the Resurrection of Christ. In this painting, because Adam holds the fig but has not yet eaten from the apple, he is still—at least for now—worthy of the abundance of the Garden of Eden. The fig in his hand could also represent God’s promise of mankind’s redemption through the future sacrifice and resurrection of his son. See Arthur Henkel and A. Schöne, eds., Emblemata: Handbuch zur Sinnbildkunst des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1967), lx–lxi and 241–242, citing Georgia Montanea, Monumenta Emblematum Christianorum Virtutum (1571; reprint, Frankfurt, 1619), 24.
Goltzius entices his viewer to become fully engaged in this intimate encounter by placing the life-size figures of Adam and Eve close to the picture plane where one senses the fullness of their physical presence and the power of their mutual attraction.
For an excellent discussion of Goltzius’ ability to seduce the eye and afford sensual pleasure through the depiction of beauty, see Eric Jan Sluijter, “Venus, Visus and Pictura,” in Seductress of Sight: Studies in Dutch Art of the Golden Age, trans. Jennifer Kilian and Katy Kist (Zwolle, 2000), 86–159.
So beguiling is this portrayal that one can almost understand how Adam and Eve remained oblivious to the dire consequences of their actions as they discovered these new and unexpected emotions. Yet, as is narrated in the book of Genesis (Genesis 3:1–7), Adam and Eve had been told not to eat the fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden lest they die. The serpent, however, persuaded Eve that eating this fruit would allow them to be like God, knowing good from evil. She partook of the fruit and then passed it on to Adam, who ate as well. Consequently, their eyes were opened, and, realizing they were naked, they sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves. God drove the couple from his earthly paradise, the Garden of Eden, and neither they nor their offspring would ever be allowed to return.
Goltzius’ seductive rendering of The Fall of Man differs in fundamental ways from the pictorial tradition of this biblical theme. Prior images, including Goltzius’ drawing of The Fall, c. 1597
Much like his painting of 1616, Goltzius’ drawing of 1597 includes a cat and a goat in the foreground. The most important of these prior images of The Fall of Man was the engraving Adam and Eve, 1504, by
I would like to thank Rachel Pollack for this observation.
Little in the demeanor of Adam and Eve indicates the grave consequences of their actions, although Goltzius alludes to the momentousness of the occasion. The animals surrounding the couple in the Garden of Eden provide a symbolic framework for how the viewer ought to respond to the scene. Most important to the biblical narrative, of course, is the serpent that leads Eve astray. Far from the evil and menacing creature that one often finds in such depictions, Goltzius’ serpent is sweet-faced and female-headed, a warning about the deceptiveness of appearances.
See Louis Réau, Iconographie de l’art chrétien, vol. 2, pt. 1 of 2 (Paris, 1956), 84. For an overview of Renaissance and baroque prints depicting Adam and Eve, see H. Diane Russell, Eva/Ave: Woman in Renaissance and Baroque Prints (Washington, DC, 1990), 113–130.
This goat is in exactly the same pose as that of Goltizus’ 1616 painting, indicating that he used the same preliminary drawing for both works.
Karel van Mander, “Wtbeeldinge der figueren . . .,” in Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck (Haarlem, 1604), fol. 129r. “De Geyte beteyckent de Hoere / die de jonghe knechten verderft / ghelijck de Geyt de jonghe groen spruyten afknaeght en scheyndet.” The translation is taken from Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 332 n. 156.
The elephant and hare in the far distance have different relationships to Adam and Eve. Both animals have turned their backs on the scene and are departing the area as quickly as possible. The hare probably leaps away in fear of the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions, since fear is one of the attributes Van Mander gave to this animal.
Karel van Mander, “Wtbeeldinge der figueren . . .,” in Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck (Haarlem, 1604), fol. 130r. “Met hem wort de vreese beteyckent: want hy een seer vreesachtigh Dier is” (with him fear is meant, since he is a fearful animal). Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 302, no. 111, on the other hand, interprets the rabbit as symbolizing carnality.
