Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert seems never to have signed with initials, and thus those noted above, which seem integral, are viewed with circumspection. A pre-1940 photograph10 gives a good impression of the work’s innate qualities. Indeed its authenticity has never been doubted, and Heinrich has recently accepted it. He dates it to early 1645. Another version, destroyed in World War II, was in the Bildergalerie, Sanssouci, Potsdam. Judging from a reproduction, this version would appear to have been not so fluently painted, and Heinrich believes it to have been a replica of the Amsterdam picture.11 Recorded by the dealer Gilliam Forchondt, another copy retouched by Willeboirts Bosschaert was sold to the Johann Seyfried, Prince of Eggenberg (1644-1713), in 1673; it was published as still in situ at Krummau (Czech Republic) by Slavícek in 1993.12 Both these pictures show much more to the left of the composition and slightly more at the top and to the right. It seems likely that the Amsterdam formulation was originally the same and that therefore the support has been reduced. Thus missing to the left is the barrel and wheel of a cannon, a ramrod and shovel (partially visible), with a cavalry charge in the background. The scene in the right background is the god Vulcan’s forge. Willeboirts Bosschaert may have seen Peter Paul Rubens’s sketch of Vulcan Forging Jupiter’s Thunderbolt13 for the Torre de la Parada series or Rubens working on the picture itself.14 Seated in front of the forge is Vulcan’s wife, the goddess Venus, accompanied by five putti. The one closest to her, who pulls away the drapery more fully to reveal her thigh, and has the larger wings, may be intended as her son the god Cupid. Beside her is an imposing figure in classical-style armour; the paludamentum (a general’s cloak) shows that he is a commander as does the staff on which his right hand rests. Venus fixes his sword to the baldric, as three putti proffer his helmet, which would be followed by his shield held by the putto bottom right. In the belief that these actions were depicted in reverse – that the armour was being removed – Van Gelder following tradition proposed that the god be identified as Mars succumbing to Venus.15 But the composition is in contrast to those of this subject depicted by Rubens16 and possibly by Van Dyck17 in which the attitude of Mars is quite different. Indeed here the commander is made to strike a martial pose; this and the cavalry charge in the background of the ex-Sanssouci picture, indicate rather that he is about to engage in his military duties. On this basis, Heinrich, following Baumstark,18 identified the commander as the hero Aeneas whose armour, forged by Vulcan, was provided by his mother, Venus, as Virgil relates. But to this may be objected that the soldier is depicted as older than Venus, and could not have been intended by Willeboirts Bosschaert to be taken for her son. Further Venus, in Virgil’s Aeneid (VIII: 616), did not dress Aeneas in his armour, but ‘set up the arms all radiant under an oak before him’ (arma sub adversa posuit radiantia quercu). Thus it would appear that the artist has here simply alluded to the story of Venus providing arms for Aeneas and adapted the visual formula of Venus disarming Mars (to which there is no reference in classical literature). Van Gelde, in fact making more specific a description of the replica made by Oesterreich in 1770 (see below), suggested that the Rijksmuseum picture is a portrait historié. He proposed that depicted as Mars is Friedrich Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, Elector of Brandenburg (1620-1688), and as Venus, Louisa Henrietta, Countess of Nassau (1627-1667), an identification followed in the 1976 museum catalogue.19 The couple was married on 6 December 1646. Against this, it has to be observed that while the great elector had a low brow with a conspicuous mass of hair – as clearly shown in Honthorst’s double portrait of the married couple of 1647 (SK-A-873) – the soldier depicted by Willeboirts Bosschaert has receding hair. Further, while courtly hyperbole would have permitted a depiction of his bride as Venus, it would have been considered lacking in decorum to have had her displayed almost naked even if a low décolletage might have been acceptable. Venus’s face may be deemed generically beautiful; but the features of the commander do indeed appear specific. Oesterreich described the Sanssouci replica as an allegorical depiction of a ‘prince of Nassau’,20 and it is here suggested that the sitter could well have been Johan Maurits, Count (later Prince) of Nassau-Siegen (1604-1679). After his return from Brazil in 1644, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the cavalry of the United Provinces and Governor of Wesel by his cousin, Frederik Hendrik. He held these posts until he was appointed in 1647 by Friedrich Wilhelm, Stadholder of Cleves, Mark and Ravensberg. The features delineated by Willeboirts Bosschaert accord with those of Cornelis Vissch../..