Skip to main content

Full text of "A mirror of nature : Dutch paintings from the collection of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter"

See other formats


A Mirror of Nature 

Dutch Paintings from the Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 

John Walsh, Jr., and Cynthia P. Schneider 

A Mirror of Nature 

is the catalogue of the most distinguished private 
collection of Dutch seventeenth-century painting in 
North America. Formed in Los Angeles by Mr. and 
Mrs. Edward William Carter between 1959 and 
1985, the collection comprises masterpieces by 
many of the greatest Dutch landscape and still-life 
painters of the age. The paintings were first 
exhibited publicly together in 1981—82 in Los 
Angeles, Boston, and New York and are destined to 
become part of the permanent collection of the Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art. Since 1981 several 
important works have been added to the collection 
and are included in this expanded edition of the 
1981 exhibition catalogue. 

In the pages of this book we encounter the great 
names of Dutch landscape and marine painting, 
from a brilliant winter scene by Hendrick Avercamp 
to a great oak tree depicted by Jacob van Ruisdael 
with an energy that rivals nature's own. Scenes of 
the seacoast, great ships, and sailboats are repre- 
sented by Jan van de Cappelle, Adam Pynacker, and 
various members of the van de Velde family. Jan 
Both transports us to the golden light of Italy, while 
Jan van Goyen and Salomon van Ruysdael guide us 
along their native rivers and estuaries. Meyndert 
Hobbema's picturesque woods contrast with a busy 
Amsterdam quayside by Jan van der Heyden or a 
quiet church interior by Pieter Saenredam. Even 
Aelbert Cuyp's Holy Family takes second place to 
the magnificent river and mountain landscape that 
shelters their flight to Egypt. 

The special character of this collection is that its 
artists depicted the world around them. Thus the 
domestic world is mirrored too in exquisite flower 
paintings by Ambrosius Bosschaert, Dirck de Bray, 
and Jan van Huysum, which in turn make colorful 
contrasts with the pleasures of the table represented 
by Pieter Claesz., Willem Heda, or Clara Peeters. All 
the preciousness of Dutch artists' loving gaze is 
summed up in Adriaen Coorte's bowl of wild straw- 
berries, topped with a sprig of blossom. 


Jan van Huysum (1681-1749) 

Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn (detail), 1724 

Oil on wood 

5iV> X 13% in. (80 X 59.6 cm.) 

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter in honor 

of the museum's twenty-fifth anniversary 

M. 91. 164.1 


A perfect painting is like a mirror of Nature, 
that causes things that are not there to appear, 
and that deceives in an acceptable, amusing, 
and praiseworthy way. 

— Samuel van Hoogstraeten, Inleydnig 
tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst, 
Rotterdam, 16-8 

A Mirror of Nature 

Dutch Paintings from the Collection of 
Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter 


Los Angeles County Museum of Art 

in association with 

Cross River Press 

A Division of Abbeville Publishing Group 

New York • London • Paris 

This edition is published in conjunction with the exhibition 
A Mirror of Nature: Dutch Paintings from the Collection 
of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter at the Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art, October zz, i99Z-January 17, i993- 

This exhibition was made possible through the generosity of 
the California Press Bureau, Lee Soble-Publisher, in celebration 
of its forty-seventh anniversary and as part of its program in 
support of the arts. 

First published in 1981 by the Los Angeles County Museum of 
Art, 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90036. 
Second edition published in 199Z by the Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art in association with Cross River Press, a division 
of Abbeville Publishing Group, 488 Madison Avenue, New 
York, New York loozz. 

Copyright © 1981, 1992 by Museum Associates, Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art. All rights reserved under international 
copyright conventions. No part of this book may be repro- 
duced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or 
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any 
information-storage or -retrieval system, without permission 
in writing from the publishers. 

Printed and bound in the United States of America. 


Waish, John, 193-- 

A mirror ot nature : Dutch paintings from the collcLtion of Mr. and Mrs. 
Edward Wilham Carter John Walsh, Jr., Cynthia P. Schneider. — md ed. 
p. cm. 

"This edition is pubhshed m conjunction with the exhibition at the 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, October zz, iggz-January 17, i993-" 

Includes bibliographical references. 

ISBN 0-8-58--16--4 iL.AC.MAj. — ISBN 1-55859-445-0 (Cross River 

I. Painting, Dutch — Exhibitions, z. Painting, .Modern — I7th-i8th 
centuries — Netherlands — Exhibitions. 3. Carter, Edward William, 
1911- — .Art collections — Exhibitions. 4. Carter, Edward William, 
Mrs. — Art collections — Exhibitions. 5. Painting — Private 
collections — California — Los Angeles — Exhibitions. 1. Schneider, 
Cynthia P. II. Los Angeles County Museum of ."Vrt. 111. Title. 
ND646.W16 I99Z 

759.949Z ' 09 ' 03ZOT4-79494 — dczo 9Z-19590 






INTRODUCTION john walsh, jr. xuii 


Hendrick Avercamp, 1585/86—16^4 j 
Gerrit Berckheyde, 1638-1698 8 
Anthonie van Borssom, 1629/^0—1677 iz 
Ambrosius Bosschaert, 1573-1621 ij 
Jan Both, 1615/18-165Z zo 
Dirck de Bray, active about 1651—1680 14 
Jan van de Cappelle, 1624/26— 1679 29 
Pietcr Claesz., 1597/98— 1661 ?2 
Adriaen Coorte, active 1683—1707 ^6 
Aelbert Cuyp, 1620— 1691 40 
Jan van Goyen, 1596— 1656 46, 110 
Willem Claesz. Heda, 1593/94—1680/82 ^0 
Jan van der Heyden, 1637— 1712 S4 
Meyndert Hobbema, 1638— 1709 sS 
Jan van Huysum, 1682— 1749 62 
Philips Koninck, 1619— 1688 67 

Aert van der Neer, 1603/4— 1677 7° 

Jan Porcelhs, I 580/84-1632 73 

Frans Post, 1612-1680 76 

Adam Pynacker, 1621— 1673 So 

Jacob van Ruisdael, 1628/29—1682 84, 132 

Salomon van Ruysdael, 

1 600/1 603-1 670 88, 1^8 
Pieter Jansz. Saenredam, 1597—1665 92 
Adriaen van de Veide, 16^6— 1672 g8 
Esaias van de Velde, about 1590—1630 loz 
Willem van de Velde the Younger, 

1633-1707 /Of 
Emanuel de Witte, 1616/18— 1692 iiz 
Willem Kalf, 1619—169^ 724 
Clara Peeters, about 1594-after 1657 118 
Simon de Vlieger, 1600/1601— 1653 140 


Americans have long been enthusiastic collectors of seventeenth-century 
Dutch painting. The renowned groups of Dutch art in museums in Washington, New 
York, and Philadelphia, for example, were formed primarily through the refined taste 
and enormous energy of local collectors like Andrew Mellon, Joseph Widener, Ben- 
jamin Altman, and John G. Johnson. Edward and Hannah Carter, longtime friends 
and supporters of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, have continued in this 
impressive tradition, forming a suite of paintings that, in terms of quality and focus, 
ranks among the preeminent collections of its kind in private hands. Their accom- 
plishment is all the more remarkable in a period of rising prices and diminishing 
supply. When the Carter collection eventually finds its permanent home alongside the 
museum's other Dutch pictures, Los Angeles will be able to boast one of the finest and 
most representative surveys of Dutch art of the seventeenth century in North 

A Mirror of Nature was first exhibited in Los Angeles in 1981—82 and subse- 
quently at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Metropolitan Museum of Art 
in New York. In the ensuing ten years the Los Angeles County Museum of Art has 
witnessed an extraordinary growth, not only in its physical space and collections but 
in its diverse and enthusiastic public as well. We are therefore enormously grateful to 
Edward and Hannah Carter for generously agreeing to share their wonderful paint- 
ings with a new generation of museum visitors. During the intervening period they 
have acquired six additional pictures, each carefully chosen to complement and 
expand the range of the collection: a haunting early work by Willem Kalf and a 
perfectly preserved panel by Clara Peeters fill important lacunae in the Carters' 
marvelous group of still lifes and flower pictures; a small but superb landscape by Jan 
van Goyen joins his monumental view of Dordrecht; Salomon van Ruysdael's pan- 
oramic View of the River Lek and Vianen is a late work that extends the artist's 
repertory of river views, while Simon de Vlieger's bustling View of a Beach is this 
important artist's masterpiece. The Carters' boldest new acquisition is The Great Oak 
by Jacob van Ruisdael. This masterful landscape, with figures painted by Nicolaes 
Berchem, was rightly singled out in the nineteenth century as among the artist's 


"most astonishing productions" and now takes its place as the signature painting of 
the collection. 

We are pleased to thank the authors of this catalogue, John Walsh and Cynthia P. 
Schneider, for contributing six more entries for these recent acquisitions. These were 
written by Professor Schneider and revised by Dr. Walsh. 



Los Angeles County Museum of Art 


The authors are grateful above all to Mr. and Mrs. Carter for the privilege 
of studying the collection, for their hospitality, and for their constant help with the 
work. Earl A. Powell iii, Peter Brenner, Joseph Fronek, Ben Johnson, Larry Reynolds, 
Scott Schaefer, and many other past and present members of the staff of the Los 
Angeles County Museum of Art were instrumental in seeing both the original exhibi- 
tion and catalogue and this new edition to fruition. Philip Conisbee and Richard 
Rand ably coordinated many of the details of the new exhibition. Research was 
conducted in large part at the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The 
Hague, where J. Nieuwstraten, G. Kotting, and W. van de Watermg were generous 
with help, as was Rupert Hodge of the Witt Library of the Courtauld Institute, 
London, and the staff of the Frick Art Reference Library in New York. The authors 
also wish to acknowledge the advice of Clifford Ackley, Alice Davies, M. S. Robinson, 
William W. Robinson, Pieter Schatborn, Thomas J. Schneider, Seymour Slive, and 
Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., in addition to those whose aid is credited in individual 
entries for the paintings. The manuscript of the first edition was prepared in Boston 
with the constant help of Patricia Loiko and Helen Hall and edited in Los Angeles by 
Jeanne D'Andrea and Stephen West; Stephanie Dyer provided research assistance for 
the entries added to the revised edition, which was edited by Mitch Tuchman. The 
1 981 edition of this catalogue was designed in Lunenburg, Vermont, by Freeman 
Keith of the Stinehour Press and produced in Connecticut by the Meriden Gravure 
Company under the supervision of William Glick. Sandy Bell adapted the original 
design for the additional catalogue entries of the revised edition, which was printed by 
Alan Lithograph in Inglewood, California. 


Foreword to the 1981 Edition 

Seymour Slive, Professor of Fine Arts and Director of the Fogg Art Museum 
at Fiarvard University, wrote in a recent letter: 

Frits Lugt, in his Hfetime, the peerless connoisseur and distinguished collector of seven- 
teenth-century Dutch art, frequently comes to mind during my memorable visits in Los Angeles 
with Ed and Hannah Carter. Their painting collection is the kind he loved — and coveted — 
most: miraculously well preserved, cabinet-size Dutch pictures of the highest quality that Ht 
perfectly in the intimacy of a home. 

Lugt comes to mind for yet another reason when 1 am with Ed and Hannah. He had 
nothing against the study of art history. However, he was convinced that formal art historical 
training was not a prerequisite for acquiring the connoisseurship needed to build a great 
collection. For him connoisseurship was a gift, just like any other artistic talent. If the aptitude 
is there of course it can be developed, but rather by personal effort than instruction. 1 can think 
of little better proof of Lugt's maxim than the distinctly personal collection Ed and Hannah 
have made of outstanding Dutch pictures during the course of the last decade-and-a-half. 

Professor Slive's statement is typical of the reaction of Dutch specialists and 
museum professionals to both the paintings and the extraordinary level of connois- 
seurship and decisiveness of action essential to assembling so many "textbook exam- 
ples" of Dutch seventeenth-century landscapes and still-life paintings at a time when 
works of this quality had become so remarkably scarce. 

Edward W. Carter was already a leader of national distinction in business, cul- 
tural, and civic activities when he began to form the collection. Born in Maryland in 
191 1, he has resided in Los Angeles since 1920. In 19^2 he was graduated from the 
University of California at Los Angeles, where he majored in economics and philos- 
ophy; in 19^7 he received an MBA with Distinction from the Harvard Graduate 
School of Business Administration. Eight years later he became head of the Broadway 
Department Store in Los Angeles which over the years evolved into Carter Hawley 
Fiale Stores, Inc., now a nationwide merchandising organization that operates nu- 
merous distinguished department stores, fashion specialty stores, such as Bergdorf 
Goodman and Neiman-Marcus, and the country's largest bookshop business. In ad- 
dition to being chairman of his company, Mr. Carter is the director of six other major 
American corporations. 


Mr. Carter's contribution to the educational and cultural lifeof California and the 
nation has been a significant one. He is now in his thirtieth year as a Regent of the 
University of California and as a trustee of Occidental College, having served as board 
chairman of both. A longtime trustee of the Stanford Research Institute and The 
Brookings Institution, he is also a founding trustee of the National Humanities Center. 
At Harvard, he has been a member of several Overseers Visiting Committees, currently 
including that of the Fogg Museum. Chairman of the board of the Los Angeles Phil- 
harmonic Association of which he has been a trustee for twenty-eight years, he is also a 
director of the San Francisco Opera. Worthy of special note is Mr. Carter's role in the 
creation and subsequent development of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. He 
was founding president of the Museum and chairman of both the fundraising and the 
building committees that launched the institution twenty years ago. During the inter- 
vening years he has been chairman of the board and chairman of the Acquisitions 
Committee. He is at present chairman of the new Development Committee responsible 
for raising the funds for the construction of two new wings. 

Mr. Carter purchased his first two paintings in 1956 and 1957, a van Goyen river 
scene and a Jacob van Ruisdael mountain landscape, both later exchanged for other 
pictures. Two paintings still in the collection, A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Cahn by 
Willem van de Velde and Landscape with a Foothridge by Meyndert Hobbema, 
followed in 1959 and 1962. Ed Carter's marriage in 1963 to Hannah Locke Caldwell 
of Philadelphia, who shared his interest in works of art, was a stimulus to further 
acquisitions. During the 1960s the Carters added four more Dutch pictures, a Flemish 
still life, and three nineteenth-century French pre-Impressionists. The latter were 
subsequently replaced by an extraordinary, colorful Fantin-Latour still life, a superb, 
shimmering late Corot landscape, and an exquisite eighteenth-century view of Venice 
by Francesco Guardi, all in the collection although not included in the present exhibi- 

Ed and Hannah Carter had bought pictures largely to embellish their home until 
the end of the 1960s. At that time they changed their objective and initiated a long- 
term program of "acquiring the most representative collection of the finest quality 
seventeenth-century Dutch landscapes, seascapes, architectural interiors, town views, 
and still lifes in this country" with the stated intention of enjoying the collection 
during their lives and of bequeathing it to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 
Accordingly, their tempo of collecting was accelerated with the result that twenty- 
seven of the thirty paintings included in the present exhibition were purchased be- 
tween 1970 and 1981. 

The Carters were aided in their quest by collectors, scholars, and museum person- 
nel, many of whom became close friends. Among these was Wolfgang Stechow, a 
frequent visitor, whose Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seventeenth Century became 


the bible for the collection. I recall vividly his and Ed Carter's recurrent exchange of 
observations and discoveries as they studied together some new landscape being 
considered for purchase. Other friends whose opinions contributed to the evolution of 
the collection include A. B. de Vries, Director Emeritus of the Mauritshuis in The 
Hague; John Walsh, Curator of Paintings at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Egbert 
Haverkamp Begemann, Professor at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University; 
Seymour Slive, Director of the Fogg Museum and Professor at Harvard University; 
Horst Gerson, Professor at the University of Groningen; Otto Wittmann, Director 
Emeritus of the Toledo Museum of Art; and particularly Ben Johnson, former Head of 
Conservation at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, who combines a technician's 
knowledge with a connoisseur's eye for Dutch painting. I also had the privilege of 
being part of this group. 

A number of dealers also have contributed effectively to building the collection by 
ferreting out and offering to the Carters works of great rarity. Among these are Bert 
and Clyde Newhouse of New York along with Frederick and Betty Mont; David 
Koetser of Zurich; as well as Hans Cramer and Sam Nystad of The Hague, who in 
addition to offering their own paintings have acted as liaison with private collectors in 

Whatever opinions and encouragement were offered by others, it was the Carters 
who made the final decisions and whose taste and judgment formed the collection. We 
hesitate to use the word "masterpiece" today because of its frequent unjustified em- 
ployment. If, however, we compare the paintings in this collection with the extant 
oeuvre of each master on the basis of aesthetic quality, condition, and embodiment of 
the essential characteristics of that master in his specialized genre, we should not 
hesitate to rank the Hendrick Avercamp, Jan Both, Ambrosius Bosschaert, Jan van de 
Cappelle, Pieter Claesz., Adriaen Coorte, Aelbert Cuyp, Jan van Goyen, Jan van der 
Heyden, Jan van Huysum, Aert van der Neer, Jan Porcellis, Frans Post, Jacob van 
Ruisdael, Salomon van Ruysdael, and Esaias van de Velde among the cardinal master- 
pieces of each artist. A number of them could with equal justification be listed among 
the masterpieces of all Dutch seventeenth-century painting. Moreover, the Dirck de 
Bray, Adriaen Coorte, and Anthonie van Borssom are among the preeminent works of 
the smaller masters. In addition to "textbook examples" of Dutch paintings the 
Carters have been alert to unusual pictures that add diversity to a collection, such as 
the early works of Adam Pynacker and Emanuel de Witte, so rich in invention; the 
Philips Koninck expansive panorama in small scale; and the almost surrealist church 
interior by Pieter Jansz. Saenredam, one of the most original of Dutch artists. 

Along with considerations of connoisseurship, the paintings were chosen to ex- 
emplify the history of seventeenth-century art through their depiction of land and sea, 
architecture and still life. They reveal a pattern of stylistic change best seen in the 


landscape paintings: the discovery of nature recorded in the fresh and naive vision of 
the early realists (Avercamp, Esaias van de Velde), the exploration of atmospheric 
light (Porcellis, van Goyen, Salomon van Ruysdael), and the gradual subordination of 
the appearance of nature to the artist's concept of light, form, and structure (Jacob van 
Ruisdael, Cuyp, van de Cappelle). Even in those subject categories represented by only 
a few works, the selections have been made to exemplify historical development, as for 
example in the sequence of the three flower pieces: from the simple realism of the 
Ambrosius Bosschaert with its precise drawing and bright local colors, through the 
studied interplay of tonal gradations and formal structure of the Dirck de Bray, to the 
virtuoso rhythms and color sophistication of Jan van Huysum. 

The formation of a collection, like the history of art itself, is an unending process. 
We can anticipate in this instance that the dedication of Ed and Hannah Carter will 
ensure its continued evolution. 


Former Director 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art 




The Carter paintings astonish by their quahty and then, when one has seen 
them all, by the distinct taste they reveal. Few great collections of Dutch painting have 
been so sharply focused: there are landscapes and seascapes, town views, still lifes, and 
church interiors by nearly all the major masters, and that is all. No portraits, no genre, 
and no history paintings are included in the collection, which is not a survey of Dutch 
art and was never meant to be. Rather, the Carters have chosen to search out the most 
distinguished pictures that can be had in those categories that give them special plea- 
sure and best suit the handsome, understated ambience of their home. In these paint- 
ings Dutchmen celebrated and pondered the physical world, whether of nature or 
made by man, whether modest views of home or exotic scenery from abroad, whether 
humble household objects or the wonders of the garden. 

The pamtings show us the image in Hoogstraeten's mirror of Nature, the praise- 
worthy deception he commends. They also reveal that artists often took liberties 
impossible for any mirror, selecting and rearranging the features of Nature while 
remainmg deceptively plausible. They remind us, too, that seventeenth-century artists 
and their audience often expected pictures of the real world to embody ideas and 
values worthy of contemplation. 

The original buyers of these pictures, we may imagine, were a varied lot that 
included some people of relatively modest means as well as the great merchants. 
Foreign travelers to Holland remarked in surprise that paintings were found even in 
the humblest houses, and appraisals of the period show that many pictures that are 
now expensive were then cheap, especially landscapes and still lifes. The flower pieces 
by Bosschaert and van Huysum (cat. nos. 4 and 15), in contrast, must have been 
painted for the most affluent clientele. Buyers may have been keen to have the best 
pictures they could find, but there was little to aid them in the search: no public 
museums or commercial galleries, no exhibitions, no published criticism. There were 
only auction sales and a relatively small number of dealers, who were often painters or 
booksellers trading in art as a sideline. The collector, lacking much comparative 


material and informed guidance, evidently went about his buying in a somewhat 
different frame of mind than ours. Johan Huizinga described this well: 

And what did the buyer of paintings or engravings expect from the artist? This question is 
as important to our purpose as that of the artist's own intent. First and foremost, they de- 
manded a suitable subject, one, moreover, they could admire and that was presented in the way 
in which they were wont to see it. Next they sought and valued artistic skill and sheer technical 
accomplishment. They expected to derive pleasure from their paintings and also liked to show 
them off. The choice of subject was often determined by the particular wall on which the 
painting would be hung. This does not mean that seventeenth-century houses had special 
studies, guest-rooms, etc. — these were a later innovation, though meals were, of course, 
always served in the same place, and it was here that a still-life depicting fruit, game and other 
delicacies would usually be hung. 

As a result of the great demand for painting, many a mere owner was transformed into a 
collector with a gallery of his own — and not only among the very rich. In this way, the 
emphasis gradually shifted from enjoyment of good likenesses toward the sheer love of art and 
beaut\'. However, even the collector was not a collector in the modern sense of the word. He 
was far more concerned to own works of every genre than of every great master. The average 
buyer greatly preferred possessing a country scene, a landscape, a seascape, an allegory and 
above all his own portrait to owning a van Goyen, Steen, Hals or Porcellis. There were, of 
course, exceptions to this rule, and a really first-class gallery was expected to include a Diirer 
and a Holbein — hence the many suspected forgeries.^ 

The Carters have resisted the temptation to collect in every category-, bur they 
have indeed tried to represent the major masters of those they do collect. The roster of 
these masters has, of course, undergone a great many substitutions since the seven- 
teenth century, and the landscape or still-life painters most prized by Braamcamp or 
the Due d'Orleans or the Marquesses of Hertford are not all those we would put in the 
first rank today. The humble near-monochrome landscapes and still lifes that hold an 
important place in the Carter collection, for example, were not highly prized until the 
end of the last century, when a generation of German and Dutch critics, Wilhelm Bode 
the foremost, defined the contribution of these paintings in terms of "realism" and the 
modest aspirations of the mercantile bourgeoisie, associating them with the birth of a 
feeling for the direct rendering of atmosphere that had eventually triumphed in the art 
of their own day. The Carters' taste, which would have been sympathetic to Bode and 
the collectors of his generation, has broadened to include at least one category whose 
revaluation has been more recent, Italianate landscapes. 


I.J. H. Huizinga, Dutch Civilization ni the Seventeenth Century and Other Essays, trans. Arnold J. 
Pomerans, London and Glasgow, 1968, p. 79. 


The earliesr landscape in the collection is a winter scene by Avercamp (cat. no. i), 
one of the artist's most delightful. Its droll anecdotes and extensive view recall Pieter 
Bruegel; and its atmosphere anticipates the development of more ostensibly realistic 
landscapes by Avercamp's younger contemporaries in Haarlem, Esaias van de Velde, 
van Goyen, and Ruysdael. Esaias van de Velde's little painting of about a decade later 
(cat. no. Z5) beautifully exemplifies this development. The vantage point is lowered 
and the view is divided, as though by accident, between a cottage on one side and the 
frozen canal on the other. The painter's touch is now soft and versatile, capable of 
evoking with marvelous economy the textures of earth, bark, ice, and clouds. The air 
has thickened, giving the vivid sense of actual conditions outdoors that is the great 
contribution of Esaias and his Haarlem colleagues in these years of new possibilities 
for landscape painting. The other winter scene in the collection, by Aert van der Neer 
(cat. no. 17), has no trace of the quaint flavor of Avercamp or the modesty of Esaias 
van de Velde. Our attention is drawn first to the pyrotechnics of the clouds, shot 
through with color by the slanting sun, and then to the deep landscape in which the 
human beings are skillfully integrated. By the middle of the seventeenth century the 
repertory of effects available to the landscape painter had grown further, and taste had 
again moved from the relatively austere to the elaborate. This shift in the style of winter 
landscapes typifies changes in the other genres as well, as the Carter paintings demon- 
strate clearly. 

Nowhere are the changes more dramatic than in seascape. Jan Porcellis's remark- 
able picture (cat. no. 18), as gray as a Whistler, exemplifies a general movement in the 
1 6 20s and 1630s toward the exploitation of atmospheric effects and the suppression of 
much else. Prominent in it are the big shifting cloud formations that made such an 
impression on Porcellis's contemporaries and helped make possible the development 
of the majestic skies in such pictures as the Carters' superb van de Cappelle (cat. no. 7). 
Like van der Neer, van de Cappelle regularly used much of his picture surface for an 
ever-changing spectacle of clouds — now ominous, now benign — which plays the ma- 
jor part in setting the tone of the picture. Here the treatment of the sky is unusually 
ambitious and the nuances of tone and atmosphere unusually fine. This picture is 
easiest to appreciate when one compares it to a later seascape in the collection, the 
Willem van de Velde (cat. no. 27), which is so much more vivid and explicit. No less a 
virtuoso painter than van de Cappelle, van de Velde had different interests, especially a 
sailor's precision in details of ship construction, rigging, and maneuvering. It is a 
surprise to turn from van de Velde's finely painted showpiece to his little beachscape 
(cat. no. 26), so modest and casual in effect, which directs attention to the comings and 
goings of tenders while the presence of the fleetof great vessels in the distant anchorage 
is only hinted at by masts and yards peeping over the jetty. In this informal mode van de 
Velde is free to use his softest, most suggestive brushwork and to capture the brightness 


of light on the beach. Willem's brother Adriaen, normally a painter of landscapes with 
animals, also painted a few beach views that resemble his brother's in technique but are 
otherwise very original. Willem's sunny picture contrasts sharply with the curiously 
proto-Romantic beachscape by Adriaen in the Carter collection (cat. no. 24), which 
has an elegiac quality that derives from its stillness and the effect of declining light. 

There are three city views, the earliest a startling picture by an artist who evidently 
never painted another like it, Adam Pynacker (cat. no. 20). Since it gives very little 
topographical information, we do not yet know for certain where the scene was set, if 
indeed it is not imaginary. But its composition makes it as vivid, as nearly a tranche de 
vie, as any cityscape we know. Just the opposite is Gerrit Berckheyde's extensive view 
down the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal in Amsterdam (cat. no. 2): its fidelity to the scene 
can be measured by comparing Berckheyde's other versions, which show the canal at 
different stages of its busy history of construction and reconstruction. Jan van der 
Heyden painted a number of other views of the Herengracht, but when they are 
compared with the great Carter painting (cat. no. 13) they reveal the poetic license he 
took with the city, for buildings have been moved freely from one location to another. 
This does not diminish the impression of utter truth they give, but forces the realization 
that truth for the Dutch artist is often of a somewhat different order than mere faith- 
fulness to the appearances of the real world. 

The Carters' painting of Dordrecht and the Merwede by Jan van Goyen (cat. no. 
11) embodies the sensibility fundamental to most Dutch landscape in the first half of 
the century: a preference for domestic subjects, an eye for fine gradations of tone, and a 
vigorous application of paint. No longer is the weather merely a given of the season, 
but now It shifts subtly from picture to picture, as it had in seascapes by Porcellis; it is a 
well-tuned instrument for the artist to play in many keys. Van Goyen's broad pano- 
rama, one of his most successful works, shows the profile of Dordrecht, which every- 
one in the artist's time would easily have recognized. In van Goyen's frequent paintings 
of the subject it underwent many changes, however, like the Herengracht in the hands 
of van der Heyden, while retaining its general shape and its unmistakable place by the 
broad river. Here it is part of an ambitious, lofty- view that is animated by commercial 
traffic and by the great fleecy clouds that float above everything. 

Salomon van Ruysdael, van Goyen's contemporary and co-creator of the tonal ars 
nova of the 1620s and 1630s, is represented by one of his loveliest paintings (cat. no. 
22). Like many other pictures in the collection, it represents the subject most character- 
istic of the artist, a river with a ferry laden with animals and people. His cheerful vision 
of benevolent nature contrasts sharply with that of his nephew Jacob, who can claim to 
be the greatest Dutch landscape painter. Jacob van Ruisdael's Vieiv of Grainfields with 
a Distant Town (cat. no. 21) has a power and complexity' that induces very- different 
feelings from those of the paintings of the earlier generation. The shifting patterns of 


light and shade cast by the clouds are used so dramatically to emphasize the field ot ripe 
grain and another already harvested that there is a suggestion, common in RuisdaePs 
pictures, of eternal truths: the fruits of human industry and the bounty of nature. 
Another landscape specialist who manipulated the drama of light in a way that lends 
gravity to his compositions is the panorama painter Philips Koninck, whose sensibility 
derives in part from the romanticized landscapes of Rembrandt. The little panel in the 
Carter collection (cat. no. 1 6) has a brooding intensity and grandeur of conception that 
belies its small size. Its techniques, if not its heavy mood, are echoed in one of the 
interesting rarities in the collection, the panorama by Anthonie van Borssom (cat. no. 
3), in which the sharp outlines and clarity of the view account for a slightly naive 

In 1973, having already bought a fine small panel by Hobbema, the Carters had 
the unusual opportunity of acquiring the companion piece from which it had been 
separated a decade earlier (cat. nos. 14a, b). The two were meant by Hobbema to hang 
near one another, for the compositions are complementary in many subtle ways. 
Despite their diminutive size they are remarkably rich and elaborate landscapes, full of 
the variety and vibrant life that made Hobbema such a hero to Constable and the 
Barbizon painters. 

Native scenery makes up most of the landscape subjects, but not all. There are two 
pictures by Dutchmen who went to Italy, were seduced by the Campagna and its 
painters, and returned home to paint for their countrymen visions of the ageless 
harmony of man and nature under the warm Italian sun. The principal exponent of this 
idyll was Jan Both, whose large landscape in the Carter collection is among his finest 
(cat. no. 5). Just as van Goyen rearranges the Dordrecht skyline and van der Heyden 
moves houses in Amsterdam, Both feels free to put a well-known bridge and tomb 
where he needs them for pictorial reasons, in the midst of mountainous country, where 
they are admired by travelers and sketched by an artist. Both's warm, tinted light, 
almost an emblem of Italy in the work of northern painters, made a great impression 
on Dutch artists after the painter returned to Utrecht in 1641. The infiuence is felt in 
the work of Aelbert Cuyp, who never saw Italy but became one of the most sym- 
pathetic painters of Italianate scenery. His Flight into Egypt (cat. no. 10) is saturated 
with warm sun that becomes a sign of God's benevolence toward the fugitives. In this 
instance the Carters did not hesitate to have a religious subject, so unobtrusively is the 
Holy Family included among the peasants who inhabit the timeless landscape. 

A few painters went farther afield than Italy and brought more exotic scenery 
home to the Netherlands. None traveled farther than Frans Post, who spent eight years 
in Brazil and then thirty years at home painting scenes of the New World (cat. no. 19). 
From the first glance there is no doubt these are Dutch paintings, despite the palms, 
jungles, and plantations, for they are composed and painted in a style derived from 

XX 1 

Haarlem masters. Yet the best pictures by Post, like the wonderfully crisp and lu- 
minous Carter panel, have a surprising simplicity, and directness that embody some of 
the wonder felt by Europeans at the strangeness of the new land. 