The positive assessment of the elephant’s virtues goes back to Pliny, who wrote that the animals “possess virtues rare even in man, honesty, wisdom, justice.” He also noted that they hate serpents. See H. Rackham, Pliny Natural History (Cambridge, MA, 1940), 3, book 8. For Christian symbolism related to the elephant, see Leonard J. Slatkes, “Rembrandt’s Elephant,” Simiolus 11, no.1 (1980): 7–13. Van Mander goes so far as to ascribe the attribute “Godliness” to it. Karel van Mander, “Wtbeeldingeder figueren . . .,” in Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck (Haarlem, 1604), fol. 128r. “Den Oliphant beteyckent den Coningh / en d’Egyptsche hebben hem daer mede beteyckent. Den Oliphant / in een water siende nae een nieuw Maen / beteyckent de Godsdiensticheyt / oft Godsvruchticheyt: want sy alle Maende hun suyveren met de nieuw Maen / die sy schijnen te eeren.”
The most fascinating and riveting of all the animals in the scene is the cat in the immediate foreground, which is so realistically painted that one can almost hear it breathe. Although the cat was traditionally viewed as a symbol of lust and sensual pleasure, for Van Mander this animal served as a warning to the viewer about being an unjust judge.
Karel van Mander, “Wtbeeldinge der figueren . . .,” in Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck (Haarlem, 1604), fol. 130r. “De Katte beteyckent een onrechtveerdigh Richter: want sy is dickwils in huys schadigher als de Muysen / die sy als meesten dief / om hun dieverije straffende is.”
The Fall of Man is among a number of paintings Goltzius executed between 1613 and 1616 that focus on lovers in a landscape, including Venus and Adonis, 1614
For the painting of flesh, see Ann-Sophie Lehmann, “Fleshing Out the Body: The ‘Colours of the Naked’ in Workshop, Practice, and Theory, 1400–1600,” in Body and Embodiment in Netherlandish Art / Lichaam en lichamelijkheid in de Nederlandse kunst, ed. A. S. Lehmann and H. Roodenburg, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 58 (Zwolle, 2008): 87–107; Paul Taylor, “The Glow in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Dutch Paintings,” in Looking through Paintings: The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, ed. Erma Hermens, Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11 (Delft, 1998): 159–178; and Eric Jan Sluijter, “Goltzius’ Painting and Flesh or Why Goltzius Began to Paint in 1600,” in The Learned Eye: Regarding Art, Theory, and the Artist’s Reputation—Essays for Ernst van de Wetering, ed. M. van den Doel (Amsterdam, 2005): 158–177. I would like to thank Perry Chapman for providing me with these references.
For further discussion of Rubens’ influence on the pictorial character of The Fall of Man, see Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 302, no. 111.
For Boudewijn de Man, see Jaap van der Veen, “Delftse verzamelingen in de zeventiende en eerste helft van de achttiende eeuw,” in Burgers verzamelen 1600–1750: Schatten in Delft (Delft, 2002), 72–74. The sale of Boudewijn de Man’s collection occurred in Delft on March 15, 1644. De Man owned almost seventy paintings, including three by Rubens, among them a Venus and Adonis. This work sold for f. 500, and was the most expensive painting in his large collection. Venus and Adonis, c. 1612, was probably the painting of that subject in the Mauritshuis (inv. no. 254), which is now considered a studio replica of Rubens’ painting in Düsseldorf. De Man owned three Goltzius paintings, among them Adam and Eve, which sold for f. 110. One of De Man’s other paintings by Goltzius was an “Abel in het verkort” (Abel in foreshortening), which has been identified as The Dead Adonis, 1609, in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. no. SK-A-1284). Whether or not De Man commissioned these paintings (he did commission other works), it seems probable that Goltzius would have known his collection. I would like to thank Jaap van de Veen for providing me with a list of the contents of De Man’s sale.
Although Rubens had a great impact on Goltzius’ painting style in the mid-1610s, no one would ever confuse the works of the two artists. Goltzius never assimilated the lessons of his experiences in Italy in 1590–1591 to the same extent that Rubens had during his prolonged stay there in the first decade of the seventeenth century. The idealization of classically inspired figures in Rubens’ paintings was of a different order than the idealization of comparable figures in Goltzius’ paintings. For example, even though Adam’s pose relates in many ways to that of the antique sculpture of the river god Tiber that Goltzius drew in Rome in 1591
Goltzius must have based this composition on a number of drawings that he made from life. The goat nearest Eve, for example, is practically a mirror image of a metalpoint drawing he made in 1591–1594.
