Diana and her Companions
Mauritshuis, The Hague (1653-1656)
Resource: http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/diana_and_her_companions.html
Winter was already gone and under an amazingly bright sun, nature came to life again . Different colour tonalities appeared everywhere. The lands were covered by a carpet made of green grass and daisies were in the grass as stars in a starry night. Buds were opening and insects started to court them. With the melt of the mountains, the flow of the river raised and fishes started to prepare their mating.
It was a perfect day for hunting. Diana and her companions set out early in the morning with the aim of bringing some food for dinner. With the arrival of spring animals used to go out from their burrows so the girls knew it was going to be a successful hunting day. They spent the entire day hunting until the sun got tired and decided to disappear. With the banish of the exhausted sun, the dark night came. That nightfall could be interpreted
as a reference to the relation between Diana and Selene (Goddess of the Moon). That relationship was clearly seen in Diana as she was wearing a tiara decorated with a half moon. Diana was also both goddess of hunting and image of chastity.
Diana and the nymphs were also tired so they decided to sit down on a rock to have a rest after their hard working day. One of the nymphs had her back to the rest and she left her back lightly bare. Another nymph started to clean Diana’s foot, preparing her for the bath, while a third one, dressed in dark clothes, was contemplating the scene. The fourth nymph, with blue skirt and red bodice, was trying to relax her exhausted feet.
While Diana was taking her everyday bath accompanied by her nymphs, no man could interrupt or even contemplate that moment. But the presence of the dog and the thistle (image of masculinity) were announcing the immediate appearance of a masculine figure. Unfortunately, that prediction came true and Acteon (Cadmo’s grandson _founder of Tebas_) broke that special moment.
Acteon stopped in a stream with the aim of quenching his thirst. By chance, that was Diana’s favourite stream. She used to take there her daily bath so Acteon surprised when he saw the goddess naked. Diana noticed his presence. The goddess had such irritation that decided to cast a spell on him. She, then, threw some bewitched water drops to Acteon. Those drops transformed the young man into a deer. He was really frightened when he saw that his human body became now into a body of an animal so he escaped running as fast as the wind. But his hunting dogs, confused by the transformation, followed him. But where they saw a young man, there was now a deer. Dogs, also hungry because of the long hunting day, did not think twice and jumped over Acteon. He was devoured by his own dogs.
Diana and her companions, when they finished with the bath, took the road towards their place. Girls were returning home as nothing had happened. That starry night became suddenly the unique witness of Acteon’s disappearance.
Posted by Iturbe








July 25, 2011 at 4:14 pm
It is a probable and convincing proposition to identify Vermeer’s influence in the painting of Diana and her Companions as the sophisticated 1648 version by Jacob van Loo. Not only the same subject, but the same moment of awareness and decision by the goddess who contemplates the fate of her close, pure and faithful follower, found to be pregnant through seductive trickery, by Zeus.
https://sites.google.com/site/artistgalleryl/home/loo-jacob-van/diana-with-her-nymphs
The symbols in van Loo’s picture that dispose a rendering of the secret, still held close by Diana, that has just been communicated through the intrigue of her nymphs, speak in their quiet pictures of the impurity within the ranks of her friends. Pairs of women, in cells of communication, do not picture accusation, though the idea of whispered perpetuation of a story may be suggested from back to foreground with the figure openly opining to Diana; likely pointing the finger at Zeus. The women in the middle-ground are rife with unconscious, but damning accusation in the symbolism of their preparations to bathe. The shoe removed reveals the stocking, the Dutch word for which refers to the sensual part and is like calling a loose woman a “skirt” in derogatory terms. The other girl caresses her own foot, though placing her finger between the toes. Vermeer borrows this idea for sexual allusion in his work also. Van Loo’s painting pictures the male presence, in the pointing hound, possibly predicting the imminent arrival of Acteon, who is the other innocent compromiser of Diana’s sense of Purity, after Callisto. We are not certain which of the nymph’s is Callisto, though that dubious honour seems to fall to the one furthest right, who stands quietly beside her loquacious friend and waits. She is found in the felled bird with missing wing on the ground before Diana.