Landscapes were painted in every country, but only in the Netherlands did artists 
represent the interiors of their churches and create an independent genre out of the 
subject. We are seldom certain what the artists and buyers saw in these pictures beyond 
the beauty and the pleasurable deception (to use Hoogstraeten's idea) of the illusions 
of space and mass they conjure up. In the case of Pieter Saenredam, the most important 
architectural painter of the first half of the century, there are sometimes topical 
allusions, often a good deal of piety or of pride in the monument, and always a fine 
sensitivity to light, colors, and textures. The little panel in the Carter collection, which 
shows the merest corner of a church empty of human presence, is entirely a document 
of the building and its effect on the spectator. The view is carefully manipulated to give 
only a meaningful hint of the vast Gothic choir beyond the low Romanesque aisle. The 
ambitious Emanuel de Witte, the greatest church painter of the second half of the 
century, was little affected by Saenredam's modesty, although he learned much from 
his predecessor. His youthful masterpiece, newly rediscovered (cat. no. 28), places the 
spectator unexpectedly close to the ambulatory columns of the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft 
so that he must infer a good deal about the structure of the building, although he is 
given a glimpse a la Saenredam of the loft\' nave beyond. The onlookers show their 
respect not for the sanctity of the building — the once-Catholic church had long since 
been converted to a Calvinist meeting-place — but for a monument to the founder of 
the state, William of Orange. The painted curtain, imitating the real curtains hung in 
front of paintings, lends a note of solemnity as it contributes to a tour de force of 
illusion. De Witte's later view of the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam is simpler (cat. no. 29), 
recalling Saenredam in its spaciousness, although it is more characteristic of de Witte 
in the lively play of clear light falling on the whitewashed walls and columns and in the 
marvelous transcription of the blurred view through the high window. 

The Carters' still lifes include fine examples by two of the leading painters of 
modest, so-called "monochrome" compositions, Heda and Claesz. Similar in their 
sturdy construction and geometric clarity, both were painted for a sober, refined taste 
whose only parallel is to be found in Spain. The objects in Heda's picture (cat. no. 12) 
were perfectly common, yet a few carried messages for the contemporary' viewer: the 
pipe and the watch, for example, are emblems of transitory human life. Claesz. 's 
simple meal could be a lesson in temperance, as sparing of pleasures as the painter's 
technique is sparing of color. Another still life is an even more extreme exercise in 
restraint, the little picture of a bowl oi (raises de bois by the enigmatic Zeeland painter 
Adriaen Coorte (cat. no. 9), who seems to have been as far removed from artistic 
fashion as his still lifes are from the world around. Coorte's refinement is evident in the 


tender yet firm depiction of every object and in the careful calculation of intervals 
between them. 

The three flower pieces are perhaps the most impressive works in the collection. 
Ambrosius Bosschaert's painting on copper (cat. no. 4), which has the brilliant 
luminosity of an enamel plaque, rivals anything produced by the entire generation of 
pioneer flower painters. For all its startling presence, it is a bouquet that never was. 
Like the majority of Dutch flower paintings, it was composed from mdividual studies 
of live specimens that bloom at different times during the season and thus reflects an 
ideal, not reality. And like Heda's sober still life, it spoke to the seventeenth century not 
only of beauty but also of transience; so, too, the vase of flowers by Dirck de Bray (cat. 
no. 6), one of the rarities of the collection. De Bray is known chiefly as a great woodcut 
artist, but he also painted some still lifes of which this is surely his masterpiece. 
Distinctive in color, remarkable for its dramatic and mysterious lighting, eloquent in 
the drooping attitudes of the heavy blooms, it stands apart from most Dutch flower 
pieces and anticipates the moods of the nineteenth centur\\ The great tradition of 
seventeehth-century floral painting may be said to culminate in Jan van Huysum, who 
lived well into the next century and brought to a climax the tendency toward opulent 
disorder. In his spectacular panel in the Carter collection (cat. no. 15) it is evident that 
van Huysum was just as conscientious as Bosschaert a century earlier in rendering 
flowers truthfully. But van Huysum's filmy glazes suggest subtleties impossible for 
Bosschaert to record. The sweeping curves of his composition belong to the vocabulary 
of the Rococo, and the restlessness of his forms conveys his perception of nature's own 
ceaseless change. 



AMBROSIUS BOSSCHAERT Bouquet of Flowers oti a Ledge 11x9 in. (catalogue 4) 

DIRCK DE BRAY Flowers in a Glass Vase 1671 19x14^8111. (catalogue6) 

JAN VAN HUYSUM Bouquet of Floivers in an Vm 1724 3iV2X23V8in. (catalogue 15) 

PIETER CLAESZ. Still Life with Herring, Wine, and Bread 1 7 V2 x 23 V4 in. (catalogue 8 ) 

wiLLEM CLAESZ. HEDA Still Life with Tobjcco, W me, a}ui a Pocket Watch 1637 i6V2xziV2in. (catalogue li) 

ADRiAEN COORTE Wild Strawberries in a Wan Li Bowl 
i~04 iiVs X S'^/s in. (catalogue 9) 

HENDRiCK AVERCAMP Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal 14 V2 x 25 V4 in. (catalogue i ) 

ESAIS VAN UE vtLUH Winter Landscape 1629 8V4xi3V8in. (catalogue 2.5) 



AERT VAN DER NEER Frozen River With u Footbridge i^xigVain. (catalogue 17) 

JAN PORCELLis Vessels in a Moderate Breeze 16V4 x 2.4V4 in. (catalogue 18; 


JAN VAN GOYEN View of Dordrecht 1645 25V2X37V2in. (catalogue 1 1) 

SALOMON VAN RUYSDAEL River Landscape with a Ferry' 1650 2oV2X32V8in. (catalogue 22) 

FRANS POST Brazilian Landscape with a Worker's House 165? i8V4X24V4in. (catalogue 19) 

ANTHONIE VAN BORSSOM Extensive Landscape near Rheneft with the Huls ter Leede zo 'Ax 26 in. (catalogue 3) 

PHILIPS KONINCK Panoramic Landscape with a Village 1 1 Vz x 1 4 V4 in. (catalogue 1 6) 

JACOB VAN RUISDAEL Vietv of Grdinfields tnth a Distant Town 20V4 x 25 V2 in. (catalogue 21) 

MEYNDERT HOBBEMA Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town 
9V8 X iiVs in. (catalogue 14a) 

MEYNDERT HOBBEMA Landscape With Footbridge 9^/4x12^8111. (catalogue 14b) 

JAN BOTH Landscape with a Draftsman 4 1 Vs x 46 V2 in. (catalogue 5 ) 

AELBERTCUYP The Flight luto Egypt 26^4x35^/410. (catalogue 10) 

JAN VAN DE CAPPELLE Ships in a Calm 3o'/2 x 42' 4 in. (catalogue 7) 

WILLEM VAN DE VELDE THE YOUNGER A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm 1671 

13 V4 X 17^8 in. (catalogue 27) 

wiLLEM VAN DE VELDE THE YOUNGER Beach with a Weyshttit Pulled Up On Shore 12^/8x17 in. (catalogue z6) 

ADRIAEN VAN DE VELDE The Beach at Schei'eningen 1670 15 V2 x 19^/4 in. (catalogue 2.4) 

GERRiT BERCKHEYDE The Nteuwezijds Voorburgival with the Flower Market in Amsterdam 

14 '/2 X 1 8^/4 in. (catalogue 2) 







' -^^^^1 


i^^ ^'^'^KS^H^H 

JAN VAN DER HEVDEN A View of the Herengracht, Amsterdam 13 Va x 15^8 in. (catalogue 13) 

ADAM PYN ACKER Vieiv of a Harborin a Ctty (Schiedamf) 21^/4 x 17 Vs in. ^catalogue io) 

PIETER JANSZ. SAENREDAM Interior of the hUrukerk, Utrecht 
165 1 19V8 X 14V8 in. (catalogue 23) 

EMANUEL DE WITTE Interior of the Ntettwe Kerk in Delft ivith the Tomb of X^illufn the Silent 
32^/8 X Z5V8 in. (catalogue 28) 

EMANUEL DE WITTE Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 1 8 Vs x 2.2 Vs in. (catalogue 29) 

WILLEM KALF Still Lift' With J Porcelain Vase, Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 21 k x 17V2 in. 
(catalogue 31) 

CLARA PEETERS Still Life ti'tth Cheeses, Artichoke, and Chernes iSVs x i3'/8 in. (catalogue 32) 

JAN VAN GOYEN View of Arnhem 1646 ly^xzi'tin. (catalogue 30) 

JACOB VAN RUiSDAEL The Great Oak 1652 34x4210. (catalogue 33) 

SALOMON VAN RUYSDAEL Vieiv of the River Lek and Vianen 1668 22V2X357sin. 
(catalogue 34) 

SIMON DE VLiEGER View of l1 Bt'ach 1646 35x53111. (catalogue 35) 



Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting 

Ingvar Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting m the Seventeenth 
Century, London and New York, 1956. 

Blankert, Italianiserende landschapscliildcrs 

Albert Blankert, Nederlandse ijde eeuwse italianiserende 
landschapschilders, 2nd ed., Soest, 1978. 


C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreihendcs iind kritisches 
Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragenditen hollandischen 
Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, 10 vols., Esslingen a N. and 
Paris, 1907-28; English trans, of vols. 1-8, London, 1908-27. 

Smith, Catalogue Raisonne 

John Smith, A Catalogue Raisonne of the Works of the Most 
Eminent Dutch, Flemish, and French Painters, 9 vols., London, 

Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting 

Wolfgang Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting of the Seven- 
teenth Century, London, 1966. 


Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, Allgemetnes Lexikon der 
bildenden Kiinstler von der Antike bis ziir Gegemvart, 37 vols., 
Leipzig, 1907-50. 

Hendrick Avercamp 


Hendrick Avercamp spent most of his life in the provincial town of Kampen. His family 
moved there in 1586, the year after he was baptized in Amsterdam. He seems to have left Kampen 
only for his training in the Amsterdam studio of Pieter Isaaksz., a Danish history and portrait 
painter. By 16 14 Avercamp had returned to his native town, where he seems to have resided until 
his death in 16^4. Known in his lifetime as "de stomme van Kampen," the artist was a mute. 
Avercamp specialized in outdoor genre scenes, especially winter scenes on the frozen canals of 
Holland. His best-known paintings are characterized by a wealth of incidental detail and by 
brightly colored costumes. Most of Avercamp's landscapes continue the tradition of the Flemish 
followers of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, notably David Vinckboons, Hans Bol, and Jan Brueghel, who 
painted outdoor scenes seen from a bird's eye view and marked by a high horizon and a variety of 
local color. Avercamp also painted more sparsely populated winter scenes with unified composi- 
tions and atmospheric effects that anticipate later developments in Dutch painting, yet no clear 
evolution from our type of landscape to the other is apparent in his work. On the contrary, he seems 
to have painted in both styles simultaneously and to have switched back and forth at will. Dated 
paintings by him are known from 1608, 1609, 1610, 1626, and 1631. 

A prolific and talented draftsman, Avercamp produced highly finished watercolors and lively, 
summary chalk sketches. His drawings in all media provided a source of ideas for his paintings; they 
were executed as independent sketches, however, rather than as preparatory studies. Avercamp's 
close followers were his nephew Barent Avercamp and Arent Arentsz., called Cabel. 

Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal 

Signed on sled, right: HA domed) 

Oil on wood, 14 Vj x 2.5 V4 in. (36.8 x 65 cm.) 

Collections: Graat Jan Carel Elias van Lynden, The Hague; hy descent to 

Ridder Johan Willem Frederick Huyssen van Kattendiike ( 1844-1903), 

The Hague; by descent to Graat J. M. D. van Lynden, Lisse, hy 1919; hy 

descent to Gravm A. E. van Limhurg Stirum, Lisse; (Ni|stad Antiquairs, 

Lochem); Sidney J. van den Bergh, Wassenaar; |G. Cramer, The Hague, 


Exhibitions: The Hague, Gothisch I'aleis, Cjtulugus van oiide meesters 

te s'Gravenhage ten behouve der watersnoodlijdenden, 1881, no. -o; 

London, Royal Academy, Dutch Art 1400-1900, no. 81, repr.; The 

Hague, Koninklijke Kunstzaal Kleycamp, Oiid-Hollandschen en 

Vlaamsche Meesters, 1919, no. i, repr.; Brussels, Exposition Llnner- 

selle. Cinq siecles d'art, 1935, vol. i, no. 701; Rotterdam, Museum 

Boymans, Kimstschatten uit Nederiandse verzamehngen, 1955, no. 40, 

pi. 44; Laren, Singer Museum, Kimstschatten. Twee Nederiandse col- 

lecties schilderijen, 1959, no. 24, fig. 15; Leyden, Stedeliik Museum 'de 

Lakenhal," lyde eeuwse meesters uit Nederiandse particiilier hezit, 

1965, no. 4, fig. 1 ; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New \'ork, 19^1. 

References: A. Bredius et al., Amsterdam in de zeventiende eeitw, vol. 3, 
1901—4, The Hague, p. 96, repr., p. 98; Becldende Kiinst 17, Amster- 
dam, i9?o, nos. 43, 43a, repr.; Clara J. Wclcker, Hendrick en Barent 
Avercamp. schilders tot Campen, Zwolle, 1933, PP- 87, 205, no. S23, pi. 
X, rev. ed. hy D. B. Hensbroek-van der Poel, Doornspijk, 1979, pp. 87, 
207, no. S2?, p. 214, no. S58.1, pi. X; A. B. de Vries, "Schilderkunst," 
Sprekend Verleden, Amsterdam, 1959, pi. 6; Eduard Plietzsch, Holldn- 
dische iind fliimische Maler des XVII. jabrhunderts, Leipzig, i960, p. 
86, fig. 146; A. B. de Vries, "Old Masters in the Collection of Mr. and 
Mrs. Sidney van den Bergh," Apollo 80, 1964, pp. 355-57, pl- I"; A. B. 
de Vries, Verzamelmg Sidney], van den Bergh, Wassenaar, 1968, p. i6, 

The Carter panel is one of Avercamp's more ambitious 
winter scenes. Like others of its type, it presents a dehght- 
ful panorama of fashionable and humble amusements on 
the ice. The freezing over of Dutch canals was less rare in 
Avercamp's time than in our own,' but it was an event 
nevertheless, causing people of all classes to take to the ice 




for pleasure or profit. There was fishing, kolf(the ancestor 
of the game played on grass), sleighing, promenading for 
the older, poorer, or less agile, and above all skating for 
the more energetic. Skaters could shed their capes and 
coats and show their indoor finery, giving color to the 
spectacle. Avercamp's painting, rich in lively incidents 
and amusing details, invites a careful inspection. 

Just to the right of center (fig. i ) the boy with the girl in 
the red pinafore, a provmcial from the north to judge by 
her costume, peer with keen curiosity at the couple in 
front of them, who are decked out in the height of fashion. 
Another sympathetic touch is the child on a sleigh with his 


Winter Scene on j 
Frozen Canal 
(detail;, about 

mother, pointing with delight at the gaily caparisoned 
prancing horse pulling a sleigh with elegant fur-clad pas- 
sengers (fig. 2). But all is not pleasure: behind the provin- 
cial couple a skater has taken a bad fall and bleeds on the 
ice (fig. i).- A hunter directs attention to a gypsy fortune- 
teller and her companion (fig. z), both with babies in 
papooses, who are performing for several well-dressed 
customers including another young woman in northern 
provincial costume.^ To reinforce the traditional associa- 
tions of fortune-telling with the fortunes of love, Aver- 
camp garnishes the episode with a little boy blowing on 
coals, not only a plausible detail in a winter scene but also 
a common symbol of the heat of love.'* 

The man with his back turned and the woman wearing 
a mask on the far right of the Carter painting (fig. 3) have 
been identified as the king and queen of Bohemia on the 
basis of their resemblance to figures in a drawing in the 
Teylers Museum (fig. 4) bearing an inscription by Ploos 
van Amstel that gives the subjects as the "King of Bohemia 
and his wife, drawn from life" and that dates the sheet 
1621.' The exiled king of Bohemia, Frederick V, and his 
family took refuge in Holland in i6io; in 1616 they vis- 
ited Kampen with Amalia van Solms, who had arrived as 
Queen Elizabeth's principal lady-in-waiting and had mar- 
ried the stadholder of the Netherlands, Prince Frederick 


Winter Scene on J 

Frozen Canal 

(detail), about 


Hendrick in 1625. The same group, with the young wom- 
an and the two young boys behind her, also appears in 
another painting by Avercamp (fig. 5). 

Although It has generally been accepted in the past, 
there is good reason to doubt Ploos van Amstel's inscrip- 
tion.'' If it is correct, then the woman with a muff and a 
mask in the drawing and the paintings must be Elizabeth, 
and the man to her left facing inwards, the Elector Pala- 
tine. Even taking into account the fact that she wears a 
mask, the queen does not at all resemble her portrait in 
such certain representations of the royal couple as Adriaen 
van de Venne's grisaille of 1628 depicting the pair depart- 
ing for the hunt.' Her face varies slightly in all the repre- 
sentations by Avercamp but is always more full and round 
than that of the queen in van de Venne's painting. In the 
related skating scene (fig. 5) the artist eliminated the pro- 
file view of the "king" and substituted a man seen from 
behind, a change that is perfectly in keeping with Aver- 
camp's capricious use of his sketches but an unlikely treat- 
ment for a famous sovereign. 


\ii' inter Scene on a 
Frozen Canal 
(detail I, ahout 

It has been further suggested that the young woman to 
the right of the royal couple in the drawing (fig. 4) and 111 
the other painting (fig. 5) is Amalia van Solms, shown as 
the queen's lady-in-waiting, and that in our panel she 
appears as the princess of Orange and skates with the man 
in the orange suit.^ Amalia, however, has quite a different 
profile in a painting by Rembrandt that was recently iden- 
tified as her portrait:'* a pronounced forehead, long broad 
nose with a slight bump, and full chin, all of which con- 
trast sharply with the features of Avercamp's woman, 
whose forehead and nose make a long continuous curve 
and whose chin recedes. The decade between the drawing 
and Rembrandt's portrait of 1632 cannot account for 
these differences of structure. In short, there is ample rea- 


FIGURE 4. Hendrick Avercamp, The Winter King and His Family on 
the Ice, about i6zo. Ink and watercolor on paper, 7V2 .x 9V2 in. (18.9 x 
2.4.1 cm.). Haarlem, Teylers Museum. 

son to doubt that any of the royal personages is repre- 
sented in any of Avercamp's pictures. It seems more likely 
that these people are patricians in fashionable dress, fa- 
miliar t\pes but individually no less anonymous than their 
middle-class and peasant counterparts. 

The identification of the royal couple in the Caner paint- 
ing has, in turn, given rise to the idea that it commemorates 
their visit to Kampen in 162.6 and therefore dates from 
that time or later. '° Even if the painting did show the king 
and queen of Bohemia, however, there would be little to 
identify it with a specific event — no recognizable place, 
and none of the usual acknowledgments of a royal visit. 
Dated pictures — and, to a lesser degree, costume — are 
more reliable evidence for dating the painting. 

The sharply outlined and solidly painted figures, and 
the absence of landscape elements in the near foreground, 
suggest that the picture was executed about 1620." The 
paucity of dated paintings by Avercamp and his erratic 
development make his chronologv- difficult to chart. Pre- 
cocious early works '- were followed for ten years by more 
archaic compositions, and progressive tonal landscapes 
were contemporaneous with multi-colored, heavily popu- 
lated festivals on the ice.'^ The Carter painting is similar 
to a landscape dated i620,''* in which several sharply 
defined figures are spread across an open foreground, and 
smaller figures skate into the distance where a faint, slighdy 
raised horizon line is visible. The organization of the Car- 
ter painting, employing a frieze of different tvpes disposed 
across the foreground, is unusual in .Avercamp's work. 
The figures recede into the distance in diagonal patterns in 
the Carter panel, in contrast to the apparent randomness 
of the landscape dated 1620, but the same method is fol- 
lowed in the other painting with the so-called "Winter 

King" group (fig. 5). All three are probably contemporary 
in date. The costumes, to judge from srvles worn in the 
great cities of western Holland, date from about 1615 — 
20; in provincial Kampen, however, it is to be expected 
that fashions changed more slowly than in the larger cities. 

Many of the figures in the Carter painting recur in other 
works by Avercamp, sometimes in identical positions. The 
hunter, for example, again singles out an important inci- 
dent in the landscape in The Hague :fig. 5) — the beggar 
looking at the elegant passengers in the fancy sleighs; and 
the hunter also appears in a drawing in the Rijksprenten- 
kabinet, facing left and pointing into open space.'' Simi- 
larly, the dandy in orangeinourpaintingis the subject of a 
fluent pen sketch in Windsor Castle; in the sketch he skates 
alone with his left arm akimbo and his weight on his right 
foot.'*" Avercamp's drawings, whether rough sketches in 
chalk or pen, or finished watercolors, were evidently not 
made in the process of preparing paintings. Rather, he 
seems to have built an enormous repertoire of studies and 
drawings from which motifs could be used in various con- 
texts in his paintings. 

Avercamp's oil technique, clearly visible in the ver\- well 
preserved Carter panel, resembles that of his watercolors. 
In both media he outlines the figures with a sharp, un- 
broken line, and then fills in the color. He manages to 
carrv' some of the looseness and spontaneity of the water- 
color technique into oil painting, yet at the same time he 
exploits the body and depth of oil paints to record with 
great precision the luster of materials and even.' detail of 
costume. This fusion of the vitality of one medium with 
the capacin.- for illusion of another lends .Avercamp's col- 
orful pageants, such as the Carter painting, their special 
combination of richness and liveliness. 

WW'^-'-.'^'.k ';^ 

FIGURE ^. Hendrick 
.Avercamp, Winter Scene Near 
Utrecht (f), about i6io. Oil on 
canvas, 18' : x 35 in. (4- x 89 
cm.;. The Hague, private 
collection. Photograph courtesy 
of the Mauntshuis, The Hague. 

I. From the end ot the hfteenth centiin. to thenud-nineteenthcentun 
Europe experienced unusually cold winters (Evert van Straaten, KoiiJ 
tot op het hot. The Hague, 19 — . PP- 10-13). The Thames and the canals 
of Venice froze over during this time (Washington, D.C., National Gal- 
lery of Art, Seventeenth Century Dutch Drawings from American Col- 
lections. e\h. cat., I9~7, pp. 17—18). Today the canals in Holland freeze 
only once every few years; m the seventeenth century the\' were frozen 
for part of each winter. 

1. A beggar in the center of a contemporary winter scene (hg. 5 i also 
injects a serious note into a happy scene. 

3. Fortune-telling gypsies appear also near the tents in the Winter 
Scene Near Utrecht (f) (fig. s), and in a drawing in Hamburg of a 
summer scene (Welcker, Afercjnip, no. si 4, repr. pi. 1 1; Ti 18, pi. 38). 
On the basis of sty le the drawing seems to be a late work, executed after 
the Carter pamting. Before -Avercamp, Jacques de Gheyn had made 
drawings with gypsy fortune-tellers (J. Richard Judson, The Drju'ings 
of Jacob de Ghe^'n II, New ^ork, 1973, pi. 104), and the Master of the 
Winter Landscapes had included gypsies in his paintings. See Edith 
Greindl, "Contribution a la connaissance du style de Gysbrecht Leyten," 
Pantheon 31, 1973, pp. 154—63 (with earlier literature), and M. L. 
Wurfbain (Leyden, Stedeliik Museum "de Lakenhal,' GeschiUert tot 
Leyden anno i6ib, exh. cat., 1976-77. pp. 90, 91, 96), who identifies 
this artist as Carel Liefrinck the Younger. The motif was adopted by 
other Dutch contemporaries of .Avercamp such as Dirck Hals and Jacob 

4. Braunschweig, Herzog .^nton Ulrich-Museum, Die Sprache der 
Bilder, exh. cat., 1978, nos. 15, 31, 33; Amsterdam, Ri|ksmuseum, Tot 
lering en rermaak, exh. cat., 1976, no. 28. The dead bird hanging from 
the hunter's belt may be yet another instance of the well-known pun of 
vogelen (fowling, copulatingj often embodied by dead fowl and hunters 
in seventeenth-century Dutch erotic genre (see E. de Jongh, "Erotica in 
vogelperspectief," .Si?n;o/i(S 3, 1968— 69, pp. 11— "4), but the same figure 
appears repeatedly in Avercamp's paintings and drawings without any 
apparent erotic allusions. 

5. Welcker, Avercamp. no. T 46, p. 145; J. Q. van Regteren Altena in 
Cent dessms du Musee Teyler, Haarlem, exh. cat.. Pans, Musee du 
Louvre, 19^2, no. 63. 

6. .\. B. de Vries (in Verzameling Sidney van den Bergh, no. 16) 
doubted the identification of the figures as the royal family and believes 
that they are simply wealthy persons who contrast with the more simple 
npes around them. Leo van Puvvelde in Tin- Dutch Drauingf in the 

Collection of His Ma/esly the King at Windsor Castle, London, 1944, 
no. 18) tentatively identities Elizabeth and the Elector Palatine in the 
Windsor drawing Gentlefolk in a Horse-Draun Sleigh. 
-. .Amsterdam, Ri|ksmuseum, inv. no. .A958. 

8. Van Regteren Altena, Cent Dessms, no. 63. 

9. Paris, Musee Jacquemart-Andre (A. Bredius, The Paintings of 
Rembrandt, 3rd. rev.ed. by H.Gerson, London, 1969, no. 99!. Cleaning 
in 1965 revealed that it is a pendant to Gerard van Honthorst's portrait 
of Frederick Hendnck, dated 1611 (H. Gerson, Rembrandt Paintings, 
New York, 1968, no. iii;. 

10. Welcker, Avercamp, pp. 8", 89; van Regteren Altena, Cent Des- 
sms, no. 63. Van Regteren .Altena dates the Teyler drawing to 162.1, 
seeing the St. Jacobskerk in The Hague in the background, while Welcker 
dates all the supposed representations of the Winter King and Queen to 

1 1 . The exhibition catalogue Schilderijen van oude meesters. The 
Hague, 1881, no. 70, records a date of 1622 on the Carter panel. There 
are no other subsequent references to this date. If it was ever on the 
picture. It has since disappeared. 

12. Skalmg near a Town, 1609, location unknown (Stechow, Dutch 
Landscape Painting, fig. 166). 

13. A more progressive landscape is the Canal with Skaters outside 
the City Walls (Welcker, Avercamp, no. S28,pl. 9), datable according to 
Stechow to the late rv\enties or early thirties {Dutch Landscape Pamting, 
p. 86). The Carter painting and the privately owned ice scene (fig. 5) 
illustrate the colorful type. 

14. Oil on wood, 29.5 X 44.5 cm., location unknown iStechow, Dutch 
Landscape Painting, fig. 164J. 

I 5. Welcker, Aiercamp, no. T18. The hunter is also the subject of a 
summary chalk sketch in which he leans on the tip of his rifie (T13). 

16. See Welcker, Arfrcijmp, no. 114^, where the figure is identified as 
Jacob Roelofsz. Steenburgh; and Puyvelde, Dutch Drawings, no. 16. 
Other examples of figures in our painting that recur in other works are 
the pair on the right with the man tying the woman's shoes, repeated in 
drawings in Dresden and Amsterdam and in paintings m Washington, 
D.C., Utrecht, and Voorburg, the last with a different woman (Welcker, 
Avercamp, nos. T103, T23, S28, S33; the NX ashington painting repro- 
duced but not catalogued); and the couple with the girl in the red pina- 
fore skating behind the dapper young man m orange, repeated in the 
paintings in Utrecht and Voorburg (Welcker, Avercamp, nos. S28, S33) 
as well as the W inter Scene \ear Vtrccht (f) (fig. s V 

Gerrit Berckheyde 


Gerrit Berckheyde was born in Haarlem in 1638. He probably received his training from 
his older brother Job (1630—93), who painted church interiors, domestic interiors with figures, 
Italianate landscapes, and some townscapes. The two brothers traveled to Germany, where they 
visited Cologne, Bonn, and xMannheim, and they worked for a short time in the court of the Elector 
Palatine in Heidelberg. By 1660 they had returned to Haarlem, where Gerrit joined the guild in that 
year. He remained in his native cit\- until his death in 1698. Aside from a handful of landscapes and 
church interiors, Gerrit Berckheyde painted exclusively town views. His style is more refined from 
the 1 670s on, when his colors become pale and cool and his figures tall and elegant. His scenes of 
Holland are topographically accurate, but his paintings of Cologne, which are composed more 
freelv, were probably based upon sketches made on the spot in Germany and executed later in 
Haarlem. Ver>' few of Berckheyde's drawings have survived; of these, most are preparatory studies 
for paintings. There are dated works by Berckheyde from 1668 until 1 697, the year before he died. 

The Nieinvezi/ds Voorburgival icith 
the Flower Market in Amsterdam 

Signed on canal bulkhead, lower right: Gerrit Berck Heyde 
Oil on canvas, 14 V2 x 18^/4 in. (36.- x 4-.- cm.) 

Collections: H. Becker, Dortmund; Mrs. E. F. Dunn ;her sale, London, 
Sotheby, April 6, 1949, no. -1; [Minken, London]; [P. de Boer, Am- 
sterdam, 1952-59I; J. van Duyvendijk, Scheveningen; [Thos. .'\gneu 
and Sons, London]; JNe\\house Galleries, New York, 1973]; Edward 
VC. Carter, Los Angeles, 197^—76; ] Robert Noortman, London, 1976). 
Exhibitioni: Utrecht, Centraal Museum, XeJerhmhe jrchitectiiur- 
schilders, 1953, no. 10, pi. 48; Dortmund, Schloss Cappenberg, Meister- 
werke alter kunst. 1954, no. 54, repr.; New York, Metropolitan .Mu- 
seum of Art, The Grand Gallery at the Metropolitan Museum, 1 9-4— - 5 , 
no. 115, repr. 

References: J. C. Ebbmge-W'ubben, The Thyssen-Bornemiszti Collec- 
tion, Castagnola, 1969, p. 35, no. 30; W'eltkunst, October 15, 19-4, p. 
162.3, repr. 

TTie view is northward from the Weessluis up the Nieuwe- 
zijds Voorburgwal. On the left is the Flower Market, one 
of several markets that occupied the broad quay on the 
west bank, and looming in the background is the newly 
built Town Hall. The canal was filled and the bridges 
demolished in 1883—84 to form a wide street, and today, 
although some seventeenth-century buildings remain, the 
view is very different. 

Berckhevde's scene contrasts the charm of an older Am- 

sterdam neighborhood — buildings of varied size and 
shape, modest scale, and lively commerce on the streets — 
with the awesome presence of the grandest structure in the 
Netherlands. Designed by Jacob van Campen, begun in 
1648, constructed on more than 13,000 piles, and com- 
pleted about 1665, the Town Hall was intended as a sym- 
bol of Amsterdam's power and prosperity. The building is 
seen from the side and rear, a relatively unusual viewpoint 
for it in paintings, so that the most prominent feature is 

FIGURE I. Gerrit Berckheyde. Ire h'w: H.iil 1"/ ft i '.;";, A'u<!t-r- 
Jam. i6^?. Oil on wood, le'/s x 24^/4 in. {43 x 63 cm.). .Amsterdam, 
Ri|ksmuseum (on loan to .•\msterdams Historisch Museum). 


C A T A L O (j LI t N Li M B t K 1 

the huge bronze figure of Atlas supporting the globe of the 
heavens over the west pediment. (The pediment sculptures, 
although they cannot be seen here, represent an allegory 
of Amsterdam and the tribute brought her by the four 
continents.)' Berckheyde also painted more familiar views 
from the Dam Square that show the facade of the Town 
Hall as well as the neighboring public monuments, the 
Nieuwe Kerk and the Waag (fig. i ). 

