Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatraca. 1673–75

Jan Steen(Leiden 1626 –1679 Leiden)

oil on canvas
82.1 x 107.8 cm
signed in dark paint along lower left
corner: “JSteen” (“JS” in ligature)
JS-107
Currently on view at: Long Museum, Shanghai

How To Cite
Kloek, Wouter. "Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur
K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 2 of 11

When the Roman general Mark Antony (ca. 83–30 B.C.) met the Egyptian

Comparative Figures

princess Cleopatra (Cleopatra VII Philopator, 69–30 B.C.) in the city of
Tarsus in the year 41 B.C., he immediately succumbed to her charms.
Cleopatra, who had previously been the lover of Julius Caesar, hoped that
her relationship with Antony would strengthen her power in her own
country. The couple spent a winter in Alexandria, wallowing in luxury andsensual pleasures, after which Mark Antony continued his military
campaign.

When

they

renewedtheirrelationshipseveralyears

later—Cleopatra had meanwhile given birth to twins—they assumed regal
status. In 31 B.C. the true ruler of Rome, Octavian (later Emperor

Fig 1. Jan Steen, Card
Players, ca. 1660, panel, 45.5 x
60.5 cm, Sale, Sotheby’s London
7 December 2011, Lot 17

Augustus), defeated the armies of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at Actium
on the west coast of Greece. After the battle Antony and Cleopatra
returned to Alexandria, where Antony subsequently attempted to commit
suicide, eventually dying in Cleopatra’s lap. Cleopatra, who had shutherself into the tomb she had had built for herself, committed suicide bymeans of the poisonous snake she had hidden in a basket of figs. The
story of these lovers, first recorded by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis
Historia (book 9, 58:119–21), inspired many paintings, plays, and poems
by William Shakespeare, Jacob Cats, and George Bernard Shaw, among
others, and of course the famous film starring Elizabeth Taylor andRichard Burton.
A favorite scene for artists was the legendary episode of the wager

Fig 2. Jan Steen, Banquet ofAntony and Cleopatra, 1667, oilon canvas on panel, 67.5 x 58.5
cm, Georg-August-Universität,
Göttingenbetween the two lovers, who vied with each other to stage the most
sumptuous banquet. After an extremely lavish meal at Mark Antony’s
expense, Cleopatra boasted that she could lay a banquet of much greater
extravagance. On this occasion she dissolved one of her enormous pearl
earrings in an acidic substance mixed with wine.[1] When she was on the
point of dissolving the other earring too, Mark Antony managed to stop her,and it is this moment that Jan Steen has depicted in the Leiden Collection
painting.
We see Cleopatra about to present her empty glass to a kneeling servant

Fig 3. Pieter Quast, Paris
Shooting Achilles in the Heel,
1645, graphite pencil, gray wash,on vellum, 302 x 396
mm, Albertina, Vienna, inv. no.
8711

so that the second pearl, which she holds in her right hand, can be
subjected to the same treatment as the first, and Mark Antony leaningacross the table to intervene. The table is placed in the great hall of apalace: more rooms are visible at the left behind a high balustrade, while,at the right, an open arcade affords a view of a hilly landscape. The room
has a splendid tiled floor, rendered in strict perspective with the vanishingFig 4. Jan Steen, Banquet of© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 3 of 11

point at the doorway beneath the balustrade. The silver dish of sumptuous
fruit in the foreground possibly alludes to the death of Cleopatra—painterssometimes depicted the venomous snake (or snakes) emerging from a

Antony and Cleopatra, ca.
1667/70, oil on canvas, 113 x 102
cm, Rijksdienst voor Cultureel
Erfgoed, Zeist/Rijswijk, inv. R 816

