Known to contemporaries as "The Snuffler" due to his apparent penchant for rooting around in the undergrowth, Marseus van Schrieck had close ties with the seventeenth-century culture of scientific investigation. This picture of the forest floor bristles with interactions between a lizard, snake, snails, and butterflies, all in the shadow of a poppy. Rather than painting flowers elegantly arranged in a vase, Marseus locates his blooms in a natural setting touched with an element of menace.
#5256. Still Life with Poppy, Insects, and Reptiles
Use your arrow keys to navigate the tabs below, and your tab key to choose an item
Title:Still Life with Poppy, Insects, and Reptiles
Artist:Otto Marseus van Schrieck (Dutch, Nijmegen 1619/20–1678 Amsterdam)
Date:ca. 1670
Medium:Oil on canvas
Dimensions:26 7/8 x 20 3/4 in. (68.3 x 52.7 cm)
Classification:Paintings
Credit Line:Rogers Fund, 1953
Accession Number:53.155
This sottobosco, or "forest floor," picture must have been painted about 1670, to judge from dated works by the artist that are similar in composition, manner of execution, and some details of subject matter. The main motif is a flourishing poppy plant, with large leaves and buds, and at the top a red flower in full bloom. Small groups of mushrooms share the moss-covered ground with a lizard, a snake, and two snails. As often in Marseus's work, the snake is keenly focused on a moth. Another snail and a butterfly are perched on leaves, and an overscaled dragonfly hovers at the left. The base of a ruined monument or building sets off the teeming life in the foreground and suggests civilization overcome by nature. A few large trees and a cloudy sky in the right background offer slight relief from the deliberately claustrophobic atmosphere of the composition. Despite the acrobatic ascent of the poppy plant, attention is drawn downward to the lacelike tendrils of moss, the reptiles and snails, and the crumbling block of stone, which lies next to a broken tree stump. Contemporary viewers would have noticed contrasting signs of growth and decay, and may have recalled that the butterfly is a symbol of the soul. But vanitas themes in Marseus's work, if intended at all, are quite secondary to his interest in specific kinds of flora and fauna. Several authors have noted that the term "still life" is inappropriate for such a picture, which might be called a "nature study" or "nature piece"; the point is stressed in Douglas Hildebrecht's doctoral dissertation, Otto Marseus van Schrieck (1619/20–1678) and the Nature Piece: Art, Science, Religion, and the Seventeenth-Century Pursuit of Natural Knowledge, University of Michigan, 2004.
In his early years, Marseus painted flower pieces, evidently turning to sottobosco nature studies when he moved to Rome (in the late 1640s or early 1650s; see Liedtke 2007). There he joined the fellowship of Netherlandish artists known as the Schildersbent, in which he was called "Snuffelaer" (Ferreter), a reference to his forest floor paintings. In the past, his work has been regarded as a surrealistic subcategory of still life painting, but he is now seen as a prominent figure among European artists who took a serious interest in the study of plants, animals, and other forms of natural life. He was an important influence on a few Italian artists, especially Paolo Porpora (1617–1679/80) and numerous northerners, including Willem van Aelst (1627–1683 or later), Matthijs Withoos (1627–1703), Rachel Ruysch (1664–175), Elias van den Broeck (1657–1708), Abraham Mignon (1640–1679), Nicolaes Lachtropius (active 1656–1700 or later), and Frans, James, and Karl Wilhelm de Hamilton. His patrons, ranging from Medici dukes to Dutch amateurs such as Agnes Block (1629–1704), were scholars of nature as well as patrons of the arts. While not a fine example of his work, his authorship of the Museum's picture has not been doubted by any specialist.
[2017; adapted from Liedtke 2007]
Inscription: Signed (lower left): otho Marseus / van Schrieck fecit
?Graf van Limburg Stirum, Rijksdorp, The Netherlands; Herr Schäfer, Düsseldorf (until 1953; sale, Lempertz, Cologne, May 6, 1953, no. 95, for $297 to Kleinberger); [Kleinberger, New York, 1953; sold to The Met]
North Salem, N.Y. Hammond Museum. May 15–September 3, 1971, no catalogue?
Memphis. Brooks Memorial Art Gallery. "Seventeenth-Century Dutch Paintings from The Metropolitan Museum of Art," May 1–June 23, 1982, no catalogue?
Columbus, Ohio. Columbus Museum of Art. "Seventeenth-Century Dutch Paintings from The Metropolitan Museum of Art," August 28–November 28, 1982, no catalogue?
Hamilton, N.Y. Picker Art Gallery, Colgate University. "Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt from The Metropolitan Museum of Art," February 6–April 17, 1983, no. 5.
Rochester, N.Y. Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester. "Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt from The Metropolitan Museum of Art," May 3–June 5, 1983, no. 5.
Amarillo, Tex. Amarillo Art Center. "Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt from The Metropolitan Museum of Art," June 22–July 31, 1983, no. 5.
New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "The Age of Rembrandt: Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art," September 18, 2007–January 6, 2008, no catalogue.
New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "In Praise of Painting: Dutch Masterpieces at The Met," October 16, 2018–October 4, 2020, no catalogue.
Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 64.
Richard Linke. "Ethno-Herpetological-Catalogue. A selection of amphibian and reptilian representations in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York." HERP, Bulletin of the New York Herpetological Society 7 (December 1970), p. 9, no. 16, identifies the reptiles in the painting as a lizard and a snake.
Ingvar Bergström. "Marseus peintre de fleurs, papillons et serpents." L'Oeil no. 233 (December 1974), p. 29, describes its motifs.
Everett Fahy. Metropolitan Flowers. New York, 1982, pp. 59, 109, ill. (color), describes the "opium poppy" as the principle subject of the "sinister painting".
Stephanie Dickey et al. Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt from The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Exh. cat., Picker Art Gallery, Colgate University. Hamilton, N.Y., 1983, pp. 20–21, no. 5, ill., notes the accuracy with which each creature and plant is depicted, and suggests that some motifs may be symbolic.
Peter C. Sutton. A Guide to Dutch Art in America. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1986, p. 190.
Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 325, ill.
Susanna Steensma. Otto Marseus van Schrieck: Leben und Werk. Hildesheim, 1999, pp. 143–44, 150, no. B1.69, fig. 93, identifies the plants and insects; notes that a few motifs occur in other paintings by the artist; mentions two variants.
Esmée Quodbach. "The Age of Rembrandt: Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 65 (Summer 2007), pp. 22, 50.
Walter Liedtke. Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 2007, vol. 1, pp. xi, 84, 450, 452–54, no. 115, colorpl. 115, dates it about 1670.
Rembrandt (Rembrandt van Rijn) (Dutch, Leiden 1606–1669 Amsterdam)
1632
Resources for Research
The Met's Libraries and Research Centers provide unparalleled resources for research and welcome an international community of students and scholars.
The Met Collection API is where all makers, creators, researchers, and dreamers can connect to the most up-to-date data and public domain images for The Met collection. Open Access data and public domain images are available for unrestricted commercial and noncommercial use without permission or fee.
Feedback
We continue to research and examine historical and cultural context for objects in The Met collection. If you have comments or questions about this object record, please complete and submit this form. The Museum looks forward to receiving your comments.