The Carter painting is one of several variants of a com- 
position best known in a picture now in the Amsterdams 
Historisch Museum (fig. z).- The paintings all differ slightly 
in their vantage points and in the activities of the people, 
differences to be e.xpected of an artist repeating himself. 
They also vary somewhat in the buildings shown. If the 
pictures were by Berckheyde's contemporary van der Hey- 
den, we might expect these changes to be a matter of 
artistic license; but since Berckheyde was generally a much 

111,1 ki 2. Ciirnt Berckheyde, T/u' Nii'iiuTZiiih \'iinr/>nrgn\il ivtth 
the Hotver Market in Amsterjjin, about 1 66S--0. Oil on cinvas, i ^^4 
X 2,4 in. (45 X 61 cm.). Amsterdam, Amsterdams Historisch Museum. 

tlcURt ;. Jan AbranibZ. lx'i.r>tratLii or Abrab.-ini IkcrMiju;:. !■ - -\ .-:■.,- .,;..- '■ ■'■:;,■-;. 
Chalk and gray wash on paper, loVs x 1 5V4 in. (16.5 x 40 cm.;. Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief. 

FIGURE 4. Gerrit Berckheyde, The Nieuwe- 
zt/Js Voorbiirgwal with the Flower Market in 
Aiiisterdjni. 1686. Oil on canvas, 21 x 25 in. 
15 ?.5 X 65.5 cm.). Lugano, Thyssen-Bomemisza 


more scrupulous recorder of appearances, a closer look at 
the changes may be helpful in suggesting the sequence m 
which the pictures were pamted. 

A drawmg of about 1665 shows the site somewhat be- 
fore Berckheyde began to pamt his views of it (Hg. 3).^ 
Scaffolding still surrounded the cupola when construction 
of the Town Hall was nearing an end, and the Atlas was 
not yet in place. In Berckheyde's painting in Amsterdam 
(fig. 2) and in the variant in Leningrad'^ the trees are con- 
siderably taller, and a pair of modern house facades have 
replaced two older ones on the east bank (the tenth and 
eleventh from the left). In the Carter painting the trees are 
a little higher still, and a tiny house visible in the drawing 
and earlier painting (eighth from the right in the drawing) 
has been replaced by a tall, neck-gabled building that 
blocks the light that had streamed between the buildings 
in the earlier picture. Another version, now lost,^ shows 
the site exactly as it is given in the Carter painting. Finally, 
the painting dated 1686 in Lugano (fig. 4) shows that 
there have been more changes, chiefly the pair of neck- 
gabled facades, second and third from the right in the 
Lugano picture,"' that have replaced two others — one of 
which had evidently been built, as we have |ust noticed, 
shonly before the Carter painting. Ail this suggests that if 
the Amsterdam and Leningrad pictures are datable at the 
end of the 1660s or the beginning of the 1670s, the Carter 
version and the lost version of the same composition should 
be placed a few years later.' 

Berckheyde's views of this site thus reflect twenty years 
of construction and facelifting, as the Nieuwezijds Voor- 

burgwal was changing from a picturesque jumble of late 
medieval and modern buildings toward a stateliness like 
that of the nearby Herengracht and the other new semi- 
circular canals. He achieves quite different effects in the 
five versions, which differ in size and in the play of light. 
The Amsterdam picture has crisp patterns of light and 
dark, the shaded facades receive reflected light from the 
quay, and the more prominent action in the foreground is 
accentuated by the device of blocking with a tree the dis- 
tant view up the canal. The Carter painting is less force- 
fully lighted, has a narrower range of values and smaller 
figures, and it exploits the view into the distance, where 
the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal continues northward and 
turns to reveal more splendid houses on its west bank. In 
the Lugano composition Berckheyde includes the grove of 
trees in the Flower XLirket that he had omitted from the 
earlier versions (the principal liberty he had taken with the 
scene), shows many more hgures and potted plants, and 
uses afternoon sun to light the facades brilliantly and ac- 
centuate their height by the reflections cast in the water. 

The Carter painting, like the other versions, shows 
Berckheyde's characteristically soft, rather broad handling 
of paint. His tendency to generalize forms for pictorial 
effect can easily be verified by comparing the elaborate 
detail of the stone and metalwork in the facades recorded 
in the Beerstraten drawing (fig. 3) with the paintings, in 
which these details are suppressed and the buildings are 
given many more smooth surfaces and flat planes to reflect 
the light. 

I. For the histor>- of the building and its allegorical program, see 
Kathenne Fremantle, The Bjroque Toun-Halt 0/ Amsterdam, Utrecht, 


i. .\ sensitive appreciation of this painting by Richard J. \Xatten- 
maker is given in the exhibition catalogue The Dutch C.ityscjpe in the 
1 7th Centiin.' jnd its Sources, Amsterdam. Amsterdams Historisch Mu- 
seum, and Toronto. Art Gallerv of Ontario, 197?, pp. 18-19; •'SH also 
Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 117. 

3. Reproduced and discussed m Boudewiin Bakker, Amsterdam gete- 
kend. The Hague, 1978, p. 5^. 

4. Leningrad, Hermitage (St. Petersburg, Hermitage, Catalogue de la 
galerie des tableaux, \'o\. 1, igoi.p. 17, no. iii4,pl. 114). 

5. Exhibited .Amsterdam, F. .\luller and Co., Oude Meesters, 1918, 
no. 10, repr,, mistakenly as De Pijpenmarkt en het Stadhiiis te Amster- 

6. That these two neighboring pairs of houses actually stood in this 
location IS demonstrated by later topographical engravings, for example 
one by Petrus Schenk (1661-1-15), 100 Afheeldinge der vooniaamste 
Gehouuen van Amsterdam, .Amsterdam, [n.d.|, pi. 9. 

-. One detail might seem to argue against this sequence: it has been 
pointed out that the .Amsterdam version contains one of the streetlights 
that were part of the scheme of lighting devised by Jan van der Heyden 
and installed in 1669, and thus cannot date earlier than that year (Am- 
sterdam, Kunsthandel P. de Boer, Zomertentoonstelling, 1951. P- 3. no- 
6; Utrecht, Centraal .Museum, Nederlandse architectiinrschilders, exh. 
cat., 1 9 5 3 , p. 5 , no. I o) . The streetlight may give an earliest possible date 
for the .Amsterdam picture, but its absence in the other versions cannot 
provide a latest possible date for them, since the architectural evidence to 
the contrarv- is so strong; it is more satisfactory in this case to attribute 
their elimination to choice on Berckheyde's part. 

I I 

Anthonie van Borssom 


The few documents concerning van Borssom suggest that he resided in Amsterdam 
throughout his Hfe. He was the son of CorneUs van Borssom, a mirror manufacturer originally from 
Emden. There is no record of his birth, but van Borssom was reportedly forty years old when he 
married in Amsterdam in 1670. The subjects of his landscapes indicate that he traveled to the 
regions of Utrecht and Cleves. Chiefly known for his fresh and sensitive landscape drawings in the 
style of Rembrandt's work of the late forties, the artist was a prolific draftsman whose summary 
style suggests that he worked quickly. His paintings, which are more rare, reveal by their influences 
an impressionable mind; they treat a wide range of subjects and styles, including plants and animals 
in the manner of Otto Marseus van Schrieck, river scenes that recall certain of Jacob van Ruisdaei's 
works of the early fifties, church interiors in the style of van Vliet, landscapes with cattle that reflect 
the influence of Potter, nocturnes in the manner of van der Neer, and a few Koninck-like pano- 
ramas. Van Borssom also made etchings of animals and birds. Nothing is known of his training. His 
paintings reveal a familiarity with the landscapes of contemporary Haarlem artists, and his 
drawings suggest that he may have studied with Rembrandt in the late forties. During the 
eighteenth century, when his drawings were greatly admired, he was imitated by artists such as 
Jacob and Abraham van Strij, Jan Hulswit, and Hendrik Spilman. 

Panoramic Landscape near Rhenen with the 
Huis ter Leede 

Oil on canvas, io'/4 x 16 in. (51.1 x 66 cm.) 

Collections: M. M. van Valkenburg, Laren, by 1938; .Mois Meidl; [G. 

Cramer, The Hague). 

Exhibitions: Ronerdam, Museum Boymans, Meesterwerken lut vier 

eeuwen, 1938, no. i si. repr. p. 104 (as Adriaen van de Velde). 

References: Thieme-Becker. vol. 34, 1940, p. 198 (under .Adnaen van de 


Van Borssom's panorama of the flat country near Rhenen, 
viewed from the bank of the Rhme, shows the castle of the 
Leede (or Lynden) family prominently in the distance. A 
large fortified building of the twelfth century, it had been 
much altered from its medieval appearance (fig. i ) ' in van 
Borssom's time; by 1745 it was already in ruins, as it is 

The majority of van Borssom's paintings, which repre- 
sent rural scenery with animals and rustics in more inti- 




™ /- Jj/r, /,,..,.«^ 

FIGURE I. T' Huys ter Lee. Engraving, from Christopher Butkens, 
Les Annales Genealogiques de la Maison de Lynde, Antuerp, 1616, p. 



mate compositions than the Carter picture, reflect the 
strong influence of the leading animaliers Paulus Potter 
and Adriaen van de Veide. Van Borssom also pamted a 
small number of extensive landscapes whose main inspi- 
ration was evidently Philips Koninck (cat. no. i6). The 
Carter painting, long attributed mistakenly to Adriaen 
van de Velde, clearly belongs to this group of pictures by 
van Borssom. His paintings of this type, although similar 
to Koninck's panoramas in composition and in the use of 
certain motifs and devices, notably the pattern of hori- 
zontal striations to render the succeeding planes of the 
middleground and background, are nevertheless painted 
more thinly m a drier, crisper technique that recalls the 
Haarlem pamters of an earlier generation, especially Cor- 
nelis Vroom and Salomon van Ruvsdael. Van Borssom 

does not attempt the drama or the brooding moods of 
Koninck's paintings; his panoramas have a simpler, clearer 
aspect that has its own appeal. 

A canvas in Diisseldorf (fig. 2) is closest to the Carter 
painting in style and content. Its date, evidently to be read 
1666, gives an indication of the date of our picture, which 
may be a few years later.- Cows are disposed in the 
foreground in a manner that recalls Potter, but the sweep- 
ing view of level river country and the massive hill at the 
right — which makes a fantasy out of what otherwise 
might plausibly be Dutch scenery — are clearly patterned 
on Koninck's pictures. In the Carter painting, by contrast, 
van Borssom does without the imported hills and thereby 
gives his view an extreme flatness and simplicity that is 
true to the locale. 

FIGURE 1. .Anthonievan 
Borssom, Vieic of Schenckenschanz 
and Hochelten. Oil on canvas, 
3 5^8 X 49% in. (90 X 1 16 cm.). 
Diisseldorf, Kunstmuseum. 

1. This engraving from Christopher Butkens's Les Aunjies Cenea- 
logtques de la Maison de Lytide, .Antwerp, 1626, p. 54, shows the ap- 
pearance of the castle to be Identical to that In Rademaker's etching 
(Nederlandsche Outheederi en Gezigten, Amsterdam, 1715, no. 274) 
whose caption identifies it as a view of the building as it appeared in 
1 520 and says that it Is "now very much altered by the changes made in 

2. .A Distant View of a Town dated 16-1 in the Statens .Museum for 

Konst, Copenhagen, has many points of similarity with the panoramas, 
but IS somewhat softer in contours; its date strengthens the likelihood 
that the Diisseldorf picture, whose date reads 16 ... 6, must in fact be 
of 1666. The technique of the Caner painting suggests that it was done 
at some time between these two dates. .\ signed but undated panorama 
(76 X I07 cm.) with peasants and cattle in the foreground, probably of 
the later 1660s, was sold in Lucerne, Galerie Fischer, June 25, I9"6, 
no. 390, repr. 


Ambrosius Bosschaert 

Ambrosius Bosschaert was born in Antwerp in 1 573 but soon left the city with his family 
for rehgious reasons and joined the growing Calvinist population of Middelburg in the United 
Provinces. By 1593 hebelonged to theGuildof St. Luke in Middelburg, but no dated work by him is 
know'n until 1607. Bosschaert doubled as an art dealer, as did many seventeenth-century artists; 
this trade may have occupied him during these early years. In 1604 he married Maria van der Ast, 
sister of Balthasar van der Ast, a Middelburg still-life specialist slightly younger than Bosschaert 
and strongly influenced by him. The origins of Bosschaert's style are unclear. Before him Georg 
Flegel in Frankfurt and Georg Hoefnagel in Antwerp had executed detailed studies of flowers, and 
Lodewyck Jansz. van der Bosch reportedly produced compositions similar to those of Bosschaert, 
though none is known today. Bosschaert may also have been familiar with works by Jan Brueghel, 
but the Flemish master was not his teacher. 

By January 161 5 Bosschaert had moved to Bergen-op-Zoom, where he remained for slightly 
less than a year before settling in Utrecht, which was then the center for Dutch flower pamting. 
While in Utrecht from 16 16 to 16 19 Bosschaert attempted ornate compositions with tall flowers, 
lightened his backgrounds, and painted his first arrangements in a niche. By late August 16 19 he 
had moved to Breda, where he lived until his death in 1 621. In these productive final years, when he 
executed more than one-fourth of his surviving works, Bosschaert introduced a new element, a 
distant riverscape, into his backgrounds. Together with Jacques de Gheyn, Roelandt Savery, and 
Balthasar van der Ast, Bosschaert was a pioneer of the first phase of Dutch still-life painting, 
characterized by a detailed, accurate representation of a wide variety of species. The symmetrical 
organization and precise description in Bosschaert's Middelburg works set the standard for still-life 
painting in that city until 1650-60. 


Bouquet of Flowers on a Ledge 

Signed on the sill, lower right: AB (]oined) 
Oil on copper, 11x9 in. (i8 x 23 cm.) 

Collections: U. Palm, Stockholm, before 1934; [G. Stenman, Stock- 
holm]; Dr. E. Perman, Stockholm, by 1936; Mrs. John Goelet, Am- 
blainville, France, to i9''5; [Newhouse Galleries, New 'lork, 19-6]. 
Exhibitions: .Amsterdam, Kunsthandel P. de Boer, De Helsche en de 
Flmreelen Brueghel en hun mvlned op de kiinst in de Nederhnden, 
1934, p. io, no. 251, repr.; Pans, Musee de I'Orangerie, Riihens et son 
temps. 1936, no. 3, pi. I; Eindhoven, Stedeliik van Abbemuseum, Het 
Holbndse stillefen, 1957, no. 11; Philadelphia. .Museum of Art, A 
Vi'orld of Flowers, 1963 (cat. in Philadelphia Wiiseion Bulletin 58, 1963, 
frontispiece); San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor; 
Toledo .Museum of .Art; Boston, .Museum of Fine .Arts, The Age of 
Rembrandt, 1966, no. 98, repr. 

References: Ingvar Bergstrom, Stndier i holldndskt stillebenmalerei un- 
der 1600-talet, diss., Gothenburg, 194"^, p. ~2, fig. 51, pi. i; Pans, 
Musee de I'Orangerie, La nature morte de I'antiquite a nos jours, exh. 
cat., 1952, p. 40; L. J. Bol, "Een Middelburgse Brueghel-groep II," 
Oud-Holland 70, 1955, pp. 96—109, fig. -; .\1. L. Hairs, Les pemtres 
flamands defleursau XVIle siecle. Pans and Brussels, 1955, p. 90; Jean 
Leymarie, La peinture hollandaise de Gerard de Saint Jean a Vermeer, 
Lausanne, Pans, and New York, 1956, p. 75, repr. p. 76; Jean Leymarie, 
Dutch Painting. Geneva and New York, 1956, p. -r^. repr. p. -6; Berg- 
strom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, p. 62, frontispiece; L. J. Bol, The Boss- 
chaert Dynast\\ Leigh-on-Sea, i960, pp. 30—31, no. 46, pp. 20, 6-^, pi. 
30; L.J. Bol, " 'Goede onbekenden'," Tableau ?, 1981, p. 526, tig. 4. 



Bosschaert's bold and exquisite still lite, which shows a 
bouquet of brilliantly colored flowers including tulips, 
irises, and roses set against a blue sky and distant land- 
scape, is probably the most familiar work m the Carter 
collection. The strict axial symmetry of the composition is 
characteristic of Bosschaert and his contemporaries, but 
the use of a simple ledge with a landscape setting is unique, 
not only in this artist's work but also in Dutch still-life 
painting generally. The bright open background accentu- 
ates the saturated reds, yellows, and blues of the bouquet, 
giving the picture its special intensity. 

Bosschaert's still lifes have been accurately compared to 
group portraits.' By using individual life studies the artist 

brings together various types of flowers, often rare and 
e.xotic specimens, but does not represent bouquets that 
could actually have existed. Bosschaert was concerned 
with making each flower believable, not the bouquet; each 
blossom IS therefore depicted accurately but the bunch of 
flowers is far too large for the glass roemer. He combines 
flowers that bloom in early spring, such as the daffodil and 
the liverwort {Anemone hepatica, the striped blossom in 
the center), with others that bloom in midsummer or later 
— for example, the pink damask rose and the carnation. - 
This practice, typical of Bosschaen, and his repetition of 
the same blossoms in a number of different paintings 
strongly suggests that he composed his paintings from col- 


ored drawings of particular flowers, although none of 
these is known. ^ 

In an age when certain flowers were highly prized — 
tulips were objects of heady speculation, some breeds 
costing thousands of guilders^ — paintings such as this one 
might have recorded a private horticultural collection or 
might have provided a precious and durable substitute for 
a sophisticated garden. All of the flowers here were culti- 
vated in Holland in the seventeenth century, but certam 
examples such as the hybrid striped tulip were more highly 
valued than others. Shells were also avidly collected in the 
Netherlands at this time. A conchologist would have been 
proud to own the exotic specimens in the picture, a Poly- 
mita pictar from Cuba on the right and a Conns marmo- 
reus (?) from East India on the left.^ 

To Bosschaert's audience this still life would have sig- 
nified more than opulent display or a collector's taste in 
flowers and shells. The blossoms would have been a re- 
minder, as they were so often in the seventeenth century, 
of the brevity of human life and the vanities of earthly 
pleasures. The association of the Vanitas theme with 
floral still lifes derived from several biblical verses, not- 
ably Isaiah 40:6, "All flesh is grass, all the goodliness 
thereof is as the flowers of the field: the grass vvithereth, 
the flower fadeth; because the spirit of the Lord blovveth 
upon it."* Some of the religious associations of particular 
flowers in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Netherlandish 
paintings evidently survived into the next century.^ Both 
shells and flowers were used in emblem books, too, to 
exemplify the foolish way in which man spends his money 
(fig. i).The message implied by Bosschaert's painting may 
be similar to that of a roughly contemporary painting 
ascribed to Jan Brueghel (fig. 2) in which a verse referring 
to the inevitable fading and wilting of the flowers is in- 
scribed below a beautiful bouquet.* The inscription goes 
on to advise the reader to have faith in the word of God 
alone, contrasting the everlasting God to the short-lived 
flowers. The Carter painting may have a similar signifi- 
cance, for Bosschaert has combined allusions to death and 
decomposition with traditional symbols of renewal and 
resurrection. Unlike later artists such as Dirck de Bray 
(cat. no. 6) or Jan van Huysum (cat. no. 15), Bosschaert 
does not refer to the imminent decay of the flowers by 
depicting them as overripe and wilting. Instead he hints at 
their passing beauty by showing the insects preying on the 
flowers, such as the dragonfly on the iris,' by placing pro- 
verbially transient dew drops on one of the lower leaves, '" 
and by representing the holes in another. The most expli- 

cit reminder of death may be the beetle on the white rose, a 
doodgraver, or burying beetle, which digs holes under the 
dead bodies of mice and other small animals to provide 

FIGURE I. Roemer 
V'lsscher, "Een dwaes en ziin 
gelt zi|n haest gheschei|den" 
("A fool and his money are 
soon parted"), 16 14. Engrav- 
ing from Situie-Puppen. 
.Amsterdam, 16 14. 

Ecn dwaes en zijn o-elt 
zijn haell yhefcheijaen . 

FIGURE 2. Jan Brueghel the Elder, attributed to. Still Li/e u'ttl> hlotr- 
crs in ii Glass Wise. Oil on copper, 11^/4 x y'/s in. (30 x 20 cm.). London, 
Richard Green Galleries, 


FIGURE 3. Ambroiiub BobSL'haert, 6oi(i./Hf? /« ij /\u7'f, about 1619- 
20. Oil on panel, 25 'm x iS'/s in. (64 x 46 cm.). The Hague, Maurits- 

nests for its larvae. Countering these morbid elements are 
flowers and insects with more hopeful associations, such 
as the butterfly and the carnation, both symbols of the 
resurrection of the soul." Other flowers in the arrange- 
ment, such as the rose and anemone,'- had particular 
associations that reinforce the general theme of the tran- 
sience of human life and earthly pleasures as contrasted to 
the eternal world of God. 

The Carter painting, one of four works from Boss- 
chaert's late period with a background landscape (fig. 
3),'^ is unique in theabsenceof the stone niche that frames 
the bouquet m the other works. The pamtmg takes on a 
brilliance and clarity of color and light unrivaled by his 
contemporaries, but which recalls the miniature drawings 
in gouache or watercolor made in the previous century by 
such artists as Georg Hoefnagel. The brightly lighted open 
background reinforces the minute detail of Bosschaert's 


fiGURE 4. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Tivo Apes, 1562. Oil on wood, 
-'/a X 9 in. (2.0 X 2.3 cm.). Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer 
Kulturbesitz, Gemaldegalene. 

brushwork, just as the deep shadows and pale sky of the 
contemporary Flowers in a Niche before a Landscape 
(Amsterdam, Mrs. Peters-Wetzlar) complement the softer 
technique of that picture. It is tempting to view the Carter 
painting as the final step in an evolution from Bosschaert's 
early works against a dark background,''* to composi- 
tions enclosed in an illuminated stone niche, '^ to more 
open and brighter paintings with a distant landscape be- 
hind the bouquet. Bosschaert's development, however, 
was not so straightforward, for in his last dated painting 
of 1620 (Stockholm, Nationalmuseum) he returns to a 
darker background. 

The little group of paintings by Bosschaert that juxta- 
pose a niche or ledge with a vast landscape in the back- 
ground have no immediate precedent, but evidently go 
back to a remarkable, enigmatic picture by Pieter Bruegel 
the Elder, the Two Apes of 1562 (tig. 4), in which mon- 
keys are placed in a stone window through which a view 
of Antwerp can be seen. "> The vantage point for the land- 
scape is impossibly high, as it is in Bosschaert's pictures, 
foiling any illusion that the spectator could ever look at 
the monkeys and landscape from such a place. It is not 
clear whether the relationship of flowers to distant land- 
scape had any significance for the seventeenth century 
other than as a pictorial device. Recently Bosschaert's 
Bouquet in a Niche in the Mauritshuis (fig. 3) was ana- 

lyzed as an illustration of the totality of Nature, combin- 
ing the description of individual parts with a view of na- 
ture as a whole, in a conception similar to that Hrst set 
down by Petrarch and followed in subsequent literature. '^ 
While Bosschaert mav have known this tradition, it does 

not entirely explain the relationship of flowers to the ex- 
tensive landscape with buildings and proud towers, which 
may have a further moral: that as beauty and decay can be 
observed in flowers, they can be found as well in the world 

I . Bol, Bossclhii-rt Dythisty, p. lo. 

1. For this informanon, and for assistance m identifying the flowers 
in this painting and other still lifes, we are grateful to Dr. Sam Segal. Bol 
{Bosichaert Dyiusfv, p. 1 1 ) describes the flower to the left of the ins as a 
wild flower, hut according to Dr. Segal it is a Geranium Tidmosum 
(stork's billi, originally found from the Central Mediterranean region to 
Persia and in cultivation since 1581. 

?. Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, p. 50; Bol, Bosschaert Dy- 
nasty, p. 10. None of these studies by Bosschaert survives. The ins, 
daffodil, liverwort, the white rose, the tulip in the upper left, and the 
yellow fritillary in the center of the left side are repeated in other works 
by Bosschaert isee Bol, Bosschaert Dynasty, p. 30). 

4. Bol, Bosschaert Dynasty, p. 19; Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Paint- 
ing, p. 48. The peak of tulip speculation occurred in 163-, when the 
bubble burst, prices deflated, and many fortunes were lost. 

5. The shells are identified by Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, 
p. 65. 

6. The verse from Isaiah 40 is inscribed below an etching by Claes 
Jansz. Visscherof 1635, probably after a painting of about 1600 (Miin- 
ster, Baden-Baden, Stillehen in Europa, e.xh. cat., 19^9-80, p. ?io, hg. 


7. Ingvar Bergstrom, "Disguised Symbolism in '.Madonna Pictures 

and Still Life I," Burlington Magazine 9~, 1955. pp. 303—8; and "Dis- 
guised Symbolism II," pp. 341—49; .\lunster, Stillehen, p. 30S. 

8. .Miinster, Stillehen, p. 310, fig. 16-. 

9. Bergstrom, "Disguised Symbolism II," p. 34(1. The biblical passage 
describing destruction by insects is Psalm 105:3 1—34. 

10. ingvar Bergstrom, "Notes on the Boundaries of Vanitas Signifi- 
cance," l/delheid der lidelheden, exh. cat., Leyden, Stedelijk Museum 
'de Lakenhal," i9'"0. 

1 1. On the butterfly, see Bergstrom, "Disguised Symbolism II," pp. 
34i, 346; and on the carnation, see Bergstrom, "Disguised Symbolism 
I," p. ?07, "Disguised Symbolism II," p. 345. and Den Symholiska 
\eiUkan, Malmo, 1958. 

II. The rose could haveanumberof different meanings; for example, 
the inevitable combination of the good (the blossom) with the bad (the 
thorns), the dangers of frivolous living, and the brevity of physical 
beauty (.Arthur Henkel and Albrecht Schone, Embleniata: Handhuch 
zur Sinnbildkunst des XVI. iind XVII. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, i9f>~, 
cols. 303-6). The anemone is used by Camerarius to illustrate the motto 
"Brevis est Usus," which refers to the transience of earthly life. (Joachim 
Camerarius, Syniholorum et Emhlematiini ex Re Herbaria, 1 590, no. 69, 
quoted from Henkel and Schone, Embleniata, col. 308). 

1 3. The other paintings are the Little Bouquet m an .Arched Vi'mdow, 
formerly in the collections of J. William .Middendorf, New York, and 
Edward W. Carter, now in the London art market, and Flowers in a 
Niche before a Landscape, .Amsterdam, Mrs. Peters-Wetzlar (Bol, 6os5- 
chaert Dynasty, nos. 38, 44). 

14. Bouquet m a Roemer, Milan, Cicogna collection; Bouquet m a 
Gilt-Mounted Wan-Li Vase, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (Bol, Boss- 
chaert Dynasty, nos, 3,41!. 

15. Bouquet m a Glass Beaker Standing m a Niche, Copenhagen, 
Statens .Museum for Konst (Bol, Bosschaert Dynasty, no. 33). 

16. For a discussion of the meaning of the painting see .Margaret A. 
Sullivan, "Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Tiro Monkeys: .\ New Interpreta- 
tion," The .Art Bulletin 63, 1981, pp. 1 15-26. 

17. Miinster, .Sf;//t'/;f«, pp. i--ii. 


Jan Both 

about 1615/18-1652 

Jan Both's birthdate is unknown, but he was probably born in Utrecht between 161 5 
and 1618. His father, a glass painter or engraver, may have been his first teacher. According to 
Sandrart, Jan and his older brother Andries studied with Abraham Bloemaert about 1625-27 and 
later traveled to Italy. Jan was first recorded in Rome in 1638, but he may have arrived three years 
earlier; he remained there until 1641. Among his colleagues were Claude Lorrain, Joachim van 
Sandrart, the older Dutch expatriate Pieter van Laer, and possibly Carel de Hooch. After his return 
to Holland, Both seems to have remained in Utrecht, where he was named an officer in the painter's 
guild in 1649. He was buried in Utrecht in 1652. 

Both was the leading artist of the second generation of Italianate landscape pamters; the idyllic 
mood, spacious vistas, and strong structural accents in Both's landscapes herald what has been 
called a classical phase. His work consists primarily of wooded landscapes flooded with warm, 
golden sunlight, but it also includes a handful of urban genre scenes in the style of Pieter van Laer 
and several religious and mythological subjects. Nearly fifty drawings and seventeen etchings by 
Both are preserved. 

The impressive list of artists influenced by Both includes Aelbert Cuyp (cat. no. 10), Nicolaes 
Berchem, and Adam Pynacker (cat. no. 20). The works of his closest follower, Willem de Heusch, 
have been mistakenly attributed to Both. Extremely popular throughout the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries. Both was widely imitated and copied. The attribution of paintings to Both is 
complicated by the artist's occasional practice of painting more than one version of a composition. 
Other artists such as Cornells van Poelenburgh, Nicolaes Knupfer, Jan Baptist Weenix, and his 
brother Andries sometimes added the staffage to Both's landscapes. 

Landscape with a Draftsman 

Signed, lower left: J Both 

Oil on canvas, 4 1 '/s x 46 '/2 in. (107 x 1 10 cm.) 

Collections: [Shickman Gallerv', New York, 1968]; Mr. and Mrs. Mal- 
colm Farmer, Jr., Providence, Rhode Island; [Shickman Gallery, New 
York, 1977I; [Nystad, The Hague, 1979]. 

References: James D. Burke, jjx Both: Paintings, Drjti'ings and Printi, 
diss.. Harvard, 19^1, pp. i?8— 59, no. 96; pubhshed New York, 19^6. 

Filled u ith the warm sunlight of the Italian Campagna, 
the landscape before the artist is actually Both's invention 
and not a view he might have seen in Italy. The picture 
represents a well-known Roman monument in a setting 
generally reminiscent of the southern countryside, but the 

FIGURE I. Israel Silvestre, Ponte Liicano. Etching, 2' 4 x 6 's in. (7.1 
X I 5.5 cm.). Rome, Gabinefto Nazionale delle Stampe (F.c. 67071), on 
deposit from the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Photograph courtesy 
ot the Fototeca Unione, Rome. 



trees are more massive and the mountains higher than 
those found in the vicinity. 

The Ponte Lucano and the Tomb of the Plautii, here 
visible in the distance, are actually located in far gentler 
surroundings several miles from Tivoli. An etching by 
Israel Silvestre (1621— 91) shows approximately what Jan 
Both would have seen during his sojourn in Italy (tig. 1): a 
triple-arched bridge flanked on one side by a portal, which 
was evidently more decrepit than Both indicates, and on 
the other by the great cylindrical tomb constructed for the 
Plautii family in z a.d. and given an upper story during the 
Middle Ages. ' Such imaginary relocations of aaual Roman 

monuments were common enough among Dutch painters 
but rare in the works of Both, who generally preferred 
landscapes without recognizable buildings. Even in this 
painting he has altered the appearance of the arch, making 
it more complete, and he has incorrectly placed the tomb 
on the side of the bridge closer to the mountains. - 

The artist who sits sketching on the river bank is a 
familiar figure in Both's paintings.' He furnishes further 
evidence of Both's close study of pictures by Claude Lor- 
rain, which not only suggested to Both the possibilities of 
sunny landscape fantasies based on the Roman Campagna 
but also sometimes depicted artists at work.'* Joachim von 


FIGURE 2. Jan Both, Landscape 
with River, about 1645-50. Oil on 
canvas, 41 x 46 V2 in. (104.2 x 
1 18.2 cm.). Conneaicut, private 
collection. Photograph courtesy of 
the Schaefter Gallerv, New York. 


-* ■ 

: ^^Hnn^^ '^[jt 

■ n^- 




■HL^^- .^j^l 

^ *m''- 

. - ' , -: V^- 

FIGURE 3. j^nBoth. Landscape With Bridge and Rner. 164S-50. Oil 
on copper, ly'/s x 23 in. {45.5 x 58.5 cm.). Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. 

Sandrart, who lived in Rome from 1619 to 1635, de- 
scribed going out into the countryside with Claude Lor- 
rain and Nicholas Poussin (and Pieter van Laer?) "to paint 
or to draw landscapes directly from nature."^ Jan Both 
surely made similar expeditions a decade later, just as the 

draftsman in his painting is doing, and used the drawings 
in the studio as raw material for his painted inventions, 
not only in Rome but later in Holland after his return. Few 
of his drawings, unfortunately, have survived. 