basket of assorted fruit rather than a basket of figs.[2]Steen distributed the rest of the company across the entire breadth of the
middle ground, but gave particular emphasis to a dwarf-like court jester
and a child who tugs at his white scarf. The jester holds a knife in his righthand and in his left a piece of roast meat, which he tries to keep out ofreach of a small dog. As usual, the jester turns the world upside-down. By
thrusting his knife forward he undoubtedly mocks Mark Antony’s lecherous
desires. In a more general sense, however, the fool is a reference to theabsurdity of Antony and Cleopatra’s extravagant wastefulness.[3] The
ridiculous reversal is nicely expressed in the description of the painting in
Jacobus Viet’s 1774 sale catalogue, where the piece of roast meat in thefool’s hand is called a hammehieltje.[4] This term undoubtedly alludes tothe saying “hij kluift het hieltje van de ham” (he gnaws on the heel of theham), meaning he tries to get every last piece of meat off the bone. In
other words, he has run out of money and must savor every scrap.[5] The
fool thus mocks the fickleness of fate.
Seated at the table on the right is a man who tries to catch the viewer’s
eye as he cleans his teeth with a knife. Across from him sits a man wearing
a plumed cap who gestures toward the protagonists: he is presumably
Lucius Munatius Plancus, proconsul of Asia and skillful survivor of politicalturmoil, whom the couple had chosen to adjudicate their wager. He
decrees that Mark Antony has already lost his bet with the clever
Cleopatra, and declares it unnecessary to dissolve the second pearl.
The story of Antony and Cleopatra was seen in the seventeenth century
mainly as a cautionary tale, a warning against unnecessary extravagance.
But another interpretation—and presumably the one Jan Steen sought toemphasize—is that of a powerful man (Mark Antony) who is led by awoman’s sultry gaze to neglect his soldierly duties. In this respect thepainting recalls the words of William Shakespeare, “and you shall see in
him / The triple pillar of the world transform’d / Into a strumpet’s fool.”[6] No
matter how apt these words, it is unlikely that Steen knew them.[7] Nor is it
easy to demonstrate his familiarity with the two Dutch plays about theselegendary lovers.[8]© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 4 of 11

The most probable literary source for Steen, however, was not a text
specifically about these legendary lovers, but rather one that dwelt more
broadly on the nature of human relationships: Trouringh, which the popular
author Jacob Cats (1577–1660) first published in 1637.[9] Near the
beginning of this 800-line poem, Cats writes on the theme of a soldier who
neglects his duties because of the allure of feminine beauty: “Then hewhose work was so courageously begun / Was by a woman’s wiles
completely overcome”; and “He who is a soldier will one day, alas, becaptured / Not in open battle, but by blushing cheeks enraptured, / Not insingle combat, but by seeing a sweet visage, / Not by strong and mighty
lords, but by seductive language.”[10] The motif of the soldier who becomes
distracted from his duties occurs in a number of Steen’s paintings,
including his genre scenes, as, for example, his Card Players (fig 1),
where a soldier loses his sword to a cheating female player.[11] Indeed, thetheme of a soldier who disregards his duty by idling, sleeping, or wilingaway his time in female company occurs frequently in seventeenth-century
Dutch painting—in the work of such artists as Nicolaes Maes (1634–93),
Gerard ter Borch (1617–81), and Pieter de Hooch (1629–84).[12]Jan Steen portrayed the banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra four times.
Two paintings display relatively simple compositions more or less mirror
images of one another. Both show Cleopatra placing her left foot on asphere, in all likelihood a reference to the vicissitudes of life. The sketchierof the two, a painting in a private collection, is probably Steen’s first
rendering of this subject.[13] The other piece, in Göttingen, followed soonafter and is dated 1667 (fig 2).[14] The placement of the table in the
Göttingen work is similar to that in the Leiden Collection painting,indicating that it was here that Steen developed his ideas for thatcomposition. A further possible pictorial source for the Leiden Collection
painting, as first noted by Alfred Heppner, is a composition by Pieter Quast(1606–47) portraying the dramatic moment in which Paris shoots Achilles
in the heel, known today through a drawing dated 1645 (fig 3).[15] Heppner
noted the close correspondence between the figure of Achilles in Quast’s
drawing and that of Mark Antony in Steen’s painting.
The artist’s most detailed portrayal of the subject is hisBanquet of Antony
and Cleopatra of ca. 1667/70, a painting nearly two meters wide, in thepossession of the Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor
Cultureel Erfgoed) (fig 4).[16] In that painting Steen strongly emphasizes© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 5 of 11

the prodigality that characterizes the event. Jacob Cats’s poem states that
Cleopatra was in the habit of giving the precious decorations at her
banquets to her guests. Even costly furnishings and tapestries were used
only once.[17] Steen portrayed the scene in a way that affords a good viewof earthenware, chairs, a chintz tablecloth, and a costly Persian rug. The
role of the fool who mocks wasteful behavior is played here by Jan Steenhimself, who glances laughingly at the viewer from his place at the right.

