When this interior of a cave, executed on copper, entered the Rijksmuseum it was already in a very damaged state due to corrosion.5 The signature ‘petrus.van. hattich / 16[..]’ is well preserved, however, with the exception of the last two digits of the year. It was read as ‘1646’ when the picture was transferred to the museum,6 but the third numeral could also be a five; the last one is now totally illegible. The painting cannot be dated from a comparison with other works by Petrus van Hattich. The scene gives evidence of the artist’s typical manner. The antique ruins are detailed with subdued highlights against a sketchy repoussoir. The foliage is depicted with a very delicate touch. A similar technique can be seen in two of Van Hattich’s cave entrances: Landscape with a Cave in the Hermitage in St Petersburg,7 and a painting in the Musée Massey in Tarbes.8 In addition to the three nymphs disporting themselves amidst the ruins, two more ghostly female forms who appear to be bathing can be glimpsed through the reedy vegetation at bottom right. A painting attributed to the Utrecht artist Abraham van Cuylenborch, Nymphs Bathing in a Cave,9 is close to the present scene not only in subject but also in its almost identical composition. There are often quartets of similar wraithlike nymphs bathing in the different versions of Van Cuylenborch’s picture. The Rijksmuseum work may originally have had more of them that have been lost through its poor condition. Van Hattich probably also looked at the repertoire of Carel de Hooch, another Utrecht artist who produced interiors of caves with classical ruins. His View of a Cave with a Bust of Seneca by a Tomb contains a similar view through to a distant background with ruins.10 Anne Lenders, 2022 See Key to abbreviations, Rijksmuseum painting catalogues and Acknowledgements