This drawing is illustrated in Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 176, no. 60.
Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 176.
Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 304–305, no. 112.
This painting is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. See Huigen Leeflang et al., Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617): Drawings, Prints, and Paintings (Amsterdam, 2003), 300–301, no. 110.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
April 24, 2014
lower left in monogram: HG / AE 1616
Possibly Boudewijn de Man, Delft; (his sale, Delft, 15 March 1644, no. 2, as Een Adam ende Eva). Possibly private collection, Amsterdam, 1671. Probably (anonymous sale, Hubert and Dupuy at Salle des Grands-Augustins, Paris, 3 June 1774 and following days, no. 34, as Adam & Eve). (Camillo Davico, Turin), before 1936; purchased 1936 by Prof. Mario Micheletti, Turin; acquired 1972 by private collection, Switzerland; (sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, New York, 15 May 1996, no. 51); purchased by NGA.
- Art for the Nation: Collecting for a New Century, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 2000-2001, unnumbered catalogue, repro.
- Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617): Drawings, Prints and Paintings, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Toledo (Ohio) Museum of Art, 2003-2004, no. 111, repro.
The painting was executed on a thin, fine-weight, plain-weave fabric. It has been lined to a coarser fabric and subsequently strip-lined. The tacking margins have been removed. There is slight cusping on the top and the left sides, but none on the right or the bottom. This information, coupled with the proximity of the figures’ limbs to the edges of the painting, could indicate that the edges may have been trimmed slightly in the past. The ground is a thin, light brown layer. The paint is thin and fluid in most of the composition, but thicker around the areas of flesh that require greater definition, such as the fingers, toes, and facial features. The paint is thickest in the cat, where Goltzius used rich brushwork to create the texture of the fur.
The X-radiographs show numerous losses to the support along the edges. They are most abundant along the top edge. The paint is tented, but secure and in good condition. There are a few rather small losses scattered throughout the composition in addition to the losses along the edges. There is also a vertical scratch in Eve’s neck. The painting was strip-lined and mounted onto a new stretcher in 1998. Discolored varnish and inpainting were also removed at that time.
- Possibly Biscarra, Carlo F. Accademia Albertina. Turin, 1869: no. 95, possibly as "copia da Giacomo Jordaens--Adamo ed Eva originale degli Uffizi".
- Nichols, Lawrence W. "The Paintings of Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617)." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York,1990: 128, 142-146, 185, no. A-2.
- Yapou, Yonna. "Dutch Acquisitions in Washington." Apollo 144, no. 418 (December 1996): 20, repro.
- Filedt Kok, Jan Piet. Netherlandish art in the Rijksmuseum, 1600-1700. Netherlandish art in the Rijksmuseum 2. Zwolle, 2000: 72-73, fig. 12b.
- National Gallery of Art. Art for the Nation: Collecting for a New Century. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 2000: 22-23, color repro.
- Leeflang, Huigen, and Ger Luijten. Hendrick Goltzius, 1558-1617: drawings, prints and paintings. Exh. cat. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio. Zwolle, 2003: 302-303, cat. no. 111.
- Filedt Kok, Jan Piet. "De wisselvallige reputatie van Hendrick Goltzius." Rijksmuseum Bulletin 52, no. 1 (2004): 52-53, fig. 29.
- Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 216-217, no. 173, color repro
- Liedtke, Walter. "Frans Hals: Style and Substance." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 64, no. 1 (Summer 2011): 22, color fig. 21.
- Nichols, Lawrence W. The Paintings of Hendrick Goltzius, 1558-1617: A Monograph and Catalogue Raisonné. Doornspijk, 2013: 86-88, no. A-2, color pls. 53, 53a, 53b.
- Wheelock, Arthur K, Jr. "The Evolution of the Dutch Painting Collection." National Gallery of Art Bulletin no. 50 (Spring 2014): 2-19, repro.
- used symbolically
- used symbolically
- historical person +Michelangelo
- artist working from live model
- etc +Italy + influence of
- Eve offers fruit to Adam