Chronologically, the rendering of the story in the Leiden Collection comes
last in Steen’s career. The somewhat round face of Cleopatra clearlyplaces the painting among the master’s late works. Moreover, in his later
work Steen depicted fewer and fewer still life details, which may be one
reason that his earlier works are generally more appreciated by art lovers.
Yet the large dish of fruit in the foreground and the splendid depiction of
the furniture and objects such as Antony’s helmet ensure that this painting
is not lacking in arresting details.
Baruch Kirschenbaum doubted the authenticity of this work, but there is no
reason for doing so.[18] One or two background figures, particularly thesoldier rushing onto the scene in the left background, seem not to be by
Steen’s hand, but his later paintings generally include an occasional weakpassage. With regard to other details, such as the bald, corpulent man to
the right behind Cleopatra and the execution of the background, this iscompletely characteristic of the work of the master. In general theconcentration on the essential elements of the story is an aspect that canbe observed in other work from Steen’s last years, such as Lazarus andthe Rich Man (JS-106). Therefore, a date of around 1673–75 seems most
likely for Steen’s compelling image of this fascinating episode from Romanhistory.
-Wouter Kloek© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 6 of 11

Endnotes
1. It is generally alleged that the pearl was dissolved in wine. Doubts have led to various
experiments, which have shown that pearls can in fact be dissolved in a certain kind ofvinegar. It is, however, a process that takes more than 24 hours.
2. Such a basket appears in the painting by Johann Liss in Munich; see Rüdiger Klessmann,
Johann Liss: A Monograph and Catalogue Raisonné (Doornspijk, 1999), cat. 18, plate 15.
3. The motif of the fool was most pointedly portrayed by Jacob Jordaens in his 1653 renderingof this subject, a canvas now in St. Petersburg; Natalija Babina, Birgit Boelens, BeverleyJackson, et al., Rubens, Van Dyck & Jordaens: Vlaamse schilders uit de Hermitage (Exh.
cat. Amsterdam, The Hermitage Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, 2011), no. 36. On thesignificance of Jordaens to Jan Steen, see I. Nemeth, “Het spreekwoord “Zo d’ouden
zongen, zo pijpen de jongen,” in Schilderijen van Jacob Jordaens en Jan Steen: Motieven
en associaties, Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1990):
271–86, and Mariët Westermann, The Amusements of Jan Steen (Zwolle, 1997), 161.
Jordaens’s influence on Dutch painting dates from his participation in the decoration of the
Oranjezaal in Huis Ten Bosch. He had owned a house in Voorburg since 1659; in 1661 and
1662 he stayed in the provinces of Holland and Utrecht. Oddly enough, Jordaens was in turninspired, when painting this composition, by the Tavern Scene with a Fool (“Wacht hoetvaren sal”), a woodcut by Lucas van Leyden (Bhsn 20).
4. “Ter linker zyde ziet men een Hofnar met een hammehieltje in de hand” (On the left-handside one sees a court jester with a heel of ham in his hand).
5. See J. H. van Dale, Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal (’s-Gravenhage, 1961), s. v.
“Hieltje.”
6. Quoted by Ewoud Mijnlieff in Hoogtepunten/Highlights: Musea Catharijne Gasthuis en
Musea Moriaan Gouda (Zwolle, 2003). The words quoted are uttered by Philo in the firstscene of the play.
7. Apart from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe and a few of the sonnets, Shakespeare’s
writings were not available in Dutch translation in the seventeenth century. It is extremely
unlikely that Steen was familiar with the English text.
8. The two Dutch plays are by Willem van Nieuwelandt (1624) and Dieverina van
Kouwenhoven (1669). On this subject, see Alfred Heppner, “The Popular Theatre of theRederijkers in the Works of Jan Steen and His Contemporaries,” Journal of the Warburg
and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1939–40): 22–48.
9. Cats was the most popular author of the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic, and it isalmost inconceivable that Jan Steen would not have had his verses in mind when producing
this painting.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 7 of 11