Both was evidently fond of this composition for at least 
three versions with minor changes are known, including a 
close variant (fig. 2) that has been dated later than the 
Carter painting: another, thought by Hofstede de Groot 
to be the prime version, has recently been recognized as a 
copy.** In other variants the draftsman is omitted (fig. 3),^ 
or the bridge as well,* but the landscape remains much the 
same. Other paintings and drawings by or attributed to 
Both represent the Ponte Lucano and the river in different 
landscapes;** these, in turn, inspired works by Thomas 
NX'ijk and W'lUem de Heusch.^'' A drawing attributed to 
Both but apparently by de Heusch is clearly based on our 

As only two dated works by Both are known," his 
chronology can only be reconstructed ver\' approxi- 
mately. The treatment of light and atmosphere in this 
picture is fully as sensitive as that of Both's most mature 
works, generally dated about 1650, such as the large 
Landscape ivith a Draftsman in the Rijksmuseum. The 


massive forms on one side of the composition, tlie com- 
pact shape of the central tree, and the tight hrush\vori<, 
however, are characteristics of works that have been 
dated to the Hrst half of the 1640s — for instance, the 
Landscape with a Distant Harbor in the Rijksmuseum'- 
or .4 Rocky Landscape with an Ox Cart in the National 
Gallery, London.'^ By about 1650 Both's style had imder- 
gone changes not yet evident in our painting. His brush- 
work had become looser, and he preferred more promi- 

nent, detailed foreground vegetation, as well as more 
open trees with extended branches. In place of the dra- 
matic juxtaposition of near and far and the compositional 
imbalance of the Carter picture, he preferred more unified 
compositions marked by a gradual recession into space. 
The Carter painting combines characteristics of Both's 
mature sr>ie with those of the early forties and was there- 
fore probably painted m the mid- 1640s.''' 

I. On the Pontc Lucatm and the Tomh ot the Plautii, see T. Ashhy, 
"The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna II," Papers of the 
British School at Rome 3, 1906, pp. i i6— 18, fig. i z; P. Gazzola, Poiiti 
Romani, vol. 1, 1963, no. 51; G. Tomassetti, La Campagna Romaiia. 
vol. 3, 19^7, p. 604; E. Martinori, Via Nomentana, Via Patiiiana, e Via 
Tibiirtina, Rome, 1931, p. 109; G. M. De Rossi, Torn e casteUi me- 
dievali della Campagna Romana, Rome, 1969, p. i ^4; and the e.xhibi- 
tion catalogue / ponti de Roma, Rome, Gabinecto Xazionale delle 
Stampe, nos. 64 (our fig. i), 185, and 106. Piranesi's etchmg of 1763, 
plate 1 1 5 of the Vteivs of Rome, is a more dramatic view of the bridge 
and tomb. 

2.. An etchmg by Israel Sllvestre (published by De Rossi, Torn e cas- 
teUi, fig. 388) shows the tomb and arch as they appear in Both's painting. 
Karen Einaudi has suggested (in a letter) that Silvestre's print might date 
from after 1659, when he settled in Pans. We are grateful to her, and to 
.■\n Zwollo. Cornelius Vermeule, and John Herrmann for their assis- 
tance m providing information on the bridge and tomh. 

3. Among others, HdG 8 --9 s. 

4. For example, rwo paintings of the 1630s, the Landscape with a 
River (Boston, Museum of Fine .Arts) and Caprice with Rums of the 
Roman Forum (Springfield, Massachusetts, Museum of Fine .Arts); 
Marcel Rothlisberger, Claude Lorrain: The Paintings, New Haven, 
1961. pp. 140—41; and Stechow. Dutch Landscape Painting, pp. i S4— 

5. Joachim von Sandrart, "Landschaften nach dem Leben zu mahlen 
oder zu zeichnen," Teiitsche Academie der Bau-. Bild-. und Mahlerey- 
KUnste, vol. i, Nuremberg, 16-5. p. 311; ed. .A. R. Peltzer, .Munich. 
1925, p. 184. 

6. The versions are ( i ) the Carter painting, which was unknown to 
Hofstede de Groot (Burke lists it as "HdG 94a?" but its dimensions and 
the location of its signature differ significantly; jan Both, no. 96); (2) a 
copy formerly in the Lansdowne Collection, London, and later with the 
dealer Bruno Meissner, Zurich (HdG 89; Burke, /j/; Both, under no. -6 
as a copy); (3 ) the painting in the David G. Carter collection. New Haven 
(fig. 2; HdG 94; Burke, /j« Both, no. 76, as Landscape with River [and 
Ponte Mollef]); (4) a painting in the H. Kaven sale, Berlin. Lepke, March 
12, 191", no. 58 (HdG 94a). 

-. This painting on copper in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (HdG 
36; Burke, Jan Both, no. 6, where nvo other versions are listed), is 
smaller than the other versions. It is incorrectly entided Landscape with 
the Ponte Wolle in .4// the Paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, 
1976, no. .■\5i. 

S. Riiksmuseum, .\mstcrdam (HdG 52; Burke, Ian Both, no. ?, 
where an etched and a painted version are listed). 

9. An example by Both is the Italian Landscape, oil on copper, 5 i x 
70 cm.. The Hague, Mauritshuis. Others whose attributions are less 
secure are the paintings sold as Both in Amsterdam, .\Iak van Waay, 
October 31, 1967, no. 38; in Berlin, Galerie Stumpf, May 7, 1918, no. 
85 (HdG 39); Tivoli with the Ponte Liicano in a private collection in 
Scotland, by a follower of Both; and Italian Landscape with a Bridge 
and a Round Tower, Basel, Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung, attributed to 
Both, but by a weak imitator or follower. 

10. By Wijk, a drawing in the Graphische Sammlung in .Munich, inv. 
no. 1896 (W. Wegner, Katalog der Staatliche Graphischen Sammlung 
Miinchen, 19^3, no. 108-. where drawings of this subject by other 
artists are listed). A drawing with Paul Brandt, Amsterdam, attributed to 
Both but apparently by de Heusch. is clearly based on our composition. 
.-Mso by de Heusch. paintings in the Ri|ksmuseum (no. A 149) and in the 
Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest (no. 5-8); a painting sold in .Amster- 
dam (P. Brandt, November 5, 1968, no. ^3) and another from the collec- 
tion of Viscount Barrington (with D. \. Hoogendiik, .Amsterdam, in 
1937, oil on canvas, 45 x 66 cm.). By Caspar Dughet, a painting at the 
Gallena Doria Pamphili in Rome representing the bridge in its true 
setting but with the tower too well preserved. The Ponte Lucano and the 
Tomb of the Plautu seem also to have inspired ruins in the drawings 
connected with Claude Lorrain's Pastoral Landscape of 16-7 in the 
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas. See Marcel Rothlisberger, 
Claude Lorram: The Drawings, Los .Angeles, 1968, vol. i, pp. 405-6, 
nos. 1 102-5, vol. 2, figs. 1 102-5, and Rothlisberger, Claude: Paintings, 
pp. 445—47, vol. 2, fig. 311. .Another representation of the site is in- 
cluded m the Liher Veritatis, vol. 2, no. -4, ""certainly not by Claude" 
(Rothlisberger, Claude: Drawings, pp. 428—29). 

1 1. One IS a drawing in the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest dated 
1643 (Burke, Jan Both, D-io); the other the Landscape with Werciirx 
and Argus, Munich, Bayerischen Staatsgemaldesammlungen iBurke, 
jan Both, no. -9), which is dated i6so according to Burke and 165 1 
according to Blankert, who notes that the last digit is difficult to read 
iltalianiserende landschapschilders, p. 1 28). 

12. .Amsterdam, Ri|ksmuseum, no. A49; Burke, Jan Both, no. 2. 

I ?. London, National Gallery, no. 1917; Burke, Jan Both, no. 55. 

14. Paintings of about the same date are Rockv Italian Landscape 
with Herdsmen and Muleteers, London, National Gallery (Burke, jan 
Both, no. 50); and Landscape if ith Travelers, Pans, Louvre (Burke, fan 
Both, no. a-). 


Dirck de Bray 

active about 165 1-80 

Although he belonged to a famous family of artists in Haarlem, little is known about 
Dirck de Bray, son of Salomon (i 597-1664) and brother of Jan (about 1627-97) and Joseph (d. 
1664). Dirck de Bray was a Catholic, like the rest of his family, and eventually joined a monastery in 
Brabant. In 1 6 5 i he entered the workshop of Passchier van Wesbuch as a student of bookbinding 
and printing. He began his prolific production of etchings, engravings, and woodcuts soon 
thereafter with various book illustrations and title pages for a political journal. Renowned as the 
greatest woodcut artist of his day, de Bray executed hundreds of labels and tradesmen's cards, as 
well as series of the months of the year, portraits, and religious subjects. He was employed by 
Enschede, the Haarlem bookmaking firm, where many of his blocks are still preserved today. Prints 
by de Bray are known from 1656 to 1676. His career as a painter was apparendy confined mostly to 
the 1 670s. His paintings, numbering fewer than a dozen, include flower and game subjects as well 
as still lifes with religious symbols. 

Flowers in a Glass Vase 

Signed and dated, lower left: 16-1 D D Bray t 

Oil on wood, 19 X 14V8 in. (49.1 x 36.6 cm. 

Collections: Sale, London, Sotheby, February' 15, 1948, no. 91 (as dated 

1673); [Duits, London]; Sidney van den Bergh; Wassenaar; [G. Cramer. 

The Hague]. 

Exhibitions: Laren, Singer .Museum, Tuee Nederlandse collecties schtl- 

deri/en 1954. no. 31. repr.; Leyden, Stedeliik .Museum 'de Lakenhal,' 

i-de eeuu'se meesters iiit Nederlandse particulier bezit. 1965, no. 6 (as 
dated 1673); ^^n Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor; 
Toledo Museum of Art; Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, The Age of 
Rembrandt. 1966-6^, no. loz, repr. (as dated 1673). 
References: W. Bemt, Die niederldndischen Malerdes i~. Jahrhiinderts, 
1, Munich, 1962., no. 38, repr.; A. B. de Vnes, "Old Masters in the 
Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Sidney van den Bergh," Apollo 80. 1 964, pp. 
3 54-55, pi. II (as dated 1673); A. B. de Vnes, Verzamelmg Sidney], van 
den Bergh, Wassenaar, 1968, p. 30, repr. (as dated 1673); L. J. Bol, 
Landschaften iind Stitleben bollandischen Maler. Nahe den Crossen 
Meistern, Braunschweig, 1968, p. 334, fig. 30Z; W. Bemt, The Nether- 
landish Painters of the Seventeenth Century; 1, London, 1970, no. 178. 
repr.; W. Bemt. Die niederlandischen Maler iind Zeichner des XVII. 
jahrhiinderts. i. .Munich, 19-9, no. 192. repr. 

A shaft of light plays over de Bray's blossoms, illuminat- 
ing some while others are consumed by the shadow. De 
Bray barely describes the background; rather, he evokes 
the setting of the vase entirely through the fluctuation of 

FIGURE I. Dirck de 

Bray, Portrait of 

Salomon de Bray, 

1664. Woodcut, znd 

state of 3. .Amsterdam, 


light and dark in a manner closer to Goya's sensitive treat- 
ment of light in the ne.xt century than to that of any of his 

Our panel is one of the earliest paintings by de Bray, 
who until the decade beginning m 1671 had worked as a 
printmaker specializing in woodcuts.* Many of de Bray's 
prints show an interest in painterly effects (hg. i)- and in 
the manipulation of light and dark, which was carried 



FIGURE 1. Dirck de Bray, Stilt Life of Tulips. \jr- 
cissi. and Other Flowers, 1671. Oil on wood, 16 x 
I ? '/2 in. (40.6 X ^4.3 cm.). Sale, London, Christie's, 
June 21, 196S, no. 91. Photograph courtesy of Chris- 
tie's, London. 

over into his paintings. Nowhere is the treatment of illu- 
mination more striking than in this panel. The nearly 
empt\' foreground becomes a field for the shaft of light 
flooding the velvety- shadows. In a painting of 167 1 (fig. 2) 
in which the foreground is filled with books, the light is 
more direct. Later, in a Still Life with Flowers in a Porce- 
lain Vase of 1674 (fig. 3) and in another work from that 
year,^ de Bray again devotes the foreground entirely to the 
play of light and shadow. The later painting (fig. 3) also 
shares with the Carter panel the motif of an insect crawl- 
ing out of the shadow and a similar repertoire of fiowers, 
though more compactly grouped. 

It is difficult to trace a development in de Bray's brief 
career as a painter; if anything, he seems to adopt a 
harder, firmer touch in his later works. The soft, fluid 
technique of the Carter panel disappears. The contrast of 
light and dark remains a primary interest of the artist but 
never again plays such a significant role in the composition. 

Seventeenth-century Dutch flower paintings frequently 
contain symbols of Wmttas. Flowers themselves, especially 
overripe or drooping fiowers such as the poppies in the 
lower left and right of the Carter painting, could recall the 
passage of time and the inevitable decay of natural beaut). ■* 
There may be a particular significance attached to the 
limp opium poppies in this painting, for these fiowers 
were long associated with night and sleep.' All of the 
species in this painting flower at the same time of the year, 
but some open and close at different times of day. The 

FIGURE 3. Dirck de Bray, Sf/7/ 
Life with Flowers m j Porcelain 
Vase, 1674. Oil on wood, i9'/4 x 
14 Vs in. (49 X 36 cm.). Formerly, 
Zwolle, Baron van Voorst tot 
Voorst. RKD neg. no. L56910. 

FIGURE 4. Dirck de Bray, Still Life with Crucifix, 
1678. Oil on wood, ig'A x 14V8 in. {49 x 37 cm.). 
Zwolle, Provinciaal Overijssels .Museum. 

morning glory, the uppermost blossom to the left of center 
and in the center of the arrangement, shuts its flowers 
during the afternoon. If de Bray intended to refer to the 
passage of time in this painting, he did so through the 
allusion to night and day as represented by the flowers and 
echoed in the interplay of light and dark. 

This subtle symbolic content contrasts with de Bray's 
religious still lifes, in which he includes scepters, cruci- 


fixes, and other signs of the Cathohc church (fig. 4);* it 
differs also from the more obvious symbolic language of 
Bosschaert (see cat. no. 4). The Carter pamtmg contams 
none of the flowers with familiar religious connotations, 
such as the iris symbolizmg the Immaculate Conception^ 
or the narcissus signifying resurrection.* De Bray also 
omits such precious or exotic species as tulips or hya- 
cinths. The familiar symbol of sin, the fly,' is present, but 
perhaps simply as a naturalistic detail. The insect does not 
devour the flowers but merely crawls behind the vase. 

De Bray emerges as a mature and original master in the 
Carter still life, which is one of his earliest paintings, if not 
the first. The sources of his style are not at all obvious. 
Hans Bollongier (i 600-1 670), the only other flower spe- 
cialist in de Bray's native Haarlem, and also Jan Davidsz. 
de Heem have been suggested as influences, '" but their 
connection to de Bray is difficult to see. It seems just as 
likely that de Bray was influenced by the Flemish artist 
Daniel Seghers (1590— 166 1) both in his choice of flowers 
in a glass vase as a subject for nearly half his paintings and 
to a limited degree in his style as a flower painter. Like de 
Bray, Seghers was a devout Catholic who joined a monas- 
tery. His still lifes of flowers in a glass vase (fig. 5)" are 
frontal compositions without de Bray's luminous atmo- 

FIGURE 5. Daniel 

Seghers, V'jsf 0/ 

Flowers. Oil on 

copper, 1 1 X 8 "4 in. 

(i8 X 21 cm.). 

Antwerp, Museum 

Mayer den Bergh. 

Copyright A.C.L. 

— Brussels. 

sphere, but their loose arrangements, curling petals, and 
downward-hanging blossoms anticipate the Carter paint- 
ing. The Jesuit Seghers, the most famous flower painter of 
his day, might well have provided a sympathetic model for 
the aspiring young de Bray. 

1. In the literature i6~8 is given as the date of de Bray's last pamtmg 
(Moes in Thieme-Becker, p. 554; Bernt, Netherlandish Painters, i, p. 
18; Bol, Landscbaften und Stilleben, p. 189). A canvas, signed and dated 
1 680 knov\n to us only from a photograph, appeared recently in a sale in 
Brussels iPalais des Beaux-.-\rts, November 19-10, 1968, no. 66). 

2. F. W. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Engrai'ings, Etchings and 
Woodcuts, i45'o—i~oo, vol. 3, Amsterdam, 1949— , no. i li. The v\ood- 
cut is after a drawing by Jan de Bray in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin 
(E. Bock and J. Rosenberg, Die \iederlandischen Meister iin Kupfer- 
stichkabinett, Berlin, vol. z, 1930, pi. ^?). 

3. Bouquet in a Glass Vase, 16^4, oil on wood, 40.6 \ 54.? cm., 
formerly Nystad, The Hague. 

4. This connection is made explicit in a pamtmg attributed to Jan 
Brueghel the Elder, Still Life witb Flou'ers in a Glass Vase (see Bos- 
schaert, cat. no. 4, fig. 1). On Vanitas in flower paintings, see .Miinster, 

Stillehen in Eiirnpa, pp. 304- 11, 3 iS-11; and Ingvar Bergstrom, "Dis- 
guised Symbolism in 'Madonna' Pictures and Still Life," Burlington 
Magazine t^j, 1955, pp. ^03-8, 340-49. 

5. Dr. Sam Segal kindly identified the (lowers. His forthcoming book 
on Cornells van Spaendonck will contain a discussion of the poppv m 
literature and art. 

6. Examples are Still Life iiith Symbols of the \'irgin .\Lir\, 16-1, 
.Amsterdam, Amstelkrmg .Museum, and the Still Life with Crucifix in 
Zwt)lle ;fig. 4). 

~. .\lunster, Stilleben in Luropa, p. ^08. 

8. Ibid., p. 3 16. 

9. Bergstrom, "Disguised Symbolism," p. ^46. 

10. Bo\, Landschaften und Stilleben, p. ??4. 

11. M. L. Hairs, Les penitres flamands de fieiirs an Wile siecle, 
Brussels, i9Ss,pp. 133-40, for other examples. 




Jan van de Cappelle 


Jan van de Cappelle's birthdate is unknown, but he was reported to be about forty-two 
years old in November 1666. He was born in Amsterdam, obtained citizenship upon his marriage in 
1653, and apparently lived his entire life there. His share in his father's successful dyeworks and his 
substantial properties gave him a financial and social position enjoyed by few artists. He amassed a 
vast art collection that included nine paintings and more than a thousand drawings by de Vlieger, 
hundreds of drawings by Avercamp, Rembrandt, and van Goyen, and paintings by Diirer, Elsheimer, 
Jordaens, Rubens, Porcellis, Seghers, and Hals, among others. Van de Cappelle had his portrait 
painted by Rembrandt, Hals, and Eeckhout. 

Views of rivers and estuaries with calm waters and stately ships form the bulk of van de 
Cappelle's production, but he also painted a few marines and beach scenes with choppy seas and 
about fifty winter landscapes. According to Eeckhout, van de Cappelle was self-taught. De Vlieger 
no doubt influenced his early style, but it is difficult to distinguish the innovations of these two 
artists in the late forties when both were producing silvery-gray marines with still waters and 
shimmering light. After about 1650 van de Cappelle's sunlight is conveyed with a variety of colors 
that lend an overall warm, golden tonality to many of his pictures. His later development is not easy 
to trace since there are only a few dates for paintings after 1653. A few drawings and one etching by 
van de Cappelle are known. The artist was widely admired in Holland and England in the 
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and had many later followers and imitators. 


Ships in a Calm 

Oil on canvjs, ?o'/a x 4ZV8 in. (79 x 109 cm.) 

Collections: Mssrs. Murriet.i (their sale, London, Christie's, May 14, 

1892, no. 126); |P. & D. Colnaghi, London (?)]; R. D. Walker, London 

{his sale, London, Christie's, July i, 1907, no. 147, as "Dutch School"); 

[H. Buttery, London]; J. Wythes, Copped Hall, Essex; Ma|or Elvves, 

Oxfordshire; Colonel F. G. R. Elvves (his sale, London, Sotheby, March 

26, 1969, no. 26); IDavid Koetser, Zurich]. 

References: HdG 123; Margarita Russell, /i;« Viiii de Cappelle, Leigh- 

on-Sea, 19-5, p. tS, no. 12?, Hg. 86. 

The painting represents a barge, which was used to row 
important personages to and from ships, and several single- 
masted sailing vessels in the background. One ot them is a 
yacht which fires a salute, doubtless to honor the party 
aboard the barge. In the foreground at left and right fish- 
ermen pause to regard the passing barge in attitudes of 

The Carter painting is an especially successful and well- 
preserved example of a type of seascape that van de Cap- 
pelle apparently began to paint in 1645,' in which ships 
are becalmed on a broad expanse of water dominated by a 
lofty sky and massive clouds. His first pictures are popu- 
lated by a profusion of ships, big and small, and he contin- 
ued to paint these so-called "parade" compositions from 
time to time throughout his career; by 1650 he had made 
prominent use of the motif of the barge and its important 
passengers saluted by ships of the fleet (fig. i),- as Simon 
de Vlieger had also done a year earlier.-'' In the 1650s he 
also painted a number of calms with many fewer ships, 
mostly ordinary small transport vessels and the occasional 
yacht and barge, which lack the pomp and intricacy of his 
great showpieces. To this category of simpler composi- 
tions the Carter picture belongs; but the touch of cere- 


FIGURE I. Jan van de Cappelle, The Home Fleet Saluting the State 
Barge, 1650. Oil on wood, 2.5 "4 x 36-'/8 in. (64 x 91.5 cm,;. .Amsterdam, 

FIGURE i. Jan van de Cappelle, View off the Dutch Coast. Oil on 
canvas, 30 x 35 in. (76.1 x 88.9 cm.). Rochester, Memorial An Galleni 
of the Universitv' of Rochester. George Eastman Collection of the Uni- 
versitv of Rochester. 


FIGURE 3. Jan van de Cappelle, Ships off the 
Coast, 165 1 . Oil on canva*;, iS '2 x 34 'A in. (72.5 x 
87 cm.). The Hague, Mauritshuis. 

moniousness lent by the salute of the barge, and reintorced 
by the fishermen spectators, distinguishes it from the paint- 
ings most nearly related to it, such as the well-known 
work in Toledo which is similarly composed'* and the 
canvas in Rochester (fig. 2) in which bystanders are used 
in the same fashion.'' 

The sky in the Carter painting is one of van de Cap- 
pelle's most impressive creations. Taking his example from 
Porceiiis (cat. no. 18) and de Vlieger, Cappelle developed 
a repertory of effects unsurpassed by any Dutch artist; like 
other painters he often echoed the general arrangement of 
the ships and land m the cloud formations, but his skies 
have an unprecedented power and boldness of design. In 
the great beach view of 165 i in the Mauritshuis (fig. 3)** he 
had already employed a pattern of massive, upswept clouds 
like those on the right side of the Carter picture, but in the 
latter the low-lying horizontal bank of clouds at the left, 
dramatically back-lighted, introduces a new note. The 
splendid complexity of the sky, its luminosity echoed in 

the water, is a major achievement. Stechow devoted a 
passage to another picture by van de Cappelle that could 
apply to this one: 

Van de Cappelle's picture is based on "luminous tonality" .... 
The picture is essentially restricted to a gamut extending from 
grey to brown . . . but at the same time, this tonality, far from 
being of the more graphic and somewhat schematized type fa- 
\ oured by the artists of the thirties and forties, exhibits a silky, 
all-per\ading luminous sheen which results in the impression 
that the entire scene is steeped in moisture. . . . Once more, Jan 
van de Cappelle emerges as one of the great representatives of a 
true drs nofa; again his new achievement is based on new optical 
discoveries; again, it is not the discoveries that automatically 
result in a new stvle; again, it is not sight alone hut sight coupled 
\\ ith insight that counts, and accounts for this miracle.' 

Although It IS often difficult to dare paintings by van de 
Cappelle with much confidence, this one would seem to 
belong to the first half of the 1 650s, a period from which 
there are a number of dated pictures of comparable tonality 
and handling.* 

1. The painting in the Roharts collei-tion. London, is indeed dated 
1645 according to Russell (Cappelle, pp. 11—11, ?6, Kg. i); HdG 50; see 
also Stechow [Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 1 1-). who was cautious 
about accepting the date. 

1. HdG I-; Russell, Cappelle. pp. 11-13; JnJ L. J. Bol, /);(- hol- 
Idndische Warmemalerei. Braunschweig, 19-3, pp. 124—15. 

3. In the painting in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna [inv. no. 
4-8; Bol, Marmemalerei,pp. 186-8-, fig. 190; and Russell, Cappelle. p. 
21, figs. 2, 2a). 

4. HdG 14; Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 118, fig. i^i. 

5. Russell, Cappelle, p. 89, no. ^. fig, 91 I'not in HdG). 

6. HdG I •■.'■,: Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, pp. 106--, fig. 
Ill; Russell, Cappelle. p. 18, fig. 19; and most recently the .Mauritshuis 
catalogue Hollandse schilderkiinst. Landschappen i~de eenif. The 
Hague, 1980, pp. 19—10, where the reappearance during cleaning of a 
signature and the date 165 1 is reported. 

7. Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 10-, on the .Mauritshuis 
painting (see note 6). 

8. For example, the paintings of 1653 (HdG 5 i; formerly Lady Wan- 
tage; Russell, Cappelle, fig. 13) and of 1651 (not in HdG; formerly 
Spencer-Churchill collection; Russell, Cappelle, p. 89, no. i, fig. 1 1). 


Pieter Claesz. 
1597/98— 1661 

Pierer Claesz. was born in Burgsteinfurt in Westphalia in 1597 or 1598. Few tacts about 
his life are known. His birthdate has been surmised from a document of 1640 that gives his age as 
forty-three. By the time of his marriage in 16 1~ he was living in Haarlem, where he seems to have 
settled, where his son Nicolaes Claesz. Berchem was born in r 6zo, and where Pieter died in 1 66 1. 
Dated paintings by Claesz. span nearly forty years, from 1611 to 1660. Houbraken reports that 
Claesz. began by painting fish studies and small still lifes. His teacher is unknown, but his earliest 
paintings follow in the tradition of the previous generation of "breakfast" still-life painters such as 
Floris van Dyck and Clara Peeters. Throughout his career Claesz. alternated between a loose 
painterly style that may have been influenced by his townsman Frans Hals and a more finely 
detailed technique. In the 1620s Claesz. together with W. C. Heda (cat. no. 11) introduced a new 
and original type of still life, remarkable for its modest subject matter of simple foods and vessels, its 
attention to light and atmosphere, and its reduced range of color. Following the revived demand for 
elaborate, richly colored still lifes in the 1640s, Claesz. introduced into his compositions expensive 
objects, touches of local color, and such decorative elements as a leafy vine. He continued, however, 
to paint modest compositions for about ten more years. Pieter Claesz. 's pupils include his son 
Nicolaes Claesz. Berchem, who painted landscapes, portraits, and historical subjects but never a 
still life, and Roeland Koets, a specialist in fruit still lifes who occasionally collaborated with his 


Still Life with Herring, Wine, arid Bread 

Signed and dated, right: PC i loinedi 164- 

Oilonwood, I-' 2 X 2.3 ''4 in. \44.5 x 59cm. 

Collections: Private collection. The Netherlands; |J. Hoogsteder, The 

Hague, 1 980 1 . 

References: N. R. A. Vrootn, A Modest Message as Intimated b\ the 

Painters of the "Monochrome Banket/e," Schiedam, 1980, vol. i, p. 4-, 

fig. 55, vol. 1, p. 34, no. 141. 

The sLihiect is a hreakhist ot herring, bread, and wine, 
\\ hich the artist displays with a vine branch, currants, a 
lemon, and some nuts. These are the typically simple in- 
gredients of a class ot still-lit'e painting that grew to great 
popularity during the 1620s and 1630s, spurred by the 
example of Claesz. and W. C. Heda (cat. no. 12), and was 
practiced by a whole generation of artists. ' Earlier table 
still lifes had generally been colorful and abundant in the 
display of vessels and varieties of food; they were sym- 

metrical and seen from a relatively high vantage point to 
allow a better view. Claesz. and the painters of his genera- 
tion reduced color and concentrated on tonal relationships; 
they eliminated all but a simple repertory of objects, gave 
the table a well calculated disorder, and brought down the 
viewpoint to foreshorten objects and complicate the play 
of form. Their still lifes have much in common v\ith the 
tonal dune landscapes and ri\ er views of van Goyen and 
Salomon van Ruysdael (cat. nos. 11 and iij, the genre 
scenes of Dirck Hals, and the church interiors of Saenre- 
dam (cat. no. 23), all of which reflect the sober, reductive 
aesthetic that dominated much of Dutch art, especially in 
Haarlem, for a quarter-century. 

This picture by Claesz. comes at the end of the period 
when sobrietv of content and sr\le were the rule in still 



FIGURE I. Pieter Claesz., i((// L;/t'. 1642. L'll uii wih'J, ^;~ 
m. (60 X 83.5 cm.). Moscow, Pushkin Museum of Fme .Arts. 

FIGURE z. I'letcr LLksz., ,y;// Li/f, 164-. Oil on wood, 2.5' 
in. (64 .\ 81 cm.). Amsterdam, Ri|ksmuseum. 

31 "4 

FIGURE 3. Pietcr Claesz., Slill Life with Herring. Wine, and Bread 


life and, in fact, was painted at a time when sumptuous 
display was again in fashion. It belongs to a group of 
paintings by Claesz. that might be considered the last great 
expression of his genius. Claesz. had used all these mgre- 
dients — among others the same roemer, pewter plates, 
knife, and knife case — in paintings more than two decades 
earlier, and in 1642 he had reassembled them into an 
impressive composition now in the Pushkin Museum, 
Moscow (fig. i).- Five years later, in 164-, he painted at 
least four variations on the theme, substituting certain 
objects at will and rearranging them somewhat, while 
retaining the basic layout. The best-known is in the Rijks- 
museum, Amsterdam (fig. 2); in it the dangling lemon peel 
and rumpled tablecloth cause the design to spill over the 
edge, and the dish of peppercorns perched on the salt 

lends a note of instability. The pictures in Bremen and 
Budapest^ introduce a ham and a pie and have a greater 
air of movement and disorder. The Carter painting, in 
contrast, is the most serene of the group: the objects lie 
flat, none disturbs its neighbor, and the forms may be read 
clearly. Claesz. created an intricate pattern of ovals by 
foreshortening all the circular shapes; at the same time he 
insisted on the illusions of volume and space by such fa- 
miliar devices as the peeled lemon and the knife that juts 
over the table edge. His rich, lustrous paint, applied tluidly 
and rather broadly, not only evokes the textures of the 
simple foods but also has a direct sensual appeal of its own 
(fig. 3). Manipulated with the greatest subtlety, the diffuse, 
raking light defines the objects and at the same time softens 
their shadow's. 

I. The term monnchrnmc hankctjc has been in general use for most 
painted still lifes of food, drink, and related objects from about 1610 
onward, ever since the appearance of N. R. A. Vroom, Dc ichdders van 
het monochrome I'anketje, Amsterdam, 194 s (expanded and repub- 
lished as A Modest Message as Intmiated by the Painters of the "Mono- 
chrome Banketje," 2. vols., Schiedam, 1980). A recent attempt to coin 
more accurate terminologv' would classify most pictures of this type hy 
Heda and Claesz. as "presentations of riches" (Miinster, Stdlehen ni 
Europa, exh. cat., i9-'9— 80, pp. 408, 410—18). 

1. Inv. no. 580; N. I. Romanov, "Dutch Still-hfe Painting in the 
.Moscow Museum of Fine .-Xrrs," Art in America 10, 1931, p. 171. 