Vermeer, I believe, does not copy the map of nymphs precisely from his mentor. He reinterprets and adds poignancy to the dire straits of the Callisto character, who I think is not the figure at the rear in the shadow, as is suggested very often. In Vermeer’s work, though Diana is dominant, it is the more central unassuming woman in red that is Callisto. She is unaware of the newfound knowledge that Diana has, which was shared by the dark figure who watches Diana with anticipation and great interest. Diana is about to confront the wayward nymph, who is next to Diana physically, as she was in the closeness of the followers of Diana; the very relationship that the curse of Zeus has threatened! She holds a toe of her foot in the sensual allusion that reveals the unconscious “sin” as she holds her unclean foot, while Diana’s foot shows the Purity of washing. The dark figure in the shadows is the dark manifestation of her secret that is almost in the light.
July 30, 2011 at 12:16 am
The passing of British-born, itinerate preacher and consistent beacon in books and a humble life, John Stott, a mere Christian, quietly came today to pass as a profound loss to all, because of the One Truth, of which he was a worthy advocate. http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/07/celebrating-the-life-and-ministry-of-john-stott/
One can grieve, as one can for the millions of children who are missing and will never play, as this three-year-old girl, or even to suffer the lives we are born to and choices we all make.
Our days are darker and will be darker because of the losses; but, also, due to the positive choices and the missing grief.
Satan, the Ememy of God, who was Lucifer, an archangel, was not Apollo, brother of Diana the moon-goddess of ancient origin and veneration, as the evolution of false dieties “morphs” to ascribe. God is God – the same yesterday, today and forever. A contemporary stream of feminism has moved to revive Diana as feminine diety in Neo-pagan circles or Potnia-Theron (goddess of the animals) and as Gaia, the oldest version: Mother Earth. An hypothesis now extant in geo-science is the Gaia Theory or Hypothesis, which claims that the Earth’s processes, organic and inorganic, are a self-regulating system of perpetuation. Richard Dawkins, the scathing critic of things religious, claims the quest of these scientists for a largest living thing as psuedo-science.
Apparently, Diana is called upon to fill a god-shaped void in the “reason” of geophysics; at least as analogy!
The stories of Diana of mythology, in a sense, do picture an aspect of our relationship to God. The Acteon and Callisto injustices by Dianic treatments for their transgressions, at least, SEEM to reflect true Godly action in Biblical history. In IISamuel 6:3-7, Uzzah trys to save a toppling Arc of the Covenant from a cart (that carries the Presence of God), which he touches and then drops dead, has the implication of the “Otherness” of God – His vast superiority to humans and the Jealousy of His Personhood over all the creation. From our perspective, His Justice was not just, but God is not Man and and does not think like a man. The men had not obeyed His instruction on the treatment of His Arc. A man paid the consequence. Diana is claiming her purity is like God’s Holiness and superiority. As goddess, she can do no wrong to mere mortals.
In Vermeer’s painting, he too takes a tack of the clothed nymphs of Jacob Van Loo. Except for the back of a woman prepared for bathing, only a strong highlighting of Diana’s breast is suggestive. The reason for the lack of nudity may also hinge on the suggested fact of the hidden breasts of the goddess as compared to the nymphs who serve her. It may, in Vermeer’s mind, have been a gross manifestation of Diana’s other personage or personification of Myth, as Artemis of the Ephesians! Has Vermeer been kind in not rendering, but only suggesting her attributes well known to the ancients?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Artemis_Ephesus.jpg
Is this the reason that Vermeer thinks that she is shy of Acteon’s gaze?
The little dog, too is a humerous addition, as he passively sits beside the Thistle: symbol of a male. He is not the viscious hunting hound of either Acteon or Diana. Together they symbolize Acteon’s voyeurism (or ours) innocently perusing his host. Terborch painted “Woman Washing Her Hands in 1654; the same year that Diana was painted. His painting also has a sitting spaniel. His spaniel knowingly looks out to the viewer with someobject distinctly highlighted between its rear legs. This painting is a revolutionary revelation of the Vermeerian use of straight lines and orthogonals, which were never a part of Terborch’s oeuvre! The misalignment of all the orthogonals, especially the silver frame and the corner-to-corner diagonal of the gold one to end in the water basin’s bright highlight, appear as bad painting of perspective, but is the result,I am convinced of the conversations between these masters at the outset of Vermeer’s career. Perhaps, Vermeer’s hand was involved in the painting itself, which would possibly indicate Terborch as his Master.
July 30, 2011 at 12:32 am
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=3919
The Terborch painting mentioned above