10. “Doen is hy, die het werck soo moedigh hadt begonnen, Doen is hy door een wyf ten vollen
overwonnen;” 583: “Hy die een velt-heer is die wort, eylaes! Gevangen / Niet in een hardenslagh, maer door gebloosde wangen: / Niet in een fel gevecht, maer door een soet gelaet: /Niet door een machtigh heir, maer door een hoofsche prate.” Jacob Cats, Trouringh(Dordrecht, 1637), 576. Click here for the online version.
11. H. Perry Chapman, Wouter Th. Kloek, and Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.,Jan Steen, Painter andStoryteller, ed. Guido Jansen (Exh. cat. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (New Haven and London, 1996), no. 14.
12. This theme, however, has seldom received attention in the literature. For example, thematter is not mentioned by M. Kersten in the chapter “Interieurstukken met soldaten,” in M.
P. van Maarseveen et al., Beelden van een strijd: Oorlog en kunst vóór de Vrede van
Munster 1621–1648 (Zwolle, 1998), 337–58. Occasionally, a parallel is drawn to the themeof the Prodigal Son, but without suggesting any neglect of duty on the part of the soldiers
portrayed. See, for instance, E. Kolfin, Een geselschap jonge luyden: Productie, functie en
betekenis van Noord-Nederlandse voorstellingen van vrolijke gezelschappen 1610–1645(Leiden, 2002).
13. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 287

14. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 283
15. Alfred Heppner, “The Popular Theatre of the Rederijkers in the Works of Jan Steen and His
Contemporaries,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1939–40): 36. Quast’s
drawing, presumably relates to a lost painting, indicates that he based his composition on
the play Achilles and Polyxena by Pieter Cornelisz Hooft (1581–1647), a work dated
variously to 1597 and 1614.
16. Karel Braun, Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen (Rotterdam, 1980), no. 306
17. “Maer al het aerdigh tuygh waer uyt men had gedroncken / Dat heeft het prachtigh wijf haer
gasten wech-geschoncken, / Oock al het schoon tapijt, en menigh ander kleet, / Al wasset
net gestickt en uytermaten breet” (After banqueting from vessels of the very best, / The
dazzling woman gave it all away to every guest, / Even splendid tapestries and rugs thatwere her pride, / Although they were just newly woven and extremely wide). Jacob Cats,
Trouringh (Dordrecht, 1637). Click here for the online version.
18. Baruch Kirschenbaum, The Religious and Historical Paintings of Jan Steen (New York,
1977), 145.

Provenance© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 8 of 11

Jacobus Viet, Amsterdam (his sale, Amsterdam, 12 October 1774, no. 200 [to Witsen]).
Jonas Witsen, Amsterdam (his sale, Amsterdam, 16 August 1790, no. 60 [to Ijver]).
Leonard Pieter de Reus (1783–1860), The Hague.
Baron Rothschild, Frankfurt am Main, ca. 1844.
[D. Katz, Dieren, 1936–37].
[Schaeffer Galleries, New York, 1938].
[Rosenberg & Stiebel Gallery, New York].
[S. Nijstad, The Hague].
Mahmoud Rabbani, Wassenaar, The Netherlands (his sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 April
1990, no. 116, not sold; sale, Sotheby’s, New York, 10 January 1991, no. 24).
[Noortman Master Paintings, Maastricht, 1992].
AEX–Amsterdam Exchanges NV, 1999–2006.
[Haboldt & Co., Paris, 2007].
From whom acquired by the present owner.

Exhibition History
Eindhoven, Stedelijk Van Abbe Museum, 22 December 1936–31 January 1937 [lent by D.
Katz to Dieren].
Poughkeepsie, New York, Vassar College Art Gallery, “Exhibition of Old Masters from the
XVII and XVIII centuries,” 6 April–1 May 1938 [lent by Schaeffer Galleries, New York].
Providence, Rhode Island, Rhode Island Museum, “Dutch Painting in the SeventeenthCentury,” 1938 [lent by Schaeffer Galleries, New York].
Delft, Het Prisenhof, “27ste oude kunst-en antiekbeurs,” 16 October–5 November 1975.
Gouda, Stedelijk Museum van Gouda, “Oude bekenden en nieuwe gezichten,” 4 July–10
October 1999, no. 21.
Gouda, Stedelijk Museum van Gouda, on loan with the permanent collection, 1999–2006[lent by AEX–Amsterdam Exchanges NV].
Kyoto, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art, “Communication: Visualizing the Human Connectionin the Age of Vermeer,” 25 June–16 October 2011; Sendai, Miyagi Museum of Art, 27
October – 12 December 2011; Tokyo, Bunkamura Museum of Art, 23 December 2011–14
March 2012, no. 38 [lent by the present owner].
Worcester, Mass., on loan with the permanent collection, August 2015–August 2016 [lent by© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 9 of 11

the present owner].
Paris, Museé du Louvre, “Masterpieces of The Leiden Collection: The Age of Rembrandt,”
22 February–22 May 2017 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].
Shanghai, Long Museum, West Bund, “Rembrandt, Vermeer and Hals in the Dutch Golden
Age: Masterpieces from The Leiden Collection,” 23 September 2017–25 February 2018 [lentby the present owner].