3. Oil on wood, both signed and dated 164-; the Bremen painting is 
50.5 X 71 cm., the Budapest painting 63.5 x 88 cm. (Vroom, A Modest 
Message, vol. i, figs. 31, 56). An undated but similar composition, 
probably of this period, is in the Hermitage, Leningrad (oil on wood, 40 
X 61 cm., Vroom, ,4 Modest Message, vol. 1, p. 33, no. 1 3-, repr.). 


Adriaen Coorte 

active 1683— 1707 

Practically nothing is known about Adnaen Coorte's life. His name appears on one 
document, the annual records of 1695—96 for the Guild of St. Luke in Middelburg, in which 
Coorte, who was not enrolled as a free master, was fined for selling his paintings. On the evidence of 
this document and the fact that so many of his paintings were sold in Middelburg in the eighteenth 
century, it is assumed that Coorte lived in or near this city. Dated paintings are known from 168^ to 
1707. His work consists entirely of still lifes of various types, including fruits, vegetables, flowers, 
shells, game, and Vauitas subjects. His simple, austere style is unique, but his smooth surfaces and 
soft translucent colors accord with late seventeenth-centurv taste. 

Wild Strawberries in a W'co; Li Boirl 

Signed and dated on table ledge, lower left: A Coorte 1^04 
Oil on paper, mounted on wood, 1 1' s x S'/s in. (19.5 x 11. 5 cm.) 
Collections: [J. Goudstikker. .Amsterdam, 19^^]; Sale, London, Chris- 
tie's, June 2.8, 1974, no. ~6, repr. 

Exhibition: Amsterdam, J. Goudstikker, Het stilleren, 1933, no. 68. 
References: L. J. Bol, "Adriaen Coorte, stillevenschilder," Nederlands 
Kiinsthistonsch jaarboek 4, i95i/5 3, p. zzo, no. 38, repr.; L. J. Bol, 
Adruen Coorte, .-\ssen and .Amsterdam, 19^^, no. A ^7, repr. 

Apparently little appreciated in the eighteenth and nine- 
teenth centuries and ignored by critics trom Houhraken to 
Fromentin, Coorte has only been recognized as a gitted 
and original master within the last thirty years.' When it 
was shown in a dealer's exhibition in 1933, \<'ild Straw- 
berries in a Wan Li Bowl was one of the first paintings to 
bring this all-but-forgotten artist to light.- Coorte was 
truly an artist tor whom less meant more, in his most 
typical paintings he reduces subject matter to a bare mini- 
mum; the beauty of his light, atmosphere, and texture 
saves his simple subjects from becoming boring or pedan- 

The sparse composition and the melting light and shad- 
ow in the Carter painting are hallmarks of Coorte's ma- 
ture style. In his early painting of 1685 (fig. i), a bowl of 
strawberries-^ forms part of a more elaborate composition 
with a curtain and branch hanging over the ledge, invading 
the space between the viewer and the objects represented."* 
By 1696 Coorte could focus solely on a bowl of straw- 
berries (fig. 2), although he still included the device of the 
overhanging sprig. The light falls directly on the fruit. 

illuminating the entire bowl and setting it off sharply 
against the background. In the Carter painting, by con- 
trast, and in a variant of the same year that has recently 
reappeared,' the light filters through the dark shadow, 
revealing only part of the design and leaving the rest ob- 
scure. This shifting light is used most eloquently in Coorte's 

FIGURE I. .Adriaen Coorte, Bowl with Strawberries, Gooseberries, 
and Asparagus on a Stone Ledge with Draped Velvet Cloth, signed and 
dated 1685. Oil on canvas, 16V2 x i7-'/s in. (41x44071.). Sale, London, 
Christie's, .April 10, 19-0, no. 67. Photograph courtesy of Christie's, 




FIGURE 1. Adriaen Coone, Bowl with Strawberries, signed and 
dated 1696. Oil on paper mounted on wood, lo'/sx 8^/4 in. (2.5.7 x 
22.1 cm.). Cothen, heirs of W. F. van Beeck Calkoen. 

FIGURE ? . Adriaen Coorte, Asparagus, signed and dated 
1703. Oil on canvas, 1 1-V4 x 9 in. (29.8 x 22.8 cm.). Cambridge, 
Fitzvvilliam Museum. 

FIGURE 4. Jakob van Hulsdonck, 
Bowl of Strawberries. Oil on 
copper, II X 13 '/2 in. 
(18 X 34.3 cm.). Formerly .Marjorie 
W. Prescott (Sale, New York, 
Christie's, January 9, 198 1, no. 13). 
Photograph courtesy of Christie's, 
Nev\ "lork. 


last works, which represent no more than pieces of fruit 
on a ledge.'' 

Like Chardin a generation later, Coorte concealed a 
great deal of careful calculation behind an appearance of 
simplicity and accident. In the Carter painting the playful 
flower sticking up from the bed of berries and the two 
berries on the ledge animate the composition and also 
lend It balance. Similar accents appear in other works by 
Coorte; two examples are the curved asparagus at the top 
and bottom of the bunch in the still life of 1703 in the 
Fitzwilliam Museum (fig. 3) and the two berries in a paint- 
ing from I -05 of strawberries on a ledge. ^ 

In content and composition, Coorte seems to have been 
inspired b\ the much earlier still lifes with Chinese bowls, 
strawberries, and blooming sprigs by the Antwerp painter 
Jakob van Hulsdonck (1582—1647), which are, however, 
symmetrical and viewed from a higher vantage point 

(fig. 4)- 

Coorte painted strav\berries in a bowl throughout his 
career, but he used this decorated porcelain bowl only 
once, in the Carter painting. A plain reddish-brown earth- 
enware vessel of the type used to carrv' fruits to the market 
usually holds the berries (fig. 2). The Wan Li bowl in our 
painting belongs to a common type of porcelain made by 
the thousands during the ,\ling dynasty (15-^—1619). The 
scalloped rim signifies a product made for export.* The 
artist may have included the bowl to please a particular 
client, but since nothing is known about Coorte's patrons, 
such ideas remain only speculation. Coorte may also have 
chosen the bowl to act as a foil for the fruit; its pale 
blue-green tones stand out in the light and accentuate the 
bright red berries, and the shadow ed side fades and blends 
with the brown background.'* The detailed rendition of 
the design of the bowl matches that of the fruit and flowers, 
and the dots of the deer's fur are echoed m the seeds 
catching the light on the strawberries. 

I . L. J. Boi IS responsible for the rediscover) of Coorte. See the puhh- 
cations listed under "References" and his catalogue for the exhibition 
Adriiten Coorte stillei-enschiljer, Dordrecht, I9s8. 

1. .Amsterdam, Het itdleven, exh. cat., 193 "1, no. 6S. .At that time the 
only painting by Coorte that had been publicly exhibited was the Bioidle 
of Aiparagui (.Amsterdam, Ri|ksmuseum; Bol, Coorle, no. Ai5). which 
had been shown in La nature morte hollaihlaisc. Brussels, Palais des 
Beaux-Arts, 1919, no. 114, pi. 49. 

3. Dr. Sam Segal has kindly informed us that the fruit in our painting, 
identical to that in the 1685 still life, is technically a wild strawberry, 
Fragaria vesca. According to Bol the name is deceptive because this t\ pe 
of berry was cultivated in Coorte's time {Coorte, p. 18). 

4. .Another painting from 1685 represents a bowl of strawberries in 
an elaborate composition set in a niche (Bol, Coorte, no. A3'. 

5. Straiihernes in an Earthenware Bowl, signed and dated i~04, 
paper on wood, 18.5 x li.i cm., D. Koetser, Zurich (L. J. Bol, "Goede 
onbekenden," Tableau 3, 19S0, p. 1 35, repr.i. 

6. Examples are Bol, Coorte, nos. 64--0. 
~. Ibid., no. 6-. 

8. The authors are indebted to |ohn Pope and Tom \\ u for informa- 
tion about the bow 1. 

9. The support, paper on wood, accentuates the densirv of the back- 
ground color. On the shadowed side of the bowl the blue-gray paint 
stands out in relief, possibly the result of a build-up of medium to make 
the colors more translucent. 


Aelbert Cuyp 
1620— 1691 

Born in Dordrecht in 1620, Cuyp lived there until his death in 1691. His drawings and 
paintings indicate that he visited other parts of the country, but apparently he never left Holland. 
Cuyp's development is not entirely understood, since dated works are known only from 1639, 
1 64 1, and 1646, and he was probably active until 1670. First trained in the studio of his father, the 
portraitist Jacob Gerritsz. Cuyp, Aelbert Cuyp treated a broad range of subjects in his early works, 
including still lifes, landscapes and interiors with figures, as well as landscapes. Cuyp's first 
landscapes are somewhat awkward assemblages of parts, with detailed vegetation and prominent 
dark foregrounds. Soon afterwards he adopted the yellow-brown tonality and vigorous brushwork 
of van Goyen's paintings of the later thirties. During the 1640s Cuyp seems to have spent time in 
Utrecht, where Cornelis van Poelenburgh, Gysbert d'Hondecoeter, and most importantly Jan Both 
influenced the development of his Italianate landscape style. Inspired by Both's compositions and 
his golden sunshine, Cuyp introduced the moist atmosphere and clear, tinted light that distin- 
guished his works from those of other painters of Italianate scenes and that were to earn him 
enormous fame in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Cuyp's landscape style gradually 
became more refined in the 1650s and 1660s and his portraits more formal and elegant. In 1658 
Cuyp married the wealthy widow Cornelia Boschman, a union that elevated his social status and 
assured him financial comfort for life. By about 1670 Cuyp's output seems to have slackened. He 
apparently spent his last twenty years as a respected citizen of Dordrecht, serving in a number of 
important civic positions. 


The Flight into Egypt 

Signed, lower left: A. Cuyp 
Oil on wood, 26^/4 x 35V4 in. (67.5 X91 cm.) 

Collections: Allegedly Royal Colleaion, Poland (Stanislaus I, died 1-66; 
Stanislaus II, reigned 1-64-95); Servad, Amsterdam (his sale, June 25, 
1778, no. 48, bought by Yver for 560 florins'); |Yver, Amsterdam); 
Prince Talleyrand, Pans (his sale, July -, iS i-, entire contents bought 
beforehand by Buchanan); John Webb, London, valued at £1,050; Alex- 
ander Baring, later Lord Ashburton, London, by 1 8 1 9; by descent to the 
5th Lord Ashburton, The Grange, Hampshire; Alfred de Rothschild, 
Halton Manor (1907-18); Rothschild heirs, to 19Z4; [M. Knoedler, 
New York]; Charles T. Fisher, Detroit (by 1915); Thomas K. Fisher, 
Detroit (Sale, Christie's, London, June 2.8, 1974. "O- "9. bought in); 
[Richard L. Feigen, New York, I977l- 

f.v/wtooHs: British Institution, i8i9,no. 105 (lent by Alexander Baring); 
New York, Knoedler Galleries, Dutch Masters of the XVH Century, 
1925, no. 2, repr.; Detroit Institute of Arts, The Third Loan Exhibition 
of Old Masters, 1926, no. 24, repr.; Detroit Institute of Arts, Catalogue 
of a Loan Exhibition of Old and Modern Masters, 1927, no. 3 1 ; Detroit 
Institute of Arts, Loan Exhibition of Dutch Genre and Landscape Paint- 

ing, 1929, no. i6;New \ork\i'or\d\? 31T, Masterpieces of Art, 1939, p. 
^2, no. 66, pi. 7-7. {Guide and Picture Book, fig. 105). 
References: W. Buchanan, Memoirs of Painting, London, 1824, vol. 2, 
pp. 321-22, no. 10; Smith, Catalogue Raisonne, 1834, vol. 5, pp. 320- 
21, no. 152; G. Waagen, Treasures of Art m Great Britain, London, 
1854, vol. 2, p. 1 10, no. 2; HdG 409; Jerrold Holmes, "The Cuyps in 
America," Art in America 18, 1930, pp. 167, 185, no. 2-, hg. 4; W. R. 
Valentiner, "Dutch Loan Exhibition in Detroit Museum," Art Neivs, 
October 19, 1929, pp. 3ff., repr. p. 8; John Walsh, Jr., "New Dutch 
Paintings at the Metropolitan .Museum," Apollo 99, 1974, p. 349, n. 23. 

Cuyp's setting evokes the sunny, rugged countryside of 
Italy, which he never saw. Although Cuyp did not leave 
Holland, he must have been greatly impressed by paint- 
ings of Italy by traveling Dutchmen, in particular Jan Both 
(see cat. no. 5), and he adopted their compositions, motifs, 
and particularly their delicately colored light and warm. 




FIGURE I. Aelbert Cuyp, T/)C 
Flight into Egypt (detail). 

FIGURE 2. Aelben Cuyp, A Road 
near a Rwer. Oil on canvas, 45^4 x 
65 in. (i 1 1 X 165 cm.). Dulwich, by 
permission of the Governors of 
Dulvvich College Picture Gallen . 


FIGURE 3 . Aelbert Cuyp, The 

Flight into Eg}'pt. Oil on wood, 

40 V2 X 60 '/4 in. (105 X 153 cm.i. 

Sale, Berlin, Goudstikker, March 

II, 1 94 1, no. iS. RKD 

ncg. no. 4611. 

benign atmosphere.- Other Utrecht artists such as CorneUs 
van Poelenburgh and Gysbert d'Hondecoeter seem to have 
influenced Cuyp's briUiant sunshine and sharp highhghts 
against dark foliage.-^ Here the golden sunhght invades the 
whole composition, changing color in the sky, casting 
long shadows in the foreground, and sparkling on the 
foliage. Gustav Waagen, after seeing this picture in Lord 
Ashburton's collection, wrote in 1854 that "the composi- 
tion itself has something more noble and poetical than is 
usual with [Cuyp]; to this is added a rare power and en- 
ergy of foreground with the most delicate gradation of the 
clear tones to the warm evening sky, so that the picture is 
one of the most beautiful that ever came from the hand of 
this master."'* 

The "something more noble and poetical" sensed by 
Dr, Waagen may derive from the religious subject, which 
went unnoticed until fifty years ago. The "old Man [lead- 
ing] an ass on which sits a young woman with a child in 
her arms"^ is the Holy Family, whom Cuyp took pains to 
identif)' by putting Joseph's saw in the pack on the don- 
key's back (fig. I ). The shepherds pointing toward them in 
wonder reinforce the significance of the little family, al- 
though the men surely do not know their real identify. It is 
no surprise that Waagen failed to grasp Cuyp's intention, 
since the picture is composed like others with ordinary 
staffage (fig. 2) and since he, like his contemporaries, was 
unused to such elevated subjects in a painter whom he 

regarded as one of the supreme landscapists. Ruskin prob- 
ably spoke for many when he observed in 1873, "Nothing 
happens in his pictures except some indifferent person 
asking the way of somebody else. . . . For further enter- 
tainment, perhaps, a red cow and a white one; or puppies 
at play, not playfully; the man's heart not going even with 
the puppies. Essentially he sees nothing but the shine on 
the flaps of their ears."*" 

Cuyp's religious and history paintings were few but 
significant; they include representations of Bathsheba 
Bathing, the Conversion of Saul, the Annunciation to the 
Shepherds, Christ Entering Jerusalem, the Baptism of the 
Eunuch, Orpheus Charming the Beasts, and perhaps oth- 
ers.^ He painted no fewer than three versions of the Flight 
into Egypt, a large panel of the later 1640s (fig. 3), the 
Carter painting, and a smaller panel of the same period 
(fig. 4). In both of the other versions an Italianate river 
valley is the setting through which the Holy Family wends 
its way unnoticed by the shepherds. Cuyp was adopting 
an old Netherlandish tradition of representing the Flight 
into Egypt in a contemporary landscape. Such pictures 
had been painted by various Flemish and Dutch masters 
of the fifteenth century, and later by Patinir, Elsheimer, 
Jan Brueghel, Rubens, Poelenburgh, Bloemaert, and Rem- 
brandt.* In 1644 Paulus Potter had put the Holy Family 
into a fanciful landscape with animals and herdsmen (fig. 
5). While certain artists such as Elsheimer, Rubens, and 


FIGURE 4. .\e\henCu\p,The Flight into 
Egypt. Oil on wood, 18 x iiVs in. (45.7 x 
58.1 cm.). New ■^ork. Metropolitan 
.Museum of .Art. 

FIGURE 5. Paulus Potter, T/;ef/(g/;f;Kto 
Egypt, 1644. Oil on wood, 18 '/2 x 25 'A in. 
(47 x 64 cm.). Formerly New York, 
Newhouse Galleries. 


Rembrandt followed the biblical text (Matthew z: i ?-i '^j 
and set the scene at night, creating landscapes full of sub- 
tle threats, others like Potter and Ciiyp chose daylight and 
more kiiidK surroundings. Cuyp's landscape, flooded 
with warm sun, refreshed by springs that cascade down 
the cliffs, and populated by sunple herdsmen, seems to 

embody the favor bestowed by God on the fleeing family. 
The Carter painting is close in treatment of detail and 
color to several others that have been dated on grounds of 
style to the early or middle 1 650s,'* and although we have 
too few dated paintings by Cuyp to be very certam, it is 
likely that it, too, was painted at that time. 

1. HdG 409, gives as the buyer from T.ilieyranij; the next 
owner as Webh; and Buchanan again as seller to Baring. 

2. On the mtluence of Both, see Steehow, Dutch LiiiiJsc\ipi' l\iiiitnii;, 
pp. 62-63; J- *-■• ^'^n Gelder and 1. Jost, "Vroeg contact van Aelbert 
Cuyp met Utrecht," WiscclliVicj I. Q. van Regteren Altcrni, Amsterdam, 
1969, pp. 100—103; Stephen Reiss, Aclhert Cuyp, London, 19-5, p. S; 
and Blankert, Italumjsercndc Lvuhchapichilders, pp. 1 7 1—71. 

3. On the influence of Poelenburgh, see Stechow, Dutch Laiuisccipe 
Painting, p. 161; Blankert, Italianisercnde lanjschjpschilders, p. 171. 
On Gysbert d'Hondecoeter, see Blankert, Itjluniserendc landschap- 
schitders, p. i-i; Reiss, Cuyp, p. 31. Compare the Landscape with 
Herdsman by Gysbert d'Hondecoeter in the Ri|ksmuseum (no. A-51) 
for a treatment of foreground vegetation and its reflection of light » hich 
resembles Cuyp very closely. Stechow ("Signiticant Dates on Some 
Seventeenth Century Dutch Landscape Paintings,'" Oiid-Holland "s. 

i960, p. 8-) mentions also the influence of Gillis d'Hondecoeter on 
Cuyp's early Italianate landscapes. 

4. Waagen, Treasures, vol. z, p. 1 10, no. 1. 

5. HdG 409. The hrst publication to give the correct subject was the 
1929 Detroit exhibition catalogue (q.v.). 

6. |ohn Ruskin, Modern Painters, vol. s, London, iS-^, p. 2^9. 
-. HdG 1-19. 

8. For a discussion of various approaches to the subject, see Knip- 
ping. Iconography of the Counter Reformation m the Netherlands, 
Nieuwkoop and Leyden, 1974, vol. 2, pp. ?8i— 8^. 

9. Especially the View of the Rhine, Rotterdam, Museum Boymans- 
van Beuningen (Reiss, C»yp, no. 108); River Landscape with Riders 
(Reiss, Cuyp, no. 139); Peasants by a River, Dulwich, Dulwich College 
Picture Gallery (Reiss, Cuyp, no. 138); and Baptism of the Eunuch, 
National Trust, Angleshy Abbey (Reiss, Cu\p, no. 118). 


Jan van Goyen 

1596— 1656 

Jan van Goyen was born in Leyden in 1596 and began his training there at the age of ten. 
After studying with a succession of minor artists, including Isaac van Swanenburgh in Leyden and 
Willem Gerritsz. in Hoorn, van Goyen traveled to France in about 16 15. One year later he studied 
in Haarlem under the pioneering landscapist Esaias van de Velde, the only one of his masters who 
strongly influenced his style. In 1 6 1 8 van Goyen married in Leyden, and he is mentioned there again 
in 1627—28. From 1634 until his death in 1656 he resided in The Hague, although he traveled 
throughout Holland and to Belgium and Cleves. 

Van Goyen was constantly beset with financial difficulties, including losses incurred by 
speculating in tulip bulbs, and despite his astounding rate of production and his additional 
occupations as dealer and appraiser, he died insolvent. His career spanned more than thirty-five 
years; dated works by him are known from 1620 to 1656. His paintings of the late twenties and 
early thirties, together with the works of Pieter de Molijn and Salomon van Ruysdael, established a 
new phase of Dutch landscape painting, distinguished by modest, domestic subject matter, a low 
vantage point, and a palette limited in color but richly varied in tone. A compulsive draftsman, van 
Goyen made more than a thousand sketches, most of them studies from nature. The rapid and 
summary technique of his drawings is reflected in the energetic brushwork of his paintings. 


View of Dordrecht 

Signed and dated on the rowboat, center: v Goyen 164s 
Oil on wood, 25'/2 X 37'/2 in. (64 x 95 cm.) 

Collections: Lord St. Leonards; S. E. Kennedy (Sale, London, Christie's, 
July 6, 1 9 1 -, no. 1 3 ) ; [Thos. Agnew & Sons, London] ; [ F. Muller & Co., 
Amsterdam, 1919]; H. E. Smidt van Celder, Aerdenhout, 1919-1979; 
[G. Cramer, The Hague, 19-9]. 

References: Hans-Ulnch Beck, Jjn van Goyen i ^qh-ihsh, vol. 1, Am- 
sterdam, 1973, no. 300, repr. 

This view of Dordrecht shows the city from a point to the 
southwest, near the junction of two major rivers, the 
Oude Maas and the Dordtse Kil. It is a view van Goyen 
painted with many variations in more than twenty works 
from 1 64 1 through 1655.' 

In the seventeenth century Dordrecht was regarded as 
Holland's oldest cir\'. For centuries its position on a Rhine 
tributary and on other connecting waterways had made it 
preeminent as a center of trade, although it had yielded to 
competition from Amsterdam and Rotterdam in van 


.„ ,. ,^ J 

FIGURE I. Jan van Goyen, View of Dordrecht, about 1648. Black 
chalk, 5 Vs X 7'h in. (13 x 19 cm.). Dresden, Staatliche Kiinstsamm- 


Goyen's time. The Grote Kerk, dating from the late h)iir- 
teenth and early fifteenth centuries, the most impressive 
church in Holland, stood as testimony to Dordrecht's 
greatness. For van Goyen and other artists, the city had 
the added attraction of a picturesque situation on an is- 
land created by a medieval moat, its buildings and forti- 
fications dominating the broad, busy waterways from 
which they could be seen for miles in several directions. 

Van Goyen exploited the site for his particular interests, 
indifferent to exact topography but constantly varying his 
compositions and evoking the ever-changing effects of 
light, weather, and atmosphere.- It is surprising that so 
few drawings of Dordrecht survive; only one has come 
down to us, contained in a sketchbook of about 1648 (fig. 
i),^ although on earlier trips van Goyen must have made 
other drawings that he kept in his studio to consult for his 
paintings. A study of his twenty-odd paintings of Dor- 
drecht seen from this direction demonstrates that almost 
nothing is fixed, almost nothing repeated; the church re- 
mains the trademark of the site, but even its proportions 

vary somewhat from painting to painting, and most of the 
other buildings appear, disappear, and move about ac- 
cording to van Goyen's wishes. 

Here the Dordrecht skyline corresponds very roughly 
to actuality (fig. 2): the windmill at the far left [standaani- 
niolcn) stands in its usual place; farther to the right, two 
buildings with end-chimneys may be a warehouse of the 
West Indies Company and the Klokkelaarstoren; next to 
these is the Rondeel Engelenburg, a high, symmetrical 
building with cupola; on the waterfront between it and 
the Grote Kerk stands a high crane used for hoisting freight 
ashore, the Kraan Rodermond; then the Grote Kerk itself, 
its stumpy tower considerably heightened; in front of the 
Grote Kerk is a turreted medieval gate, the Oude Vuil- 
poort; and to the right of the Grote Kerk is a high tower 
that can only be the Town Hall, although van Goyen has 
considerably altered its features and proportions.'' In this 
painting he gives a relatively accurate impression of the 
width of the river, but in others he chose to portray a vast 
expanse of choppy water (fig. s). Van Goyen's free inter- 


pretation of an actual location, even such a famous one as 
Dordrecht, is characteristic of his approach to painting^ 
and evidently very much in tune with prevailmg seven- 
teenth-century attitudes toward realit)-. 

The Carter painting shows the river in its most benign 
aspect. The water is nearly mirror-smooth, rowboats 
move across its surface, and a sailing vessel laden with 
passengers ghosts toward the city. The still water mirrors 
the vast sky, whose clouds cast shadows on the fore- 
ground and permit a bright patch of sunlight to fall in the 
center background. Painted at the height of van Goyen's 
so-called "tonal"' period, the picture is extremely restrained 
in color. Hues are limited to browns, grays, pale blues, 
and pale greens, and the entire color scheme is per\ aded 
by the effect of the warm brown tint of the panel, which 
van Goyen used as a unif\ing element by applying thin, 
partly translucent paint for much of the lower part of the 
picture. Boats, figures, and the distant city are rendered in 
van Goyen's characteristically rapid draftsmanlike tech- 
nique. In the next decade van Goyen adopted a different 
color scheme for his views of Dordrecht and his other 
landscapes, dominated by silver)- tones of gray and blue.*" 

DoKVKrunT jjft X ^'.i/.'/t*- 

FIGURE i. .Abraham Kixdemaker, Dordrecht on the MenceJe, i6fo, 
from Kabinet van XeJerlandiche oiitheeden en gezigten, 1725. Etchmg. 
Amsterdam, Ri|ksprentenkabinet. 

Painters of the next generation such as .^elbert Cuyp were 
attracted to more spectacular effects of light and to the 
picturesque aspects of commercial traffic on the river at 
Dordrecht tfig. 4), attractions felt long afterward by 

FIGURE 3. Jan van Goyen, Vieic of Dordrecht. 1644. Oil on canvas, 
37% X 57V2 in. (95 X 146 cm.). Brussels, .\lusee Royal des Beaux-.Arts. 


F itjURK 4. Aelbert Cuyp, Rncr Scene nuh j \';t';r 0/ Durjrccht. Oil on canvas, 39' 4 x 5 3 '4 in. 
(99.6 X I 55.3 cm.!. London. \X allacc Collection. 

I. Beck, I'jn Gore;;, vol. i,nos. i9i— 305, 30-— 10, 3 11-1-. The hrsr 
dated view ot Dordrecht, ot 1653 (ibid., no. 290), is from the north. 

1. For example, ibid., nos. 191, 193-95, 2.97, 299 (tig. i ). 

^. Beck, ran Goyen, vol. 1, Amsterdam, 19~3, no. 846-1, .md p. 
1^1 for a discussion of the dating. 

4. NX'e are grateful for the help of the staff of the Gemeente.irchief 
Dordrecht in the identification of some of the buildings. 

^. See especially E. Haverkamp Begemann's discussion of van Gt)y- 

en's Mews of Rhenen and Dordrecht, "|an \an Goyen in the t iircoran: 
Exemplars of Dutch Naturalism," The \\:lliani A. Cljrk I'ollectioiK 
exh. cat., Washington, 19-8, pp. 5 1-59; and H. van de Waal, /jh ran 
Goyen, Amsterdam (Palet-Serie), n.d., pp. 15—27. 

6. For other views of 1651—55, see Beck, i\in Goyen, \ol. 1, nos. 
II 1-14, 31-. 

-. Turner's Dort or Dordrecht: The Dort P^icket-Bojt from Rotter- 
djin Becalmed (R..^. 1818 \ "lale Center for British .Art, New Haven. 


Willem Claesz. Heda 


Heda was born in 1593 or 1594; the location of his birth is unknown. To our knowledge 
he spent his life in Haarlem, where he is first mentioned as a member of the Guild of St. Luke in 
1 63 1. He later served in various official positions for the guild, and he died sometime between 1680 
and i68z. With the exception of a few portraits and figure paintings, his production consists 
entirely of still lifes. Dated pictures by him are known from 1628 to 1665. Heda's works of the 
thirties already reveal the qualities that distinguish his paintings and those of his townsman Pieter 
Claesz. (cat. no. 8) from the still lifes of their predecessors: a lowered viewpoint, a reduced number 
of objects, a palette restricted to yellows, browns, and greens, and an emphasis on the reflections of 
light on various textures and surfaces. His still lifes differ from those of Claesz. in their smoother 
surfaces, generally more elaborate objects, and, after the mid-thirties, their predominantly upright 
formats. The most austere compositions by Heda belong to the second half of the thirties, but he 
continued to paint modest still lifes as well as more elaborate arrangements into the fifties. After 
mid-century, in an attempt to assimilate the innovations of the painters of ostentatious still lifes, 
Heda introduced more color and more contrived decorative effects into his pictures. Heda's son 
Gerrit studied with his father and imitated his srvle. 


Still Life with Tobacco, Wine, 
and a Pocket Watch 

Signed and dated on edge of table, left center: heda 1637 
Oil on wood, i6'/2 x iiV: in. (42 x 54.5 cm.) 

Collections: [Lenthal, Paris]; [P. de Boer, Amsterdam, 1949]; J. M. 
Redele, Dordrecht, by 1952; [G. Cramer, The Hague]. 
Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Kunstkrmg, Tentoonstellmg van oude schil- 
derijen collectie C. V. Kunsthandel P. de Boer, 195 1, no. 10; Paris, 
Orangerie, La nature morte de I'antiquite a nos jours, 1952., no. 37, 
repr., cat. by Charles Sterling; Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizione, Mostra 
di pittiira olandese del seicento, 1954, no. 51; Dordrecht, Nederlandse 
stilleven iiit I'ler eeuwen, 1954, no. 52; Rotterdam, Museum Boymans, 
Tentoonstellmg, 1954, no. -?; Rotterdam, .Museum Boymans, Tentoon- 
stellmg kunstscbatten nit Xederlandse I'crzamelmgen, 1955, no. ^3, pi. 
50; Eindhoven, Stedelijk van .-^bbemuseum, Het Hollandse stilleven 
1^^0—19)0, 1957, no. 28; Luxembourg, Musee de TEtat, and Liege, 
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Nature mortes hollandaises 1550-1950, 1957, 
no. 29, pi. 17; Paris, Galerie Andre Weil, La nature morte et son inspira- 
tion, i960, no. 24; San Francisco, Palace ofthe Legion of Honor; Toledo 
Museum of Art; Boston, .Museum of Fine .\rts, Tbe Age of Rembrandt, 
1966— 67, no. ioi,repr. 

References: Charles Sterling, La nature morte de I'antiquite a nos jours. 
Paris, 1952, p. 47, repr.; rev. and trans, ed. Still Life Painting from 
Antiquity to the Present Time, Pans and New York, 1959, p. 52; Jean 

Leymarie, La peinture hollandaise de Gerard de Saint-Jean a Vermeer, 
Lausanne, Paris, and New York, 1956, fig. 173; Jean Leymarie, Dutch 
Painting, Geneva and New York, 1956, repr. p. 173; Charles Boucaud, 
Les pichets d'etain, Paris. 1958, p. 229. 

Heda's contemporaries would have classified this picture 
as a toebdckje, a type of still life with tobacco and other 
requisites for smoking that sometimes also contams pitch- 
ers and glasses for drinking. His first securely dated pic- 
ture, of 1628, a more explicit representation of such a 
subject (fig. I ), already reveals the radical simplification of 
composition and color scheme pioneered by Heda and his 
Haarlem compatriot Pieter Claesz. (cat. no. 8). This de- 
velopment is analogous to the changes in content and style 
of the landscapes painted in the late twenties and thirties 
by Heda's Haarlem contemporaries Jan van Goyen and 
Salomon van Ruysdael (see cat. nos. 1 1 and 21). Limiting 




FIGURE I. Willem Claesz. Heda, 
Vanttas, i6z8. Oil on wood, 
i^Vs X 27^/8 in. (45.5 X 69.5 cm.l. 
The Hague, Museum Bredius. 

his range of color (hence, the misleading term "mono- 
chrome"), but not his range of tones, Heda keenly ob- 
serves the effects of light on various textures, juxtaposing, 
for example, the smooth surfaces of the tumbler and plate 
with the crumbly tobacco and crinkled paper. 

Most of Heda's paintings preceding the Carter picture 
are of another type, the so-called banketje, in which food 
and serving vessels are disposed on a table. The arrange- 
ments are sometimes elaborately disordered and the ob- 
jects often rare and expensive, but a certain sobriety is lent 
by the artist's modest colors and his careful arrangement 
of shapes.' In the mid-i63os Heda painted several pic- 
tures in which vessels are massed into a sturdy triangle 
and placed on a dark green cloth that does not distract but 
provides a rich foil for the objects (tig. z). He revived this 
scheme in 1637 for the Carter painting, which is one of the 
simplest and most firmly constructed of all his pictures. It 
may be no coincidence that in the preceding year Pieter 
Claesz. had painted two tnclhickies of somewhat similar 
content and of comparable simplicity. - 

The seventeenth-century spectator was not only ex- 
pected to savor the artist's skillful illusions and to enjoy 
his ingenious arrangement of forms, he was also invited to 
ponder the meaning of the objects. In Heda's toebackje of 
1628 a skull, broken pipe, and overturned glass make the 
brevity of human life the unmistakable lesson (fig. i).^ In 
the Carter painting nearly a decade later, this idea is still 
present but is more subtly integrated into the whole. The 
overturned cup and the u atch are part of the pattern of 

ovals and circles that dominate the composition, yet they 
still suggest, in the words of the verse inscribed under a 
contemporary still life, that "The glass is empty. Time is 
up." [Het glas is leeg. Dit tijd is om)^ The message is 
reinforced by the tobacco and pipes, for the relatively new 
habit of smoking, like the older vices of drinking, gam- 
bling, and whoring, was constantly attacked by preachers 
and lay moralists in Heda's time (Petrus Scriverius's Sa- 
turnalia . . . The Use and Misuse of Tobacco, published in 
Haarlem seven years earlier, has a frontispiece showing a 
skull resting on two pipes).' The watch in Heda's picture 

FIGURE 1. \X'illem Claesz. Heda, Still Life with Roemer. Silrer Cup. 
iiiui Oysters, 1634. Oil on wood, iS's x 12. V2 in. (43 x 57 cm.). Rot- 
terdam. .Museum Boymans-van Beuningen. 


FIGURE 3. Willem Claesz. Heda. .Sf;// Life with Tobjccu. \V Wif. and a rocket W Jtcl? :detaih. 

(fig. ^) might also suggest temperance, the careful regula- 
tion of life and its appetites, as it does in other Dutch 
paintings.*" Its cover is closed, a rarity in still life; the 

closed watch serves as a kind of metaphor for the artist's 
method of concealing the eternal and inevitable truth be- 
hind the appearances of the ever\day world. 

I. For the term mimochrome ba>iket]e see Pieter Claesz., cat. no. 8, 
note I. 

i. The pictures of 161(1 in the Hermitage, Leningrad, and formerly m 
the collection of J. ^X'llllam Middendorf, Washington 1 V'room, A MoJeit 
Message, vol. 2, p. 2^, nos. 79, 80, repr.l. 

?. See Ingvar Bergstrom, "Notes on the Boundaries of Vnnitas Sig- 
niticance," in l/JelheiJ der Ijdelheden. exh. cat., Levden, 1970. 

4. Ibid. 

5. For tobacco, its uses, its intoxicating effects, and its associations 
with Vjtutjs. see Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, pp. 156— 5-; 
.Amsterdam, Ri|ksmuseum, Tot lering en ivrinaak, exh. cat., 19-6, pp. 
55 — 5~, no. 7; Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulnch-Museum, Die 
Sprache der Bilder, exh. cat., 19-8, pp. 1 54-57, no. 36. 

6. Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, pp. 189—90; E. de Jongh, 
Zmne- en ininneheelden in de schilderkunst ran de zeventiende eeuu\ 
[.Amsterdam], 196-, pp. ^6-6o. 


Jan van der Heyden 

1637— 1712 

Born in Gorinchem in 1637, van der Heyden reportedly first studied with a glass en- 
graver. After 1650 he lived in Amsterdam; his paintings indicate that he traveled extensively in his 
own country and also visited Belgium and Germany, stopping in Cologne, Diisseldorf, Emmerich, 
and Cleves. More famous in his own lifetime as an inventor and engineer than as an artist, van der 
Heyden devoted himself primarily to practical projects for the last forty years of his life. In 1672 he 
and his brother Nicolaes invented and manufactured a new type of fire hose, documented in Jan van 
der Heyden's book of 1690, Bescbrijving der Nieuwlijks uitgei'Ofiden en geoctrojeerde Slang- 
Bnvid-Spuiten, illustrated with prints by the artist. Jan also developed a street-lighting system for 
Amsterdam; he served as director of street lighting in 1670 and as fire chief in 1677. 

The first artist to create imaginary' views from existing city streets and buildings, van der 
Heyden freely rearranged familiar sites and buildings to suit his compositions, as earlier artists had 
done with still life, landscape, and architectural subjects. His production as a painter was confined 
largely to the years 1664—78. Before his first cityscape, dated 1666, van der Heyden painted 
landscapes on glass and still lifes composed of scholarly articles in a room, the latter a subject he 
resumed in the final two years of his life. He also painted actual known buildings in landscapes, 
usually invented, and Italianate landscapes. In the seventies van der Heyden's style became increas- 
ingly refined and his colors cooler and paler, a development found also in the art of Gerrit Berck- 
heyde (cat. no. 2). The smooth surfaces and minute details in van der Heyden's finest paintings, in 
which each brick and its mortar are clearly legible, earned him great popularity in the eighteenth 
century. His imaginary city views based on reality' set an important example for the Italian vedute 
pioneers of the next century. 


A View of the Herengracht, Amsterdam 

Signed on the bridge abutment, lower right: VH (joined) 

Oil on wood, I3'/4X is'/sin. (33.5 x 39.7cm.) 

Collections: Probably Jacob Crammer Simonsz. (his sale, Amsterdam, 

November 15, 1778, no. loi; probably Ducdela Valliere, Pans (his sale. 

Pans, February ii-13, 1-81, no. 67, to A. J. Paillet); [A. J. PaiUet, 

Pans]; probably M. B. de Boynes, Paris (his sale. Pans, March 15-19, 

1785, no. 41); P. Meazza, Milan (his sale, Milan, April 15-13, 1884, no. 

186); Antoine Baer, 1885;' Albert Lehmann, Pans (his sale. Pans, June 

12-13, 1925, no. 2.55); Alfred de Rothschild; Baron de Beurnonville;- 

Esmond, Paris; [Otto Wertheimer, Pans, 1945]; [Duits, London, 1950I; 

Sidney J. van den Bergh, Wassenaar, by 1953; [G. Cramer, The Hague, 


Exhibitions: Amsterdam, F. Muller & Co., Maitres hollandais du Wile 

Steele, 1906, no. 62; Birmingham, England, Museum and Art Gallery, 

Some Dutch Cabinet Pictures of the Seventeenth Century, 1950, no. 15; 
Pans, Orangerie, Le pjysjge hollandais an XVIIe siecle, 1950—51, no. 
36, pi. 26; Zurich, Kunsthaus, Hollander des 17. jahrhiinderts, 1953, 
no. 53; Rome, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Mostra di pittura olandese del 
seicento, 1954, no. 54, and Milan, Palazzo Reale, 1954, no. 62; New 
"l ork. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Toledo Museum of Art, Art Gal- 
lery of Toronto, Dutch Painting, The Golden Age, 1954—55, "O- 38; 
Rotterdam, Museum Boymans, Kunstschatten uit Nederlandse ver- 
zamelingen, 1955, no. 75, pi. 145; Tel Aviv Museum, Holland's Golden 
Age, 1959, no. 51; Laren, Singer Museum, Kunstschatten. Twee Ne- 
derlandse collecties schilderijen, 1959, no. 53; Leyden, Stedeliik Mu- 
seum 'de Lakenhal,' 171^1" eeuwse meesters iiit Nederlandse particiilier 
bezit, 1965, no. 24. 


CA 1 A 1 (_)(., L h NUMBER I? 


References: HdG 2z; J. Bruyn, "Le paysage hollandais au W'lle siecle," 
Art et Style 17, 1950; A. B. de V'ries, "Old Masters in the Collection of 
Mr. and Mrs. Sidney van den Bergh," Apollo 80, 1964, p. 557, repr.; 
Jakob Rosenberg, Seymour Slive, and E. H. ter Kuile, Dutch Art and 
Architecture, 1600— 1800, Harmondsworth, 1966, p. 193, pi. 164B. 
1971 ed., p. 332., fig. 2,63; A. B. de Vries, Verzameling Sidney J. van den 
Bergh. Wassenaar, 1968, p. 68 repr.; Helga Wagner, jan van der 
Heyden. .-Xmsterdam and Haarlem. 19-1, p. 69, no. 11; E. Haverkamp 
Begemann, "Jan van der Heyden by Helga \X'agner" (review), Burling- 
ton Magazine 1 1 5, 19-2., p. 401. 

The view is from the Leliegracht southward along the 
Herengracht toward the bridge that marks the Warmoes- 
gracht, now called the Radhuisstraat. This quiet section of 
the Herengracht, one of three broad semicircular canals 
constructed in the seventeenth centurv' to ring the cir\' 
center, lies only a few hundred yards from the Town Hall 
and Flower Market painted by Berckheyde (see car. no. 2). 
In contrast to Berckheyde, van der Heyden interprets his 
site freely, altermg the spatial relationships and archi- 
tectural details. 

Van der Heyden painted many views of Amsterdam, 
where he lived and worked (fig. i), including several 
others showing houses once located at the curve in the 
Herengracht shown in the Carter painting (fig. 2).^ In 
these other views van der Heyden has lifted the buildings 
from their original site and invented new settings for 
them. In one the Town Hall of Haarlem appears further 
down the canal, and another represents a section of the 
Manelaarsgracht."* These paintings emphasize the stately 
character of the canal and are dominated by the lofty and 
varied facades of the great patrician houses. 

An intimate, lyrical spirit distinguishes the Carter paint- 
ing from all the other views of the Herengracht, in which 
the three majestic Herengracht houses (numbers 168—74) 
are comparable to the "portraits" of famous monuments 
such as the town halls of .Amsterdam and Haarlem and 
various churches all over the countn. . In the Carter paint- 
ing, by contrast, the linden trees obscure most of the 
buildings and permit only a glimpse of the houses; the 
swans, rowboat, and promenading figures give the place 
as much the air of a pleasure ground as of a commercial 

The location, not the buildings, seems to have interested 
the artist in our painting. Van der Heyden has chosen to 
omit numbers 1-0--2, the famous "Huis Bartolotti" de- 
signed by a follower of Hendrick de Keyset,' and number 
168, one of the first houses built by Philip Vingboons in 
Amsterdam,* both of which still stand today. The step- 
gabled house visible through the trees resembles the house 


FIGURE I. Mapot .Amsterdam. B/;(t' C/iuit- 

Hn//.i,.. J, London, 

FIGURE 1. Jan winder HhJl:!, I ■\ li,- ,':^ .ij^t. Amsterdam. Oi\on 
wood, 1 3 X I--/4 in. 133 x 45 cm. . Pans, .\lusee du Louvre. 

to the far left of the Louvre painting (fig. 2), number 174, 
which today has been replaced by a building in the Empire 

The artist has also taken liberties with the site itself. 
Most notably he has condensed the distance between the 
Leliegracht and the Warmoesgracht, as demonstrated by 
a photograph of the site (fig. ^ i. He has eliminated much 
of the distance between the bridge and the cur\e, thus 
emphasizing the bend, and has exaggerated the upward 
sweep of the wall. These changes give van der Heyden his 
main organizing device, the continuous undulating curve 
of the bridge and the canal wall that lends such grace to 
the composition. In composing the scene the artist may 
have used some form of optical device, perhaps a concave 
lens^ that would condense distances. Whether van der 

1 lu I K 1 ;. 1 liL Am^ttrdjm, trom the Leiiegracht 
toward the Radhuisstraat (photograph: Thomas J. Schneider). 

Heyden really used optical instruments is still uncertain, 
but he may well have visited Delft during the 1650s, 
where Fahntius, de Hooch, Vermeer, and other painters 
ot city views were experimenting in the Held of optics.® 

The picture was probably executed during the years 
1668—74, •^ period of great productivity in which van der 
Heyden painted his finest cityscapes. Lacking any dated 
works after 1668 and before 16^3, we cannot assign it a 
more exact date.'* Its clarity, precision, and warm colors 
are the mark of the entire group of views between these 
years; after the mid- 1670s van der Heyden favored more 
pastel colors, less minute detail, and more unified light. 

An old tradition credits Adriaen van de Velde with hav- 
ing painted the figures in van der Heyden's pictures until 
.Adnaen's death in 16^2; thereafter van der Heyden is 
supposed to have painted his own. But no one has yet 
made a convincing case that the figures really differ. '" We 
are inclined to think that their consistently fine and lively 
quality, like that of the illustrations in van der Heyden's 
own book about fire fighting, indicates that van der Hey- 
den painted them all, taking his cue in the beginning from 
Adriaen van de \'elde"s 

The Carter painting is probably the one mentioned un- 
der number 1 1 in the will made by the painter's widow in 
1 71 2, "De bogt van de Heerengracht met de War-Moes- 
sluys in Verschiet," valued at 50 guilders," a relatively 
modest sum when compared to the ^20 guilders set on an 
especially fine picture of a more important place, the Town 
Hall and Dam Square (now Pans, Musee du Louvre) or 
200 guilders on an elaborate still life. 

A painting that has been claimed as a pendant to the 
Carter picture. Street by a Canal (formerly in the collec- 
tion of H. A. Wetzlar, Amsterdam), though it is close in 
size, '- IS nevertheless so different in scale and composition 
that It could hardly have served as a suitable companion 

I. Notation in the .\leazza sale catalogue in the Frick Art Reference 
Library, New York. Hotstede de Groot's citation ot an Amsterdam sale 
in 1765 IS an error iHdG 11.. 

1. Notation on photograph mount, \\ itt Library, London. 

3. Pans, .\lusee du Louvre; Waddeson Manor; and private collec- 
tion, England (Wagner, ijii der Heyden, nos. li— 141. 

4. Private collection, England i\X'agner, rj»;cifr Ht'yJf?;, no. 14.. 

5. Built as a single house tor the banker Willem de Heuvel. who 
changed his name to Guillielmo Bartolotti after inheriting a fortune from 
an Italian uncle, the house has been dated to about 1615—10. Restored in 
1975, the house is owned by the Vereeniging Hendrick de Keyser and is 
generally attributed to the school of Hendrick de Keyser. See H. R. 
Hitchcock, \etherhndish Scrolled Gahlei of the Sixteenth and Early 
Seventeenth Centimes, New York, I9"'8. pp. 91—92; H. F. Wi|man, 
D'Ailty's historische gids van Amsterdam, 1963, pp. 312—313. 

6. Built in 16 ?8 for .\lichiel Pauw, a director of the West Indies 
Company and knight of the Order of St. Mark, whose coat of arms is 
carved on the gable. See Wiiman, Histonsche gids, p. ? 1 2. 

"'. See .\rthur «. Wheelock, Jr., "".A Re-.-\ppraisal of Gerard Dou's 
Reputation," The Vi'illiam A. Clark Collection, e.\h. cat., Washington, 
Corcoran Gallery of .■\rt, 19-8, pp. 64-65, for a discuss'on of different 
lenses and glasses known in the seventeenth century. 

8. Heinrich Schwarz, "Vermeer and the Camera Obscura," Pantheon 
24, 1966, pp. 177-78; Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., Perspective and Optics 
in Delft, diss. Harvard, published New York, I9~-, p. 2~8. .A red chalk 

drawing by van der Heyden in the Fodor Collection, .Amsterdam, A Row 
of Houses on the Herengracht, leaves a hint that van der Heyden might 
have experimented with optical instruments. The sheet is covered by a 
pencil grid, the horizontal lines of which slant slightly towards the center 
from left to right. Grids were used as aids in transcribing images seen 
through a lens, or in transferring a composition: in this case, the purpose 
of the horizontal lines converging at the center would probably have 
been to facilitate the drawing of distant objects, possibly to exaggerate 
the distance. 

9. Among others dated 1668: Amsterdam Toicn Hall, Pans, .\lusee 
du Louvre, and Hms ten Bosch Pavilion, formerly Buchenau collection 
(Wagner, van der Heyden, nos. 2, 1 3~); dated 16^3: Old Palace. Brus- 
sels, Luton Hoo, Sir Harold Wernher iWagner, Van der Heyden, no. 

ID. Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, pp. 209—10, note 15. Wag- 
ner thinks that until 1672 van de Velde painted figures in some of the 
pictures, van der Heyden in others {van der Heyden, pp. 34— ? 5 ). 

11. The inventory is given in Abraham Bredius, "De natlatenschap 
van Jan van Heyden's weduwe," Oud-Holland ?o. 191 2, pp. i 32-38. 
Our painting is no. 11, p. 135. 

12. It measures ^4.^ x 40 cm. Wagner, van der Heyden, p. 87, no. 88. 
She IS correct, however, in pointing out Hotstede de Groot's error in 
assuming the Carter picture ihis no. 22! to be identical with his no. 11 3, 
the Wetzlar painting. 


Meyndert Hobbema 

1638— 1709 

Baptized Meyndert Lubbertsz. in Amsterdam in 1638, for unknown reasons the artist 
adopted the surname Hobbema as a young man. In the late i65osHobbemastudiedwith Jacob van 
Ruisdael in Amsterdam, as attested by Ruisdael's statement in 1660 that Hobbema had "served" 
him and had been his pupil for several years. The influence of Ruisdael's work, however, is not 
apparent until 1661. Hobbema's works before then, primarily riverscapes, suggest the influence of 
Cornells Vroom and Anthonie van Borssom (cat. no. 3). After a brief period in the early 1660s of 
strong dependence on Ruisdael, Hobbema developed his own less somber and more animated 
version of the wooded landscape. With the exception of a few town views, Hobbema painted 
exclusively landscapes with trees. About thirty drawings are attributed to him, some of them 
studies from nature that he later incorporated into paintings. Dated works are known from 1658 to 
1689; his production slackened considerably, however, after his marriage in 1668 and his appoint- 
ment in that year as a wine-gauger of the Amsterdam octroi. Hobbema lived in Amsterdam all his 
life, although he traveled to South Holland and Overijssel. He had few followers and was ignored 
by contemporary critics, but his agreeable vision of the Dutch countryside became popular in the 
eighteenth century and had considerable influence on painting in England and France during the 
nineteenth centurv. 



^^^^ - ^t^flBMI 

' '^yr 

kXi J 


-.-■^ ••^'r^- 




A. Landscape with Anglers a>id a Distant Town 

Signed, bottnni Ictt: ni hobhcnia 

Oil on wood, g'/s x ii's in. (15.3 x 3 1.2 cm.) 

B. Landscape icith a Footbridge 

Signed on bridge, right: m hohbema 

Oil on wood, 9^/4 X ii-Vs in. (15 x 3 i.i cm.) 

Collections (for the pair): Paul Iwan Hogguer (his sale, .Amsterdam, P. 
van der Schley, August 18, 181^, nos. 13, 12); J. Hulswit;' Sir Charles 
Bagot (his sale, London, Christie's, June 18, 18 ?6, nos. 51, 51); Mar- 
quess of Lansdowne, Bowood, 1844—^6, at least; [Thos. Agnew and 
Sons, London); [Charles Sedelmeyer, Paris; Catalogue of Three Hun- 
dred Paintings . . . , 1898, nos. 61, 61]; Rodolphe Kann, Pans, by 1883; 
[Duveen Brothers, Pans); Walter von Pannwitz, Hartekamp, to 1962. 
(for Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Toirn]: Sidney J. van den 
Bergh, Wassenaar, to 1973; |G. Cramer, The Hague, 11)7 ^\. {for Land- 
scape ivith a Footbridge): [Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York, 1962). 
Exhibitions (for Landscape ii-ith Anglers and a Distant Town): London, 
Royal Academy, \i'orks by Old Masters . . . Vi'inter Exhibition, 1876, 
no. 204; Dordrecht, Dordrechts .Museum, Nederlandse landschappen 
iiit de zei'cntiende eeiiw, 1 y'vi, no. 45, tig. 11 2; Leyden, Stedelijk Mu- 
seum 'de Lakenhal," fde eeiiwse ineesters iitt l^ederlandse particulier 
bezit, :965, no. 25. (for Landscape with a Eootbridge): Rotterdam, 
Museum Boymans, Tentonnstelling van schilderiien . . . iiit particiilierc 
vertanielingen in Nederland, 1939—40, no. 3 1, pi. 26. 

References (to the pair): Smith, Catalogue Raisonnc, i S -, s. P- 1 -~. nos. 
4^, 46, Supplement, \\, 1842, p. 723, nos. 13, 14; Mrs. .Anna Brownell 
Jameson, Companion to the Wost I'clebrated Private Galleries of Art, 
London, 1844, pp. 315-16, nos. -1, -2; Gustav Waagen, Treasures of 
Art in Great Britain, vol. ;, 1S54, p. 161, nos. •,, 2; Wilhelm Bode, 
Rembrandt iind seine Zeitgenossen, Leipzig, 1906, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 
1907, p. 150, trans, as Great Masters of Dutch and Flemish Painting, 
London, 1909, pp. 173—74; Catalogue of the Rodolphe Kann Collec- 
tion, vol. I, Pans, 1907, nos. 47,48; HdC, 176, 245; M.J. Fnedlander 
and O. van Faike, Die Samnilung von Pannivitz, vol. i, Munich, iy26, 
nos. 62, 63; G. Broulhiet, Meindert Fiobbema, Pans, 19 38, nos. 200, S-, 
repr. pp. 202, 145. (to Landscape with Anglers and a Distant Town): 
A. B. de Vries, Verzameling Sldne^^ I. van den Bergh. Wassenaar, 196S, 
p. ^o, repr. 

These rwo panels, although they are among the smallest of 
Hobbema's paintings, are complex and ambitious in com- 
position. They are typical of the artist's most accomplished 
works of the 1660s in their strength, variety of terram, 
and lively alternation of sunlit open spaces and dark 
woods. The two pictures are a pair, having had the same 
owners from their earliest appearance at auction in the 
last century until twenty years ago; after a decade of sep- 
aration they were reunited by the Carters. 

There is no doubt that Hobbema painted the panels to 
hang side by side, for the two compositions balance and 
enhance one another. The path winding through the trees 




''^Sfl^H^^v ^ 



^^ *^ 






^^^^^^^^^lU} 4 vi''^^.' 

FIGURE I. Meyndert Hobbema, V';7/ijge S?ref ? U«- 
Jer trees, about 1665. Oil on canvas, 3 8 V4 x 50V8 in. 
(97 X 118.5 i-'m.). Berlin, Staatliche Museen 
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Gemaldegalerie. 

FIGURE 2. Meyndert Hobbema, A Woody Land- 
scape with an Angler at a Stream, 1 664 . Oil on canvas, 
3i'/2 X 42 in. (82.6 X 106.6 cm.). Formerly Lloyd 
collection (sale, London, Christie's, April 30, 1937, 
no. 105). Photograph courtesy of the Witt Library, 

is the counterpart of the river bending around the woods, 
the distant town corresponds to the sunny clearing, and 
the roads to the river and the bridge both lead into their 
respective compositions. The Landscape icith a Footbridge 
probably should be hung on the right, so that the road 
echoes the river, the open spaces are adjacent, and the 
trees on the outer edge enclose the compositions. Hob- 
bema's sensitivity to the formal demands of companion 
pieces is equally evident m his larger pendants, such as the 
well-known pair of 1663, now separated.^ 


Compositions with a curved road or river winding 
around a central group of trees that opens onto a sunlit 
area in the distance became a specialty of Hobbema in the 
mid-si.xties (figs, i, z).^ The Carter panels probably date 
from about 1663—65, for they compare closely with such 
works as A \(/oody Landscape with an Angler at a Stream 
of 1664 (fig. z). They bear the separated signature m 
hobbema used by the artist from 1661 to 1667;'* their 
compositions suggest that they were probably executed 
before the second half of the decade, when Hobbema re- 

FIGURE ?. Meyndert Hobhema, A Woody Land- 
scape, I66-. Oil on wood, 14 X 33V2 in. (61 x 85.1 
cm.). Formerly Swaythlmg collection (sale, London, 
Christie's, July 11, 1946, no. 15). Photograph courtesy 
of the Witt Librarv , London. 

laxed the tight curve of the road or river and opened up 
the middle and far distances of his landscapes (fig. 3). The 
Carter landscapes are unusual among this group for their 
low viewpoint and their energetic hrushwork. In his con- 
temporary paintings of larger size the scene is represented 
from a higher, more distant vantage point (fig. i). In the 
Carter pendants the small size of the pictures is comple- 
mented by their more intimate viewpoint and their looser, 
sketchier technique, which led Wilhelm Bode to praise 
their fresh treatment and rich color and to remark that 
they "give the impression of having been painted directly 
from nature."^ 
The formal correspondence that links these two panels 

is only one of the types of relationships between paired 
paintings in seventeenth-century Dutch painting. Land- 
scape pendants often represented different seasons or times 
of the day, and pairs of genre paintings were used to ex- 
press a moral message. In these cases in which the rela- 
tionship was primarily one of contrast — winter opposed 
to summer, virtuous conduct opposed to immoral be- 
havior — the meaning was lost if the pair was separated. 
Hobbema's little landscapes make up a looser unit, one 
that IS comparable to that of many pairs of portraits: each 
picture, although strong enough to stand alone, is fully 
successful only when hung with its companion. 

I. Hofstede de Groot notes the buyer as J. Hulswit, who paid 6zi 
guilders for each (Fnck Art Reference Library, New York); Jameson 
(Companion, pp. 315-16) says that iM. Saporta was the buyer. 

1. Road mto a Forest, 1663, oil on canvas, 95 x i ?o cm. (Washing- 
ton, National Gallery of Art); Landscape with Trees and a Caiiseiiay, 
1 66 3, oil on canvas, 94 x i locm. (Blessington, Ireland, Sir Alfred Beit). 

3. Other examples are Vi'ooded Landscape with Figures and a Beg- 
gar, 1668, London, Buckingham Palace (Broulhiet, Hohhema, no. 274); 
and the Woody River Scene, formerly Sulley collection, sale. London, 
Christie's, June i, 1934, no. ^3. 

4. Wolfgang Stechow , "The Larly ^'ears of Hobbema," Art Quarterly 
12, 1959, p. M. The Frankfurt landscape of 1659 is an exception to this 
rule (ibid., p. i ?, fig. 9). 

5. Bode, Rembrandt iind seme Zeitgenossen, p. 150 (our translation), 
who also mentions a small painting in the Thieme col lection, Leipzig; the 
broken strokes and rich impasto in these landscapes are also found in a 
small panel dated 1659 with Newhouse Galleries, New "t'ork, in 19-7 
[Tepr. Art Journal ^6, 1977, p. 176). 


Jan van Huysum 

1682— 1749 

Jan van Huysum was born in 1682 in Amsterdam, where he seems to have spent his entire 
life. He was trained in the studio of his father Justus van Huysum (1659-1716), a flower painter 
speciaHzing in decorative compositions. Other painters who may have influenced van Huysum's 
early still lifes are Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1683/84), Abraham Mignon (i 640-1 679), and 
Willem van Aelst (i6z5/26-after 1683). Several hundred paintings by van Huysum are known, 
mostly fruit and flower pieces, but also a small number of arcadian landscapes; there are dated 
paintings from 1706 through 1744. His paintings evolved from compact compositions against a 
dark background to looser, overflowing arrangements set against a yellow-green background of 
distant trees. Van Huysum used live flowers as models for his paintings. His drawings consist 
primarily of free compositional studies, which seem to have been experiments in design rather than 
preparatory works. According to his earliest biographers van Huysum was notoriously secretive, 
refusing to allow anyone into his studio for fear that his colors might be imitated. The artist had 
only one pupil, Margaretha Havermann, who left his studio in the middle of the century, but his 
style was followed into the nineteenth century by artists such as Jan van Os, his son Johannes van 
Os, and the brothers Gerard and Cornelis van Spaendonck. Highly acclaimed from the beginning of 
his career, van Huysum received enormous prices for his paintmgs throughout his lifetime. 


Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 

Signed and dated, lower right: Jan van Huysum 1-14 
Oil on wood, ? I '/; x i?^/8 m. (80 x 59.6 cm.) 

Collections: Johan Diednch Pompe van Meerdervoort, Dordrecht, or 
Jan van Huysum, Amsterdam (their sale, October 14, 1-49, no. 8);' 
Gerrit Braamcamp, Amsterdam (his sale, Amsterdam, van der Schley, 
July 3 1, I — I, no. 90, for fl. 3800);- Jan Gildemeester, Amsterdam (his 
sale, June 1 i-i 1, 1800, no. 89, for H. 3000); [Spaan|; Pieter Smeth van 
Alphen (his sale, Amsterdam, August 1—1, 1810, no. 47, for tl. 4500); 
[de Vries|; Jhr. Jan Six van Hillegom, Amsterdam, by 1835; by descent 
to Jan Six, Amsterdam (his sale, Amsterdam, October 16, 1928, no. 
15a); [A. Staal, .Amsterdam, 1929I; .Arthur Hartog, The Hague; [New- 
house Galleries, New \'ork, i9-4[. 

Exhibitions: Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Verzumeling schildenien en 
lamiheportretten van de heeren jhr. P. H. Six van Vromade, jhr. P. H. 
Six en jhr. W. 5;.v, 1900, no. 48; Amsterdam, Ri|l<smuseum, Tentoon- 
stellmg van oiide kiinst door de Vereeniging van Handelareii in Oude 
Kimst m Nederland, 1919, no. -6, repr.; The Hague, Gemeentemuseum, 
Oude kiinst lilt Haagse bezit, 1936-3-, no. 104; The Hague, Maurits- 
huis, Herwoniien kunstbezit, 194(1, no. 18; Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 
Herwomien kunstbezit, 1946, no. 67; Los Angeles County Museum of 
.\rt, A Decade of Collecting, 196^-1^7;, i975, no. 71, repr. 

References: G. Hoet, Catalogus of Naanilyst van Scbitderyen mit Der- 
zelver Pryzen, vol. z. The Hague, 1751, p. 503; J. F. de Bastide, Le 
Temple des Arts on Le Cabinet de Monsieur Braamcamp, Amsterdam, 
1^66; Smith, Catalogue Raisonne,vo\. 6, 183 5, p. 476, no. 55; HdG43; 
M. H. Grant, /j;/ I'an Huysum i68i-i-'49, Leigh-on-Sea, 1954, p. 17, 
no. 4; C. Bille, De Temple der Kunst of het Kabmet den Heer Braam- 
Ciz»!/;, Amsterdam, 1 961, vol. i,pp. 81, ii6,fig. 90; vol. i, p. 21, no. 90. 

Van Huysum's bouquet, described by Hofstede de Groot 
as one of the best works by the master,^ overflows the vase 
in a profusion of ripe, heavy blossoms. Every detail is 
rendered with the artist's legendary precision, a faithful- 
ness to botanical truth no less scrupulous than Bosschaert's 
a century earlier. Like other flower painters of the later 
seventeenth century, however, van Huysum was an m- 
ventive composer who favored loose arrangements and an 




FIGURE I. Jan van Huysum, 
Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn 


air of disorder; this one is topical in its exuberant asym- 
metrical design held together by bold svveepmg curves. 