References
Nederlandsche Kunst-Spiegel. The Hague, 1844–45, 1:287.
Hofstede de Groot, Cornelius. A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent
Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century Based on the Work of John Smith . 8 vols.
London, 1907–27, 1:31, no. 85. Translated from Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis
der Werke der hervorragendsten Höllandischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts.

10 vols.

Esslingen and Paris, 1907–28.
Schmidt-Degener, Frederick and Van Gelder, H. E. Veertig Meesterwerken van Jan Steen,
met een Karateristiekvan Zijn Kunst. Amsterdam, 1927, 9.
Thieme, Felix and Becker, Ulrich. Allgemeine Lexikon der bildenden Kunst . 37 vols. Leipzig,
1937, 31:511.
Stechow, Wolfgang. Dutch Paintings in the Seventeenth Century . Providence, R.I., 1938,
no. 53.
Exhibition of Old Masters of the XVII and XVIII Centuries . Exh. cat. Poughkeepsie, Vassar
College Art Gallery. Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 1938, 2.
Heppner, Alfred. “The Popular Theatre of the Rederijkers in the Works of Jan Steen and His
Contemporaries.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1939–40): 36.
De Groot, C. W. Jan Steen: Beeld en woord. Utrecht and Nijmegen, 1952, 32–33, n. 34.
27de Oude Kunst–en antiekbeurs: Der Vereeniging van Handelaren in oude kunst in
Nederland. Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof, Delft, 1975, fig. 133.
Kirschenbaum, Baruch. The Religious and Historical Paintings of Jan Steen . New York,
1977, 144–45, no. 85, fig. 87.
Braun, Karel. Alle schilderijen van Jan Steen. Rotterdam, 1980, 140–41, fig. 364.
Rabbani, Mahmoud, ed. Oude meesters in de verzameling M. S. Rabbani . Wassenar,
1981, no. 10.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 10 of 11

Rabbani, Mahmoud, ed. Old Masters from the Collection of Mahmoud S. Rabbani.
Wassenar, 1983, 72–76.
Westermann, Mariette. The Amusements of Jan Steen . Zwolle, 1997, 284, fig. 164, 285,
308, n. 21.
Oude bekenden en nieuwe gezichten . Exh. cat. Gouda, Stedelijk Museum van Gouda.
Gouda, 1999, no. 21, fig. 7.
Mijnlieff,

Ewoud,

Sluijter-Seijffert,

NicoletteandVogels,Hans.

Hoogtepunten/Highlights: Museum het Catharina Gasthuis en Museum De Moriaan,
Gouda. Gouda, no. 18, fig. 51.
Pollack, Rachel. “The Banquet of Antony and Cleopatra.” InCommunication: Visualizing the
Human Connection in the Age of Vermeer.

Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. Exh. cat.

Kyoto, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art; Sendai, Miyagi Museum of Art; Tokyo, Bunkamura
Museum of Art. Tokyo, 2011, 98–101, no. 38.

Technical Summary
The support, a single piece of medium-weight, plain-weave fabric with tacking margins removed,
has been lined. Paper tape extends onto the front of the stretcher and butt joins of the support
edges along all four sides. Broad cusping along the upper and lower edges and slight cuspingalong the vertical edges indicates that the support dimensions have not been significantly
altered. There is a yellow chalk inscription and three paper labels, but no wax seals, importstamps or stencils along the stretcher or lining reverse.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied followed by a dark underlayer, whichshows through the floor tiles in the foreground and the figures, including Cleopatra and Antony.
The paint has been applied in thin, opaque layers of rich paste blended wet-into-wet with lively
brushwork. Areas such as the fruit platter in the foreground resting on the tile, the lower portion of
the white drapery of the proper right portion of Cleopatra’s skirt, and the lower portion of the blue
swag of fabric which falls between her knees have been applied wet-over-dry.
No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers.
Compositional changes visible in the images and X-radiograph include a slight change in the size
and angle of the wine glass in Cleopatra’s proper left hand and a shift in position of the page’s
proper left arm and the wine decanter between his proper left heel and proper right knee.
The painting is signed in dark paint along the lower left corner but is undated.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2007 and remains
in a good state of preservation.

Technical Summary Endnotes© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Banquet of Anthony and Cleopatra
Page 11 of 11© 2017 The Leiden Collection