Van Huysum, hke Bosschaert and other earher artists, 
paints an impossible bouquet that mi.xes spring flowers 
(the blue auricula on the ledge) with late bloomers such as 
the morning glory (fig. i) and that includes exotic and 
precious blossoms. These later flower pieces, however, 
reflect both advances in horticulture and changes in taste 
by the early eighteenth century. By that time the hyacinth 
— the tall white flower in the center — and the blue blos- 
soms on the right side had replaced the tulip as the most 
highly valued specimen, although striped hybrid tulips 
were still much appreciated. All the poppy anemones are 
of the double form; the yellow-pink blossom with its 
multiple layers of petals is a particularly complex ex- 
ample. The yellow rose on the right, called a "rosa 
huysumiana," is a hybrid named after the painter and 
today known only through eighteenth-century paintings, 
mainly by its namesake. 

The vivid flowers in the Carter arrangement were un- 
doubtedly painted from life. We know this was van Huy- 
sum's practice from a letter to a patron in which he ex- 
plained that he could not complete a picture until a certain 
yellow rose bloomed the following spring."* Unlike Bos- 
schaert, who seems to have solved the problem of combin- 
ing flowers of different seasons in a single painting by 


working from studies, van Huysum insisted on painting 
directly from live flowers, with the result that some of his 
paintings required two growing seasons to finish and bear 
two dates.' Van Huysum did make drawings, but they are 
primarily compositional studies that are only loosely con- 
nected to his finished works, as is the case with a sheet in 
Berlin (fig. 2) that evidently served him as an aid in com- 
posing the Carter painting. 

Van Huysum's painting continues the moralizing tradi- 
tion of Bosschaert and his contemporaries*" and contains 
some of the same symbols, such as the butterfly symboliz- 
ing the human soul, the insects (in this case yellow ants 
and a wasp), and the conspicuous dew drops on the petals 
(fig. 3).^ In van Huysum's pictures, however, the message 
of the transience of beaurv' and earthly pleasures is ex- 
pressed in a language entirely different from that of the 
early flower painters. Van Huysum, like his predecessors 
Jan Davidsz. de Heem, Cornells de Heem, and Abraham 
Mignon, chooses blossoms that have mostly passed their 
prime and are beginning to droop and wilt, hinting at their 
imminent expiration. The broken tulip prominent in the 
center of the composition (fig. 3), a favorite motif in van 
Huysum's later works, is the most direct reminder of the 
vulnerabilitv- of the flowers. The significance of certain 
flowers in the emblematic literature such as the anemone, 
a specific symbol of passing beaur.', and the crown impe- 

FIGURF 1. |an van Huysum, Flowers in an Urn. Pen and brown mk 
with wash, -'4 \ 6' 8 in. (19.^ x 15.5 cm.). Berhn, Staathche Museen 
Preiissischfr Kulturbcsitz, KLiptcrsnchkahinctt. KdZ 1.S16. 

FIGURE 3. Jan van Huysum, Boid./j/c? o/f/oircrs ;»/ 

an Urn (detail:. 


rial, which stood for moderation in youth,* may have 
enriched the general message of the composition. Even the 
vase may relate to the Vanitas theme. The putti adorning 
it — apparently inspired by the relief sculptures of Fran<s:ois 
du Quesnoy but designed by van Huysum himself, and 
similar to those found on vases in many other paintings by 
van Huysum — engage in frivolous activities such as drink- 
ing and dancing, against which Vanitas emblems and lit- 
erature warn. Since this t\pe of pottery was fashionable in 
the early eighteenth century, however, we cannot be sure 
that its presence here was actually intended to carry a 

The compositional type of our painting, an abundant, 
overflowing bouquet on a stone ledge with a light yellow- 
green background of distant trees, first appears in van 
Huysum's works of lyzo-zz.' In the Carter panel, as in 
many of van Huysum's works of the 1720s, the flowers 
seem to have fallen accidentally out of the vase. Later in 
the 17^05 van Huysum puts flowers, fruit, and often a 
bird's nest on the ledge, sometimes overhangmg precari- 
ously as trompe I'oeil devices. Many of the flowers here, 
such as the crown imperial, the yellow rose, the yellow 

flax, and the broken tulip, appear in other works by the 

The pale yellow-green landscape background, whose 
open lawn and feathery trees suggest a park, occurs in 
many of van Huysum's works after 1720. Such parks are 
common in the work of de Heem, Weenix, and others; but 
the pale tonalin- and amorphous tree forms m our pamting 
are van Huysum's mvention. This fanciful decorative set- 
ting, painted loosely and suggestively, resembles the land- 
scape backgrounds in the late works of Adriaen van der 
Werff and anticipates the practice of English portrait 
painters later in the eighteenth century, especially Gains- 
borough and Reynolds. 

The Braamcamp collection in which this painting fig- 
ured was among the most renowned in Europe during the 
eighteenth century; his van Huysums were praised and 
coveted by the collector's contemporaries.'- We know 
from J. F. de Bastide's lengthy description in verse of the 
collection that the van Huysums hung in the Grand Salon 
which overlooked the elaborate garden behind Braam- 
camp's house on the Herengracht." 

I . The sale catalogue does not elearly distinguish the nvo collections, 
but the Carter painting probably belonged to Meerder\oort since it 
appears at the beginning of the catalogue. The painting, described as 
"Een extra fraye Bloempot, kragtig en uirvoeng geschilderd door Jan 
van Huysum, in zyn beste tyd, h. iv. 8d., br. iv. id." fetched the highest 
price at the auction, 1,145 guildersfHoet, Cjtjlogiis, vol. 1, p. 169, no. 

1. HdG 45 and Grant Wiiii Hnysii/)i. no. 4) mistakenly identify the 
Carter painting as no. 9 1 in the Braamcamp sale. 

3. HdG 43. 

4. F. Schlie, "Sieben Briefe und eine Quittung von Jan van Huysum," 
Oiid-Holhuii 18, 1900, p. 141. 

5. Paintings by van Huysum with two dates are Vase of Flowers, 
17Z3/2.4, and Fruits and Flowers, 1-32/33 (Grant, van Huysum, nos. 
19, 162). 

6. His Still Life with Flowers m the Amsterdams Histonsch .Museum, 
which bears an inscription from Matthew 7:28—29, demonstrates most 
clearly that van Huysum's paintings could bear explicit moralizing mes- 
sages. As early as 1604 elaborate bouquets closer to Huysum in spirit 
than to Bosschaert were used as Vanitas emblems in a series of etchings 
by Theodor de Bry after compositions by Jacob Kempener (Miinster and 
Baden-Baden, Stilleben in Europa, exh. cat., 1979—80, fig. 176). 

7. For these symbols, see Ambrosius Bosschaert, cat. no. 4, notes 

8. loachim Camerarius, Sxmboloruxi el Finhletnatum ex Re Herbaria, 

Nuremberg, 1590, nos. 69, -i, cited by .Albert Henkel and .Albrecht 
Schone, Enihlemata Handbuch air Sinnbildkunst des .\'\7. und XVII. 
/j/.ir/,'i/tti/frfs, Stuttgart, 1967, cols. ^08-9. 

9. A canvas dated 1^20, last recorded in a sale in Genoa tPallavicino 
Grimaldi, November 29, 1899, no. 14), is the first dated work with this 
type of background. 

10. The crown imperial and the yellow rose are found, for example, 
in paintings m the Ri|ksmuseum, the Glasgow .Art Gallery and .Museum, 
and in several English private collections (Grant, ran Huysum, nos. i, 
10, II, 20). The yellow flax — the long, thin-stemmed flower in the lower 
right corner of our panel, one of the materials used to make artists' 
canvases — appears in a painting dated i~22 in the collection of Edmond 
de Rothschild (Grant, lan Huysum, no. 22). 

1 1. See, for example, the Holy Family of 1-14 (.Amsterdam, Ri|ks- 

12. Dirck Smits mentions Braamcamp's van Huysums in his eulogy 
of the man and his collection in Johan van Gool's Die Nieiiwe Schouburg 
der Nederlantsche Kiinstschilders en Scbilderessen, vol. 2, TTie Hague, 
1 75 I ; and J. F. de Bastide [Le Temple des Arts) wrote eloquently of the 
flower still lifes in the collection. M. d'Argenson (probably Marc-Rene 
Marquis d'Argenson) offered in a letter of 1762 to pay Braamcamp any 
price for his van Huysums; Braamcamp refused the offer (Bille, De 
Temple der Kunst, pp. ^9, 64). 

13. Bille, De Temple der Kunst, pp. 81, 226. 


Philips Koninck 

The son of a wealthy goldsmith, PhiHps Koninck was born in Amsterdam in 16 19. He 
was trained by his older brother Jacob in Rotterdam, where in 1640 he married the sister of 
Abraham Furnerius, a Rembrandt follower whose drawing style is close to Koninck's. By 1641 he 
had returned to Amsterdam, where he lived thereafter. Cornelia Furnerius died in 1642 and 
Koninck remarried in 1657. Like so many Dutch artists, Koninck supplemented his income by 
another occupation: he owned and operated an inland shipping company. A prosperous member of 
the middle class, Koninck was acquainted with many of Amsterdam's prominent citizens. He 
painted several portraits of his friend the poet Vondel, and also several subjects from Vondel's 
writings. Koninck died in Amsterdam in 1688. 

Although he is known today primarily for his panoramic landscapes, Koninck was esteemed 
by his contemporaries for the portraits, genre scenes, and literary subjects he painted throughout 
his career. Houbraken's statement that Koninck studied with Rembrandt has no documentary 
support, but we know that in Amsterdam the two were acquainted. Koninck's early landscape style 
undoubtedly was influenced by Rembrandt and by Hercules Seghers as well. By the mid-fifties 
Koninck had developed his own distinctive painted landscape: a long, open view across the tlat 
Dutch countryside in which the evocative power of space, light, and shadow is paramount. His 
compositions are mostly imaginary; he rarely depicted a recognizable site or building. After the 
mid-sixties an idyllic strain pervades Koninck's landscapes, which are populated with pastoral 
types or more elegant folk; his later portraits adopt the classicizing style popular in Holland after 
the middle of the century. Nearly three hundred drawings by Koninck are known, and about eight 
landscape etchings, with washes added to most impressions to emulate the tonal effects of prints by 
Seghers and Rembrandt. 


Panoramic Landscape with a Village 

Oil on wood, 1 1 V2 X 14 '/4 in. (19 x 36 cm. 

Collections: Thomas Sivright, Meggetland and Southouse (hii sale, Ed- 
inburgh, Tait, Februar>' 18, 1836, no. 2921, as Rembrandt); S. B. Hog, 
Row, Doune, Perthshire (Sale, London, Sotheby, May 16, 1928, no. loj; 
[Asscher and Welker, London, 1928]; [P. de Boer, Amsterdam, 1936]; 
Dr. Liibbert, Schwante and South Africa; Liibbert family. South Africa 
to 1978; [Newhouse Galleries. New ^'orkj. 

References: Pantheon i, 192S, p. 168; Horst Gerson, Philips Kniiiutk. 
Berlin, 1936, p. 103, no. 9. 

This small early landscape combines an extensive pano- 
rama with a close-up view of cottages by the side of the 
road. The improbable succession of different types of ter- 

rain and the sharp right angle of the river suggest that the 
composition is an invention of the artist. The brooding 
sky and emphatic pattern of light and shade that give 
many of Koninck's works their power are evident in the 
Carter painting. 

It is not surprising that the picture was attributed to 
Rembrandt in the last century.' Although Rembrandt's 
painted landscapes of about 1638—40 surely influenced 
the Carter panel, there can be no doubt about its attribu- 
tion to Koninck, whose compositions differ notably from 
those of the older master. Rembrandt never painted a pure 
panorama. Koninck, on the other hand, preferred broad 



views of flat land rendered in superimposed bands of al- 
ternating color and value. In this respect his works are 
more closely modeled after those of Hercules Seghers, 
whose moody panoramas set a powerful example for both 
Rembrandt and Konmck.- 

Koninck introduces a characteristic element in this land- 
scape, the sharply wmding road that leads back into the 
distance. While other anists had frequently used more or 
less straight roads as a device to organize their views, to 
stress perspective, and to provide a route, as it were, for 
the vicarious traveler, none had thought to give the road 
such a serpentine course. .After Koninck's first dated paint- 
ing, of 1647, which has a straight road,^ his paths turn 
dramatically, with the result that the foreground is com- 
pressed and the viewer has a slower, more complex imagi- 


nan. passage through the landscape. The tight bend in the 
road in this picture makes the space beyond appear more 
accessible and less vast, thereby adding an unusual note of 
intimacy to a panoramic landscape. 

The Carter composition is most closely related to sev- 
eral other small early paintings, the Flat Landscape in the 
Assheton-Bennett collection at the City Art Gallery, Man- 
chester, dated 1648 (fig. i),"* and the Wide River Land- 
scape in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, (fig. 1).^ 
The latter is especially close in structure and spirit to the 
Carter painting, having some of the same anomalies of 
scale. Both are similarly persuasive in overall effect, which 
owes more to the powerful play of light and shade and the 
impression of vast distance than to any methodical atten- 
tion to perspective. These small early paintings have a 

FIGURE I. Philips Kuninck, Hjt Liiitdscape, ih4iS. Oil on wood, i iVj 
X 16V16 in. {19.8 \ 40.8 cm.). Manchester, City Art Gallery, Assheton- 
Bennett Bequest. 

iiGURE i. philips Kcininck, Wulc River Liimiscitpc, about 1648-so. 
Oil on canvas, iiVs x 2.^/^ in. (?z.6 x 59. S cm.). New "I'ork, Metro- 
politan Museum of Art. 

cohesiveness that is lacking in Koninck's large, ambitious 
works of the same years — for example those in the Metro- 
politan Museum (1649) and in the Sammlung Oskar 
Reinhart, Winterthur (165 1).'' Koninck's progress in 
these small paintings may be measured by comparing 
them with a panel in l.ugano that has been persuasively 
attributed to Konmck and dated to the mid- 1640s (fig. 
3).^ It is painted with a heavy impasto built up with many 
fine strokes whose vigor recalls Rembrandt's technique of 
the late thirties; but the horizontal bands on the horizon 
and the broad divisions of light and dark stamp it as an 
early work by Koninck. Only a few years later, in the 
Carter panel, Koninck had considerably refined his tech- 
nique. His uneven impastos and uncertain outlines have 
given way to a more homogeneous surface, characterized 
by granular paint textures and softer, more suggestive 
modulations of tone to define form.* 

FIGURE 1,. Philips Koninck, LiniJsc\ipc with j Distant Town, ahout 
1645. Oil on wood, 8'/» \ I 1 -Vs in. (11 x 19. s cm.). Lugano, Thysscn- 
Bornemisza Collection. 

I. The attribution was evidently strengthened hy a take monogram, 
which has since been removed; an unidentified owner noted on a label on 
the back of the panel: "This Picture of Rembrandt was purchased by me 
at the sale of pictures belonging to the late Mr. Sievewright of Migget- 
land. Mr. David Loring shewed me Rembrandt's mark R in the right 
hand corner below." The ov\ner noted the date, July 16, 1S5S, and 
signed with the initials jMH. 

z. Gerson believed that Koninck absorbed the influence of Seghers 
through the art of Rembrandt (Gerson, Knmiick. p. 11). Koninck could 
easily have seen works by Seghers in Amsterdam, however; by 1656 
Rembrandt owned eight of his paintings, some of which Koninck must 
have known. Gerson describes Koninck's bands of changing tone as his 
own, but Seghers had employed a similar device, although less distinctly, 
m such paintings as the Houses (Overlooking ii Valley (Rotterdam, Mu- 
seum Boymans-van Beumngen), VilLii^e on a River and View of Rhenen 
(both Berlin-Dahlem, Gem.ildegalerie), and Vieiv of Brussels (Cologne, 
Wall rat- Richart/ Museum). 

y LLinJscape with Wainlerers, 1^47, London, Victoria and Albert 
Museum (Gerson, KoniiiLk. no. ^4). 

4. Ibid., no. 13. 

5. Gerson did not know this painting, the lost original of which he 
listed m four copies {Koninck, no. xii); John Walsh, Jr., "New Dutch 
Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum," A/'o//o 99, 1974, p. i4S,pl. v. 

6. Gerson, Koninck, nos. 46, 60. 

7. H. Gerson, "Dutch Landscape," Burlington Magazine 95, 1953, 
p. 48; and H. Gerson, "Bredius 447," Festschrift Dr. h.c. EdiiardTraiit- 
scholdt, Hamburg, 1965, pp. 109— 1 1. There is a vigorous defense of the 
Rembrandt attribution, however, by J. C. Ebbinge-Wubben in The 
Thyssen-Borneniisza Collection, Lugano, 1968, pp. 181-85. 

8. The value contrasts here have evidently been somewhat exag- 
gerated in the course of time, as m many other paintings by Koninck, by 
the darkening of dark parts of the picture and by some thinning of the 
glazes that tone the light passages. 


Aert van der Neer 
1603/4— 1677 

Aert van der Neer was born in 1603 or 1604, probably in Amsterdam. According to 
Houbraken he began painting as an amateur while working as a steward for a wealthy family in 
Gorinchem. He became a professional artist when he moved to Amsterdam in the early 1630s but 
proved unable to support himself solely by painting; after keeping an inn in Amsterdam from 1659 
to 1662, he declared bankruptcy; fifteen years later he died in Amsterdam in dire poverty. 

Van der Neer is the most celebrated Dutch specialist in nocturnal and sunset landscapes. His 
subjects include winter scenes, landscapes with rivers or canals, views of towns with burning 
buildings, and marines. More than three hundred paintings by the artist are known. There is no 
record of van der Neer's formal training, hut he apparently began as a figure painter; a genre 
painting of 1632 and a handful of biblical and historical subjects have been preserved. His early 
landscape style suggests the influence of Raphael Govertsz. and Joachim Govertsz. Camphuysen, 
whom van der Neer knew in Gorinchem and Amsterdam, and of Gillis d'Hondecoeter and 
Alexander Keirmcx. With a few exceptions van der Neer's best works date from before his stint as 
an innkeeper. Large, repetitious compositions that lack the freshness and animation of his earlier 
works dominate van der Neer's production after the late fifties. His pupils were his sons Johannes 
and Eglon Hendrik; the latter became a well-known genre painter. It was not until artists of the 
Romantic period made the representation of sunlight or moonlight a subject in itself that van der 
Neer earned the fame that eluded him in his own lifetime. 

Frozen River ivith a Footbridge 

Signed, lower right: AVDN (joined) 

Oil on wood, 15 X ig'A in. (58 x 49 cm.) 

Collections: Sir Montague John Cholmeley, ind Br., Easton, :d. 18-4;; 

probably sale, London, Christie's, December 17, 1915, no. 1 17; Lind- 

lar; probably sale, London, Christie's, November ^o, 1917, no. 41; [Van 

der Kar]; Sale, London, Christie's, March 19, 19-4, no. 6", repr.; 

[David Koetser, Zurich, 1974]. 

The painting represents a river winding into the distance, 
past farm buildings and towns on both bantcs. Skaters dot 
the ice, men play kolf, a sleigh laden with passengers moves 
along the bank, and a pair of travelers trudges in the direc- 
tion of the viewer. Van der Neer's thin, translucent paint. 
applied to the brown ground of the panel, conveys the rich 
variation of tones in the almost colorless earth, trees, and 
buildings. His real virtuosir.- is evident in the sky, in which 
low, puffy clouds are surmounted by a thinner layer, all 

tinted to a play of blues, salmon-pinks, yellows, and rose 
by the declining sun. ' Van der Neer's distinctive contribu- 
tion to Dutch landscape is this combination of delicate 
observation and spectacle. 

His winter scenes have an important place in the devel- 
opment of the genre in which Avercamp (cat. no. i) was 
the pioneer. Van der Neer adopted the new emphasis on 
atmosphere, skies, and subtle illumination that had been 
progressively introduced by Esaias van de Velde, Jan van 
Goyen, and Isack van Ostade in their winter landscapes.-^ 
From the mid- 1640s onward he combined the traditional 
busy variet)- of activities on the ice with breathtaking effects 
of light in the skies and reflected in the ice and snow, 
effects that came to dominate his pictures.^ The gnarled 




FIGURE I. Aert \an der Neer, hrozcii Riier u'lth a Footbridge ; detail; infrared photograph). 

trees and picturesque buildings that had framed his com- 
positions gave way to simpler foregrounds but did not 
entirely disappear from his work."" The Carter painting 
belongs to a group of small paintings van der Neer evi- 
dently executed from about 1650 to the early 1660s, in 
which he reduced the figures in number and size, the better 
to emphasize the sweep of his views, the binding atmo- 
sphere, and the tinted light. "^ The intimacy and informalitv' 
of these pictures disappear from van der Neer's work after 
his latest dated winter landscape of 1662 or 1665, the 
only painting in the group that seems to bear a reliable 

An infrared photograph (fig. i) brings out van der Neer's 
underdrawing and reveals his struggle to arrange the fig- 
ures most effectively. A large figure in the center foreground 
was removed, and others were eliminated and replaced by 
smaller ones. The effect was to place the scene at a greater 
distance from the spectator and to produce a measured 
recession in the scale of the figures in order to make the 
illusion of the picture space more credible. A deceptively 
simple composition was thus the result of considerable 
experiment and calculation. 

1. There has been some abrasion ^nA restoration in the upper right 
corner ot the sky. 

1. For this development, see Stechow, Dutch Landicape Painting, pp. 
84-95; Fredo Bachmann, Die Landschaften des Aert van der Neer, 
Neustadt an der Aisch, 1 966. pp. 50—5 i . 

3. Compare the paintings dated 1641 and 1645 (Flamburg, private 
collection, and \X'ashington, Corcoran Gallery of .Art; Stechow, Dutch 
Landscape Painting, figi. 181, 181). 

4. Compare the Winter Landscape signed and dMcd 1643 (FldG 510, 
formerly Earl of Crawford and Balcarres) with the paintings listed in the 

next tootnt)te, but note that the Carter painting and also the large Frozen 
Rner (Amsterdam. Ri|ksmuseumi of about 1655 retain the trees. 

5. Similar paintings from the same period are Ice Sports (The Flague, 
Mauritshuis, bearing an unreliable date of lefsls), Vi'inter Landscape 
[Munich, .Alte Pinakothek), and Winter [Rotterdam, Museum Boymans- 
van Beuningen, no. 1309). 

6. Winter Sports on a Frozen Rirer ( HdG 5~5, formerly .Alfred Brod, 
London, repr. in Apollo 69, 1959, p. 1 13, not seen by us). Hofstede de 
Groot read the date as 1 661, Stechow {Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 93) 
as 1662 or 1665. 


Jan Porcellis 


Jan Porcellis — or Joannes, as he seems to have been known in later life — was born in 
Ghent of parents who emigrated to the United Provinces in 1584; he was married in Rotterdam in 
1605. Nothing is known of his training, but Houbraken says he was a pupil of the Haarlem sea 
painter Hendrik Vroom. Porcellis's earliest works do indeed suggest that he must at least have made 
a close study of Vroom's pictures. By 161 5 he was a widower with three children, had gone 
bankrupt in Rotterdam, and had moved to Antwerp. He returned north in 1622 and settled for a 
few years in Haarlem, where he remarried and began to enjoy some success. In 1628 Ampzing could 
claim him as a Haarlem painter and assert that he was considered the greatest marine artist. In 1 624 
he was living in Amsterdam; by 1626 he had moved to Voorburg near The Hague; and by 1629 he 
had settled at Zoeterwoude outside Leyden, where the properties he amassed before his death in 
1632 were testimony to his great prosperity. His son Julius, about whom little is known, evidently 
inherited Jan's practice. Until his death in 1654 Julius painted seascapes that resemble his father's in 
style and form of signature, creating confusion over attributions that has persisted until our own 

Porcellis began painting marine subjects in the lively, anecdotal manner of Vroom, but by 
1620 he was less interested in the glories of the Dutch fleet than in the sea and beach in their most 
ordinary aspects. During the 1620s he painted compositions of remarkable simplicit>' whose low 
horizons, towering skies, near-monochrome color schemes, and palpable atmosphere represented a 
reform in seascape that is comparable to the changes in contemporary landscape and still life. His 
influence is seen not only in the marines of Simon de Vlieger and many others, but also in the 
shifting skies and atmosphere of landscapes by Jan van Goyen and Haarlem painters of the late 
1620S and 1630S. About thirt>' drawings have been preserved, a set of etchmgs, and a suite of 
engravings by Claes Jansz. Visscher after his designs. Porcellis's paintings, of which fewer than sixty 
are known today, were praised by seventeenth-century writers and evidently much appreciated by 
painters: Rubens owned one, Rembrandt six, Allart van Everdingen thirteen, and Jan van de 
Cappelle sixteen. Porcellis's reputation was eclipsed in the eighteenth century and not revived until 
his merits were recognized by the generation of critics whose values were shaped by Realism and 


Vessels in U ModefiltC BVCCZC References-. John Walsh, Jr., Jjii and jtiluii Porcellis. Dutch Marine 

Painters, diss., Columbia Universirv', 19-1, pp. iii-ii, 236-3-, no. 
Signed on plank, lower right: IP ^^y L. J. Bol, Die holldndische Marinemalerei des i-. Jabrhunderts. 

0.1 on wood, 16 V4 .\- i4'/4 in. (41.5 x 6i.t cm.) Braunschweig, 1973, pp. 98. 101, fig. 98; John Walsh, Jr., "The Dutch 

Collections: [Nystad, The Hague); Mrs. N. Crommclin-Waller, Laren Marine Painters Jan and Julius Porcellis — II: Jan's Maturit}' and 'de 

and The Hague; [Nystad, The Hague, 1977]. ]ong,e PorceWis,'" Burlington Magazine 1 16, 19-4, pp. 73 8, 741, fig. 30. 



Porcellis's picture represents three single-masted transpon 
vessels sailing close-hauled toward the distant land, which 
is indicated only by a tower at left center and a suggestion 
of dunes at the right. A three-masted ship sails downwind 
at the far right. 

The Carter painting is one of Porcellis's most extreme 
attempts to reduce the seascape to essentials: an expanse 
of open water, a few vessels, and a towering sky. Porcellis 
was an accurate recorder of forms, even those that are 
notoriously difficult to render such as moving water, cloud 
formations, and ships in motion, ^'et the most impressive 
truth in such pictures is the atmosphere; it nearly elimi- 
nates local colors, mutes the value-scale, and thickens 
progressively to obscure the distant view. The result is a 
painting that is almost entirely gray, relieved only by the 
brown of the nearest vessel and the pale blue of the sky. ' 

The painting is related to a large drawing by Porcellis in 
the Louvre (fig. i) in which a very similar transport vessel 
is seen stem-on, but which is differently composed and 

likely to have been an independent work.- Porcellis's de- 
vice for stressing the distance, a line of similar vessels that 
diminish dramatically in size, was used in a drawing of 
three damloopen he made for one of Claes Jansz. Vis- 
scher's engravings (fig. 2).^ There the parade is toward the 
spectator; in the Caner painting the ships sail away, en- 
couraging the spectator to assume that his viewpoint may 
be from a fourth vessel sailing in the wake of the others. 

The Carter picture can be dated to the end of the i6zos, 
as the handling of waves and sky resembles that of a paint- 
ing of 162.9."* The broad expanse of emptv' sea and the 
subtle play with equilibrium in the placement of ships are 
found in several other works, among others the well- 
known little panel of 1629 in Munich^ and a picture in 
Stockholm that appears to date from a few years earlier 
(fig. 3).* In all of these Porcellis reveals himself to be a 
great sky painter and the first anist who consistently ex- 
ploited the expressive possibilities of skies. From the early 
i6zos onward he had not onlv lowered the horizon and 


FIGURE I. yinPorceWis, A Single-Mastertn J Moderate 
Breeze. Ink and wash with white heightening on paper 
prepared with brown, g'/s x 13^4 in. (13.8 x 35 cm.). 
Paris, Musee du Louvre. 

FIGURE 3. Jan Porcelhs, A Single-Master icith Reduced Sail 111 a 
Choppy Sea. Oil on wood, ii'/4 x ziVs in. (31 x 55 cm.). Stockholm, 

FIGURE z. Claesjansz. Visscher, Daniloopers groot omtrent 16 last, 
162''. Engraving. Greenwich, England, National .Maritime Museum. 

increased the proportion of sky to water, but he had also 
painted cloud formations of constantly varying form and 
illumination, which reinforced his compositions and set 

the mood of his pictures.' The new range of possibilities 
for skies must have been one of Porcellis's principal con- 
tributions to the art of his younger contemporaries. 

I. The red-brown ground is now more visible than it would have been 
when the picture was painted, before the thin layers of gray became more 
translucent with age, and gives much of the painting a rosy tmge that is 
sometimes found in other works by Porcelhs. 

1. Inv. no. 13140, signed in monogram on a plank, lower left; it is 
much the largest of the thirty-odd Porcelhs drawings that have been 
preserved iWalsh, Porcellis, p. 393, no. F15). 

3. The drawing is in the Institut Neerlandais, Pans (inv. no. J.?44i; 
M. J. Henkel, Le dessin hollandais des ongmes an WW Steele, Paris, 
193 1, pi. XLVii; Walsh, "Porcelhs 11," p. ^3^, fig. 1-; Walsh, Porcellis, p. 
385, no. F16). The print, which follows the drawing without significant 
alteration, is no. 3 in the suite of twelve engravings entitled Icones 
Variarum Navinm Hollatidicarmm, issued by C. J. Visscher in 1627 
(Walsh, Porcellis, pp. 430- ■, ',, nos. j i-i 1;. 

4. Single-Masters in a Light Breeze, signed and dated 1619, m the 
Stedehjk Museum 'de Lakenhal,' Leyden (Stechow, Dutch Landscape 
Painting, p. 1 13, fig. 221; Walsh, "Porcellis II," p. 7?8, fig. 29; Walsh, 
Porcellis, pp. 105, 224-15, no. A36; Bol, Die holldndische Marnicma- 
lerei, p. 98, fig. 9^). 

5. Single-.Masters in a Rough Sea. signed and dated 1629, Alte Pina- 
kothek, Munich (Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 113, fig. 219; 
Walsh, "Porcelhs II," p. -38, fig. 28; Walsh, Porcellis, pp. loVs, 221- 
23, no. A35). 

6. Inv. no. 564; Walsh, "Porcelhs II," p. ^?-, fig. 25; Walsh, Por- 
cellis, pp. 102-3, 217-18, no. .^32. 

7. For a discussion of Porcellis's skies, see Walsh, "Porcellis 11," p. 


Frans Post 

1612— 1680 

Frans Post, son of a glass painter, was born in 1612 in Haarlem. He was probably taught 
by his brother, the painter and architect Pieter Post, and was evidently familiar with the work of 
such other Haarlem artists as Cornelis Vroom, Pieter de Molijn, and Pieter Saenredam. Post spent 
eight years, from 1636 to 1644, working for Prince Johan Maurits of Nassau in Brazil. Upon his 
return he settled permanently in Haarlem, and in 1646 he joined the guild. 

Post's entire production seems to have consisted of Brazilian landscapes, nearly all executed in 
the Netherlands. Only six paintings, later presented to Louis XIV of France, and one drawing by 
Post are known to have been made in South America, and there are no secure works from before his 
trip. Immediately after his return the artist established his reputation with drawings for the etched 
illustrations in Caspar van Baerle's account of the Nassau administration's role in Brazil, Historia 
de Reriim per Ostenium in Brasilia. Although he was popular in his own time. Post's reputation had 
faded until about fifty years ago, when a resurgence in his popularity began. 

Post's exact and somewhat naive style is unique in seventeenth-century Dutch landscape 
painting, although it reflects earlier Dutch and Flemish landscape and is influenced by contempo- 
rary developments. Post's freshest and most vivid landscapes date from the first decade after his 
return from the New World. His later, more contrived compositions are full of such decorative 
effects as jungle animals in the foreground and are sometimes dry and repetitious. 


Brazilian Landscape with a Worker's House 

Signed and dated on rock, lower center: F. POST 165 [5?] 
Oil on wood, i8'/4 x 24^/4 in. (46.5 x 61.9 cm.; 

Collections: H. T. Hoch, Munich (his sale, .Munich. September 19, 
1891, no. 167); Bayersdorter; Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nurem- 
burg, by 1909; V. J. Mayrmg, Hollfeld, 1946; private collection, Swit- 
zerland; [David Koetser, Zurich, 1977]. 

Exhibition: The Hague, Mauritshuis, So wijd de icereld strekt, 1979— 
80, no. 107, repr. 

References: Von Reber and Bayersdorter, Khssischer Bilderschatz. 
1897, no. 1050; T. van Frimmel, Blatter fiir Gemdldekimde, vol. 3, 
Vienna, 1907, pp. 124—25; Katatog der Gemdlde-Sammlung des Ger- 
manischen Nationalmuseiims in Niirnberg, Nuremburg, 1909, no. 396; 
Alfred von Wurzbach, Niederlandisches Kiinstler-Lexikon, vol. 2. 
Vienna and Leipzig, 1910, p. 347; Robert C. Smith, Jr., "'The Brazilian 
Landscapes of Frans Post," Art Quarterly i, I9;8. pp. 258-59; Rio de 
Janeiro, .\luseu Nacional de Belas .Artes, Esposicao Frans Post. 1942, p. 
14; Joaquim de Sousa-Leao, Frans Post. Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, 
1 948, no. 1 8, repr. p. 29; W. Martin, De Hollandsche schilderktinst, vol. 
2, Amsterdam, 1936, p. 468, fig. 246, 2nd ed., 1942, p. 468, fig. 246; 
Eduard Plietzsch, Hotldndische iind fldmische Maler des XVII. Jahr- 
hiinderts. Leipzig, i960, p. 116, fig. 192; Erik Larsen, Frans Post. 


Amsterdam and Rio de Janeiro, 1962, p. 103, no. 28, pi. 43; Joaquim de 
Sousa-Leao, Frans Post, .\msterdam, 1973, no. 22, repr. 

Painted about a decade atter Post had returned to Haar- 
lem from his sojourn in Brazil (1636—44),' the Carter 
landscape recalls the pictures Post had executed in South 
America in its uncluttered composition and its sensitivit\' 
to the hot, tropical climate (fig. i).-^ It is one of the few 
Brazilian views by Post that seems to capture a particular 
moment: two colonials on a shady balcony escaping the 
hot sun (fig. 3) while natives are dancing and working 
nearby. The open, sun-baked foreground, the dominant 
tawny-red tonality, and the close-up view of a relatively 
simple dwelling distinguish the Carter composition from 
the more elaborately contrived Brazilian landscapes the 
artist produced for twenty-five years after his return from 
the New World. 

Post belonged to the group of artists, cartographers. 



FIGURE I. Frans Post, The Ox Wngtm, 1638. Oil on canvas. 14 x 
i4Ve in. (61 X 88 cm.). Pans, Musee du Louvre. 

and scientists who accompanied Count Johan Maurits 
van Nassau-Siegen (i 604-1 679) on the Dutch expedition 
to the territory of Brazil in i6?6. Johan Maurits, sent to 
establish the operations of the Dutch West Indies Com- 
pany and to suppress Portuguese and BraziUan resistance, 
revived the sugar industry and built the new capital, Mau- 
ritsstad, complete with canals and bridges, before he de- 
parted Brazil in 1644. A humanist as well as a soldier, he 
mvited Frans Post, Aelbert Eckhout, and the cartographer 
George Marcgraf on the trip to record the terrain and the 
inhabitants of the new world. ^ Only six paintings made by 
Post in Brazil are known today, and even fewer drawings.'* 
Yet he must have brought a great many sketches back to 
Haarlem, which would have been the source material for 
the South American scenes he painted subsequently. 

The composition of the Carter landscape, with a build- 
ing on one side and a panorama with natives walking or 
dancing down a path on the other side, is typical of many 
used by Post after his return from Brazil (fig. i) and long 
after. 5 It is free, however, from the usual lateral "wing" of 
vegetation, sometimes inhabited by exotic animals,*" that 
appears in most of Post's paintings, including the earliest 
(fig. i), and gives them a somewhat stylized flavor. Here, 
in contrast, the foreground is open except for a few scat- 
tered reeds and a bird (fig. 2), and the artist assumes an 
unusually low and close vantage point; these devices give 
the Carter painting an immediacy and freshness that set it 


apart from the bulk of Post's landscapes, which are elab- 
orately composed and viewed from a greater distance. Its 
clarity and subtlety of color owe something to its excellent 
state of preservation. 

The pictures Frans Post painted in Brazil show that he 
looked at South America with an eye trained by Haarlem 
landscape painters of a generation that cultivated simplic- 
ity of composition and color, the generation that included 
his older brother Pieter Post (1608-1699) and probably 
Cornelis Vroom as well. The paintings he made after his 
return make it clear that he continued to be affected by 
other artists' work; and although his own subjects were 
exotic, his compositions share many of the standard fea- 
tures of contemporary Dutch landscape, including the 
dark wedge of foliage he employs so often at one side of 

FIGURE 1. Frans 

Post, Brjzituin 

Landscape with a 

Worker's House 


FiGURt i, Frans Post, 

Bmziluin l.iinJscLipe 

with a Worker's House 


his views (but not here) and the airy panoramic view of the 
distant countryside he accomphshes by summarizing its 
structure into a series of superimposed bands of differing 
tones. For much of his career, however. Post retained the 
old-fashioned Flemish device of distinguishing fore- 
ground, middleground, and background by zones of color 
— brown, paler green, and pale blue^ respectively. 

The rush-roofed house, whose balcony and eaves are 
supported by rickety wooden posts (fig. 3), is relatively 

modest for a building in a Post landscape. Most often the 
artist represented churches, large plantation houses, or 
mills, more rarely the dwellings of the natives,* and only 
m the Carter paintmg the house of a lavrador (a worker, 
rather than the wealthy owner of a plant)."* The lavrador 
de cana was hardly comparable to today's factory worker, 
however, as he owned slaves, and together with the senbor 
de engheno, or factory owner, he made up the white elite 
of seventeenth-centurv Brazil. 

I. The date has generally heen read as 1655, hut the last digit is faint 
and might possihly he a 3. Rohert C. Stnith, Jr., ("The Brazilian Land- 
scapes of Frans Post." p. 15S) mistakenly gives the date as 166^. 

z. Six works painted in Brazil have survived (Sousa-Leao, Post, 19^?, 
nos. 1—6). According to another undated composition, lost 
in World War II (ihid., no. 60), was also executed in Brazil. 

3. In a letter to Louis XIV dated Decemher z I, 16-8, Johan Maurits 
wrote that he had "Dans mon service le temps de ma demeiene au Bresil, 
six peintres, dont chacun a curieusement peint a quoi il etait le plus 
capahle" (Sousa-Leao, Post, 1973, p. i i).The identmof the other three 
IS unknown; Sousa-Leao reports J. G. van Gelder's suggestion that Post, 
Eckhout, and Marcgraf each hrought an assistant (ihid.). 

4. See note z; the only drawing surely made in Brazil is the Sugar Mill 
in Brussels (Sousa-Leao, Post, 1973, no. Dii), used for one of Barleus"s 
engravings. Sousa-Leao suggests that two other drawings were also exe- 
cuted in Brazil (ibid., nos. Dio, Diz). 

5. For example, A Village of 1647 (Sousa-Leao, Post, 1973, no. 8), 
and such works of the sixties as Engenho of 1661 (ibid., no. 34), and 
Engenho Real of 1668 (ibid., no. ^ s). 

6. For example, the pendants of 1649 in Munich (, Post, 
1973, nos. li, 13). 

7. Clusters of pigment separated from the binding medium in these 
areas suggest that the paint has undergone a change from blue-green to 
pure blue, but it is probably wrong to claim that the change of color has 
been extreme, as does Sousa-Leao (Post, 1973, pp. 15—16). 

8. Huts in a LaiiJscape, 1659, Rio de Janeiro, Museu Nacional de 
Belas Artes (Sousa-Leao, Post, 1973, "°' '°)! ■'"'' '^e drawing higheruo 
Maratapasipe in Brasil, i6\ii, location unknown (Sousa-Leao, Post, 
I9~3, no. dig). 

9. The H,\gue, MiunKhw>, So U'l/ci de wereld strekt,i;xh. cat., 1979- 
80, cat. by J. de, no. 107. Larsen's interpretation of the 
Carter landscape and the Rio de Janeiro Huts in a Landscape (note 8 
above) as allusions to the imminent disintegration of Dutch power in 
Brazil and the dashed hopes of easy fortunes in the New World seems to 
us fanciful (Post, p. 103). 


Adam Pynacker 

1621— 1673 

The artist was born in 1621 in Pynacker, a village east of Delft from which he took his 
name. He is recorded in Delft in 1649, apparently lived in Schiedam in 1658, and later settled in 
Amsterdam, where he died in 1673. Houbraken reports that Pynacker spent three years in Italy. 
Whether or not he actually made the voyage, other Dutch Italianate painters, particularly Jan Both 
and Jan Asselijn, provided the example for his forest and harbor scenes and for the warm golden 
sunlight that pervades his pictures. His earliest dated works show that Pynacker developed his own 
version of the Italianizing style, whose hallmark was a detailed description of foreground vegeta- 
tion. The sure draftsmanship of his figures was unequaled by any of the other Italianate painters; he 
was also a skilled painter of light and atmosphere, particularly in his harbor views, in which more 
than half the composition was devoted to sky and water. During the 1660s Pynacker's style 
hardened, his colors grew cooler, and his highlights became sharper and more pronounced. This 
late st\'le has been criticized as unnatural and mannered, notably by Hofstede de Groot, who 
ranked Pynacker below the great "national landscapists" Salomon van Ruysdael and Philips 
Koninck. From Houbraken we know that Pynacker was highly praised during his lifetime, with no 
apparent distinction made between the early and late works. 


View of a Harbor in a City (Schiedam^) 

Signed on rhe bridge abutment, left center: AP 
Oil on canvas, ii^'j x i-^ s in. (55.5 x 45.5 ctn.) 
Collection: [Newhouse Galleries, New York, 1974]. 

This composition is Pynacker's only known city view, and 
as an intimate harbor scene in an urban setting it is unique 
in seventeenth-century Dutch painting. Pubhshed here for 
the first time, the Carter painting exempUfies the ambi- 
tious, experimental nature of Pynacker's works from the 
early 1650s.' 

The action in the painting is not entirely clear; the un- 
likely topography and the ambiguous attitudes of the two 
principal figures suggest that Pynacker was not interested 
in the description of a specific incident or place. A three- 
masted merchant vessel is moored at the quay in the back- 
ground, her sails hoisted to dr\- in the light breeze, her 
decks laden with cargo. At the left a man reading aloud 
from a paper, possibly a news sheet or an inventory of the 
cargo vessel, has the attention of a group of listeners. In 
the foreground shallows is a ship's boat carrj'ing a kedge 


anchor and heavy line (which were intended to assist a 
ship, possibly the one in the background, to maneuver). 
The boatman appears to be discussing something with a 
man in fashionable regent's costume. 

The most likely location for Pynacker's scene is Schie- 
dam, close to Delft and Rotterdam, one of Holland's busi- 
est seaports today and during the seventeenth century.^ A 
deep-draft ship such as the three-master depicted by Py- 
nacker could sail into Schiedam, but not into Delft or 
Amsterdam, where it could not enter the inner canals.^ 
Cur\-ed drawbridges of the type in this painting were 
found in Schiedam. The unlikely combination of the shal- 
low water and sandy ground in the foreground and the 
much deeper canal just beyond suggests that Pynacker's 
view mav have been inspired by a location in Schiedam 
but that some of it mav have been invented by the artist. 



( A I M ( 1 1 , r t N LI M B K R 20 


FIGURE V Adjm Pynacker, Bodt by a Stone 
Bridge, about 1650-54. Oil on canvas, 30^/8 x 
14 '/s in. (77 X 6?. 2 cm.). Private collection. 

FIGURE I . Adam Pynacker, Landscape with Shepherd Blon ■ing a Horn, 
1654. Oil on canvas, Si^/s x eS's m. (206.7 x 174.8 cm.). East Berlin, 
Staatliche Museen, Gemaldegalene. 

FIGURE 2. Adam Pynacker, Rii'er View tvitb a 
Boj/, about 1645-50. Oil on wood, 11V4X 15^/4 
in. (30 X 40 cm.). Vaduz, Sammlungen des 
Regierenden Fursten von Liechtenstein. 


Several factors indicate a date in the early 1650s for the 
Carter painting: the golden light and warm tonality, the 
painstaking detail and sparkling highlights of the fore- 
ground branches, the still-insecure transition between the 
planes, and the exaggerated diminution of the size of the 
figures. In Pynacker's earliest dated work of 1654 (fig. i ) 
he also emphasizes the foreground staffage and does not 
entirely succeed in uniting the different parts of the com- 
position. The masterful execution of the figures and the 
boat in the Carter painting is evidence of a more mature 
technique than that of the 1640s, when Pynacker must 
have painted the less-accomplished Landscape with a 
House on the Water (Berlin-Dahlem, Gemaldegalerie)'* 
and the landscape in Vaduz (fig. 2). The strong outline of a 
bridge against the sky is a compositional device that Pyn- 
acker uses to advantage in other works of the early 1650s. 
In the Landscape ivith a Bridge (London, Dulwich Col- 
lege Picture Gallery) and the Boat by a Stone Bridge (fig. 
3) Pynacker builds his composition around the arc of a 
bridge silhouetted against a sunny sky. 

Although the picture seems to have been an isolated 
experiment for Pynacker, his attempt at a cit>' view was 
part of a general trend in the 1650s toward urban sub- 
jects, pioneered by his Delft colleagues Carel Fabritius, 
Pieter de Hooch, and Joannes Vermeer.' Its upright for- 
mat and intimate character have a certain affinity with 
compositions by de Hooch and Vermeer of the late 1650s 
and early 1660s. In later years the painted view of city 



r» lyaftvmt j"Ai»j 

FIGURE 4. Reinier Nooms, De Eenhoorn Slnys from Various Views of 
.Amsterdam, about 1650-55. Etching. .Amsterdam, Ri|ksprentenkabmet. 

harbors, a type of picture whose great masters were Jacob 
van Ruisdael and Emanuel de Witte, developed in quite 
different directions. Only in prints, such as Claes Jansz. 
Visscher's Fishmarket in his Profile of Amsterdam of 
161 1** or Reinier Nooms's series Various Views of Am- 
sterdam of about 1655 (fig. 4), are compositions found 
that resemble Pynacker's combination of a bridge, tall 
ships, and city buildings. Unlike Pynacker's paintings, 
however, these prints are primarily topographically accu- 
rate portrayals of a particular site. Pynacker's poetic com- 
position resists comparison except, perhaps, with his own 
paintings of fanciful Italian scenery in which he sets a 
bridge against an open sky. 

1. J. N. Nieuwstraten, who is preparing a monograph on the artist, 
writes, "ahhough its subject is wholly exceptional in the oeuvre of Adam 
Pijnacker. there can be no doubt that this view in a Dutch harbor town is 
an autograph work by this artist. . . . For sr>listic reasons a date in the 
early fifties must he proposed" (letter, .August, 1980). Another painting 
that shows the experimental nature of Pynacker's early works is a Land- 
scape with Boy and Dog (The Hague, Nystad). 

2. Nieuwstraten suggested Schiedam, probably somewhere along the 
passage between the Korte and Lange Havens, as the locale. 

3. The large sailing vessel in Emanuel de VC'itte's Nfic Fishmarket 111 
Amsterdam of 16^8 (Hartford, Wadsworth .Athenaeum) would, in fact, 
not have been able to pass through the lock in .Amsterdam. See Hartford, 
Vi'adsu'orth Athenaeum Paintings: The Netherlands and the German 
Speaking Countries, Fifteenth— Nineteenth Centuries, 19T8, p. i -8. 

4. Blankert, Italianiserende landschapscljilders, p. 189, no. 110. 
dates the painting to the 1650s. J. N. Nieuwstraten in his review of the 

exhibition [Burlington Magazine 10-, 1965, p. 2~i) dates it to the 
1 640s. 

5. Card habritius's Vieu' of Delft (London, National Gallery) is 
dated 1651; Pieter de Hooch settled in Delft about 165^ and his earliest 
dated works are from 1658; and Vermeer's Street in Delft (Amsterdam, 
Ri|ksmuseum) and Vieii' of Delft (The Hague, Mauntshuis) are thought 
to date from about 166 1. Other town views from the 1650s are Daniel 
\'osmaer's and Egbert van Poel's views of Delft, and Saenredam's and 
Beerstraten's representations of the Old Town Hall in .Amsterdam. Ste- 
chow considers Jan Wijnants's View of the FFerengracht, Amsterdam, 
which he dates about 1660-61, to be "the first inner-cit\- view by any 
Dutch artist of the Golden Age" [Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of 
Art 5Z, 1965, p. 164:. 

6. M. Simon, C/jt's /i«/5c. \';ssc/it'), diss., Freiburg, 1958, pp. loj — ',, 
1^0— -"2. no. t6o. 


Jacob van Ruisdael 


Born in Haarlem, Jacob van Ruisdael was the son and perhaps pupil of Isaack Jacobsz. 
van Ruysdael, a frame maker and dealer who reportedly also painted landscapes. In 1648 Ruisdael 
joined the Haarlem guild of painters. He traveled to the German border region near Westphalia in 
the early 1650s accompanied by Claes Pietersz. Berchem, his "great friend'' according to Hou- 
braken. By June 1657 Ruisdael had settled in Amsterdam, where he resided for the rest of his life, 
occasionally traveling within Holland. He was a prolific painter from the mid- 1640s to the late 
1 670s, as evidenced by his more than six hundred surviving works. About a hundred drawings by 
him are known, and there are also thirteen etchings dating from before 1660. Ruisdael's early style 
shows the influence of Salomon van Ruysdael (cat. no. 22), his uncle and possibly his teacher, and 
of Cornells Vroom. In the early 1650s he began to paint more extensive landscapes with more 
prominent and dramatic features, which reflect the example of the Italianate landscapists Both and 
Asselijn. His views of Bentheim Castle and its hilly surroundings from this period show Ruisdael's 
power to transform an actual site with his imagination. The waterfalls and Nordic scenery in his 
work after 1660 were based on Allart van Everdingen's paintings of Scandinavian motifs, but 
unlike van Everdingen Ruisdael never made the northern trip himself. About 1670 he adopted a 
novel upright format to accommodate the large proportion of sky in his famous panoramic views of 
Haarlem. Ruisdael also painted seascapes, beach scenes, and winter landscapes. He had a number 
of pupils, notably Meyndert Hobbema (cat. no. 14), as well as followers and imitators such as 
Jacob Salomonsz. van Ruysdael, Cornelis Decker, and Roelof van Vries. Ruisdael's vision of 
vigorous nature, and the powerful forces that animate it, worked for r\vo centuries on the 
imaginations of landscape painters on the continent and in England. 


View of Gramfields with a Distant Town 

Signed, lower left: JvR(joined)...dael 

Oil on canvas, 10V4 x 15 V2 in. (51.5 x 65 cm.) 

Collections: Freiherr von Brabeck, Soder, until 1814; Freiherr Andreas 

von Stolberg, Soder (his sale, Hanover, October 31, 1859, no. 2.?o); 

Freiherr von Savigny, Berlin; [P. Cassirer, Berlin]; private collection, 

Sweden; private collection, Norway; (Frederick ,\lont, New York, 


References: F. W. B. von Ramdohr, Beschreibung Jer Gemalde-Galerie 

des Freiherrn von Brabek [sic] zu Hildesheim, Hanover, 1792, no. 264; 

HdG I 39a. 

Although grainfields are not at all common in Dutch land- 
scape painting, they had a particular appeal tor Jacob van 
Ruisdael, who included them m more than twenty paint- 


ings from various periods m his career.' Here sunlight 
falls dramatically on a field that is still ripening and on 
another nearby that has been cut and bound in sheaves. 
Typically for the artist, the landscape is populated by a 
solitary traveler. 

A field of grain appears in one of Ruisdael's early etch- 
ings, of 1648 (fig. i), in a view restricted by the trees that 
border the field. The motif recurs in paintmgs of the 1 660s 
and later, where it is sometimes relegated to the distance 
(fig. 2) and sometimes bisected by a road that recedes 
straight into the distance (fig. 3). In the Carter painting 
and a few others such as the one in the collection of the 


FIGURE 1. Jacob van Ruisdael, The FieldofCram, 1648. Etching and 
dnpoint, md state of ^. Amsterdam. Rijksprentenkabmet. 

FIGURE 1. Jacob van Ruisdael, The CornfteUi, about 1 660— b 5 . Oil on 
canvas, 24 x 18 m. (61 x 71 cm.). Rotterdam, .Museum Boymans-van 

Earl of Northbrook (fig. 4), the grainfields dominate the 
composition, but in no other picture is such a contrast 
made bet%\'een two fields before and after the har\est. 
Ruisdael's paintings abound in potent contrasts between 
dark and light, near and far, empty- and full, open and 
closed, and other polarities found in nature.- In the Carter 
composition many elements are counterposed, the uncut 
grain and the neatly bound sheaves, the green grass and 
the yellow grain, and the cultivated and uncultivated land. 
The treatment of the nvo fields of grain seems especially 
pointed, attracting attention to the human industry that 
has tilled the earth and to the specific season of late sum- 
mer in which the grain is harvested. 


Ruisdael, like other Dutch painters, made drawings 
outdoors but evidently composed and painted his pictures 
in the studio.^ No drawing related to the Carter painting is 
known, and it is perfectly possible that the scene was 
largely invented. 

This picture is distinguished from other versions of the 
theme not only by its emphatic geometrical organization 
but also by its delicate tonalin,-, which is dominated by 
subdued gray-greens and the subtle grays of the clouds 
and is punctured by the warm hues of the grain struck by 
sunshine. The far-distant pastures and village, muted by 
the intervening atmosphere, are observed with great sensi- 

None of the paintings of grainfields is dated, and Ruis- 
dael's variations of style within any given period compli- 
cate the task of deducing dates for them. Some distinctions 
between them do, however, suggest a rough sequence. 
The Rotterdam landscape (fig. z) probably dates from the 
early si.xties, for its elaborate foreground dominated by a 
single tree can be seen as an evolution from such compo- 
sitions of the fifties as the Landscape with a Large Oak* in 
Braunschweig that introduce monumental forms in the 
foreground. In other grainfield landscapes, such as the 
Carter painting and one in New York (fig. 3), the compo- 
sition is generally more unified and the expanses of space 
are uninterrupted by shapes in the near distance. The cool 
tonality of the Carter painting also distinguishes it from 
the Rotterdam landscape and suggests a date for it in the 
late si.xties or early seventies.^ 

J. T. Prestel (1739— 1808) made a print after the Carter 
painting which he inscribed Peint par J. Ruisdael . . . , Le 
Coup de Soleil, D'Apres le Tableau Original de la Galerte 
de Soder appartenant a Mr. lePr. de Braheck ..." Prestel's 
title brings to mind Ruisdael's famous landscape called 
the Coup de Soleil in the Louvre, which had already been 
given its title by the early nineteenth centur\'.* J. B. Des- 
camps, who wrote about Ruisdael in 1760,^ seems to have 
been the first critic to recognize the combination of imagi- 
nation and reality in the artist's landscapes that inspired 
his admirers in the next centur\' to invent such romantic 
titles as Le Coup de Soleil for his works. 

The great critic and historian of Dutch art Theophile 
Thore went to the Brabeck auction in 1859, where this 
picture was sold, and noted in his copy of the catalogue 
"use et dur?" — not ver>- accurately, but the question 
mark suggests that the picture may have been dirt>- or 
hard to see — and "vrai et original."* 


FIGURE 3. Jacob van Ruisdael, 

Vi'hejtfields, about 1665-70. 

Oil on canvas, 39^/8 x 5 1 'U in. 

(100 .\ 1 30.2 cm.). New York, 

Metropolitan Museum ot .Art. 

FIGURE 4. Jacob van Ruisdael. The Cornfield, about 1660—6?. Oil on 
canvas, i-' j \ iS in. ,45 x -i cm.;. London, Earl of Northbrook. 

I. Jakob Rosenberg, /jco/) van Ruisdael, Berlin, mi", nos. -1-91. 
Most closely related to the Carter painting are the works in the Thyssen- 
Bornemisza collection, Lugano (Rosenberg, no. S3), and in Rotterdam 
(Rosenberg, no. 91, our fig. i). 

i. For an analysis of Ruisdael's luxtaposition of opposites in the 
Rotterdam Cornfield (fig. 2), see R. H. Fuchs, "Over bet landschap; een 
verslag naar aanleiding van Jacob van Ruisdael, Het Korenveld," Ttfd- 
schrift I'oor Gesthiedenis, 19-3, pp. 181—91. 

3. About one quarter of Ruisdael's surviving drawings can be related 
to finished paintings. See Seymour Slive, "'Notes on three drawings by 
Jacob van Ruisdael," Album Amiconon j. G. van Gelder, The Hague, 
1973, PP- '~4^ — ■ ''^^^ f<*^ -1 discussion of some literarv evidence of 

landscape painters" thought and practice, see Fuchs, "Over het land- 
schap," pp. 181-88. 

4. Rosenberg, /jco/) van Ruisdael, no. -4. 

5. We are grateful to Seymour Slive for discussing the dating of the 
Carter picture with us and for sharing his collection of Ruisdael photo- 

6. Rosenberg, Jacob van Ruisdael, no. 4 m . The painting was known 
as Le Coup de Soleil when it first appeared in the literature (Filhol, 
Galeriedii Musee de France, Pans, 1804; 18 14 ed., no. -o, pi. 41. 

-. J. B. Descamps, La Vie des Pemtres, vol. 3, Pans, i~6o, p. 1 1. 
8. Preserved in the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documenta- 
tie. The Flague. 


Salomon van Ruysdael 


Salomon van Ruysdael was born in Naarden sometime between 1600 and 1603, and in 
1623 he jomed the painters' guild of Haarlem. In his Beschryvinge ende Lof der Stad Haarlem of 
1628, Samuel Ampzing mentions Ruysdael as a landscape pamter in that city and praises him. 
Ruvsdael ser\'ed the painters' guild as overseer in 1647 and 1669 and as dean in 1648. He died in 
Haarlem m 1670. More than six hundred paintings dating from 1626 to 1669 are known, but no 
authentic drawings have survived. It is not certain who was his teacher, but his early works clearly 
depend on Esaias van de Velde (cat. no. 25). From the late twenties to the mid-forties he reduced the 
range of color in his landscapes and concentrated on effects of light and atmosphere, a development 
parallel to that of Jan van Goyen (cat. no. 11) and Pieter de Molijn. By the late forties he was 
painting more dramatic compositions with a greater variety of color, sharper contrasts of light and 
dark, and stronger structural accents, characteristics that became more pronounced in his later 
paintings. River scenes with ferries, already an important part of Salomon's work in the thirties, 
dominated his production after the mid-forties. His subjects also include market scenes, wagons 
halting at inns, winter landscapes, marines, beachscapes, a few equestrian battle scenes and religious 
subjects, a waterfall, and at the end of his career several powerful still lifes with dead birds. 
Ruysdael's son, Jacob Salomonsz. van Ruysdael, and Jan van Mosscher probably studied with him. 
His nephew Jacob van Ruisdael (cat. no. 21) may also have done so. Frangois Knibbergen, Wouter 
Knijff, and Anthonie van der Croos are among his followers, as were a number of still-anonymous 


River Landscape with a Ferry 

Signed and dared on fern', lower left: S. v. Ruysdael 1650 

Oil on wood, io'/s x 32. Vs in. (51 x 83.3 cm.) 

Collections: Mrs. M. F. Brandt (Sale, London, Sotheby, November 16, 

1955, no. 41); (L. Koetser, London]; A. E. Allnatt (his sale, London, 

Sotheby, December 6, 19^1, no. 32); [Edward Speelman, London, 


Exhibition: New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19-3. 

Reference: Wolfgang Stechow, Salomon van Ruysdael, znd ed., Berlin, 

1975, no. 363A, pi. 36. 

A ferry laden with farmers and cattle glides across the 
river in this tranquil scene, which ranks among the finest 
and best-preserved paintings by the artist. Ruysdael is 
probably best known for his serene and majestic river- 
scapes of the 1650S, pictures that are distinguished by the 
freshness of their observation and their well-tuned har- 
mony of form and color. In the Carter painting the shapes 


of the church and the tall trees leaning over the water are 
balanced by the ferryboat, while the upward curves of the 
trunks are echoed in the upswept, billowing clouds. The 
darkest colors, reserved for the trees, are countered by the 
warm, ruddy tones of the men and cows on the boat and 
by the pale harmonies of the distant shoreline. A detail of 
the ferr>' and horizon behind it (fig. i) reveals the loose, 
spirited brushwork in this area and the tighter, more de- 
tailed strokes in the foreground. 

The painted riverscape had been developed by Ruysdael 
and van Goyen in a series of remarkably similar composi- 
tions during the 1630s and 1640S, which depended in turn 
on the e.xample of the earlier Haarlem artists Esaias van de 
Velde' and Pieter Moli)n.- .\lthough van Goyen took the 
lead in the late tw enties,^ Ruysdael soon followed in 1 63 1 




FIGURE I. Salomon van 
Ruysdael, Rtver LiinJsciipe ti'tth j 
Ferry (detail). 


FIGURE 2. Salomon van 
Ruysdael, Rtver Landscape, 163 1. 
Oil on wood, 14^/8 X 25^/4 in. 
( ?6.5 .X 65.5 cm.). London, 
National Gallery. 

(fig. 2); he painted a number of especially successful vari- 
ants on the theme in the forties and made it his specialty in 
the fifties. 

The river landscape, with its combination of receding 
shoreline, a large body of water, and a substantial propor- 
tion of sky, offered a subject that proved as suitable as the 
Dutch dunes had been for the early experiments conducted 
by van Goyen and Ruysdael in simpler, more atmospheric 
landscape painting. The receding riverbank gave a natural 
perspective device; from the beginning, van Goyen and 
Ruysdael animated the shoreline by varying the size of the 
trees and by positioning houses in the clearings (fig. 2). 

Despite the similarities between the paintings of the two 
artists in the 1630s, Ruysdael's can be distinguished by 
their softer and finer touch and by their cooler gray-green 

The characteristics of Ruysdael's mature riverscapes of 
the 1650s'* — in which he adopted a wider range of color, 
sharper contrasts of light and dark, a richer and thicker 
application of paint, and more complex compositions 
with strong horizontal and vertical accents — can already 
be discerned in the Carter panel. During the 1640s Ruys- 
dael had complicated the compositional formula of the 
earlier riverscapes by introducing a sharp curve in the 


water, causing the shoreline to disappear behind the im- 
mediate foreground and reappear in front of a distant 
bank. This device, first introduced in 164Z' and fully real- 
ized by 1649, is repeated in a great many variations in 
Ruysdael's subsequent riverscapes, including the Carter 
painting. One such variant from the same year, and of 
nearly identical dimensions, has many of the same ele- 
ments disposed in just the same way.* Yet it is the measure 
of Ruysdael's inventiveness that not one thing is repeated 
— sky, trees, buildings, ferry, animals, and figures are all 
different, as are the tonality and the interplay of landscape 
and clouds. 

During the 1660s Ruysdael's expressive trees are even 
more prominent and the contrasts of light and dark more 
pronounced, but the structure of his river scenes remains 
the same. After his death there were no painters to con- 
tinue Salomon's tradition of the peaceful river idyll, and it 
virtually disappeared from Dutch painting.^ 

The church in the Carter painting has not yet been iden- 
tified, so we do not know the locale; realistic as it appears, 
the entire scene may simply be the artist's invention, for it 
is well known that Ruysdael sometimes placed recogniz- 

FlGLiKE V S.]lcinn)n van Ruysd.iel, Rifer Scene with Duck Shooting, 
166?. Oil on wood, ly'/s \ i- in, (50. ^ \ 6S.6 cm.). London, Terry- 
Engcll Gallery, i9h<;. Photograph courtesy ot the Witt Libra rv, London, 

able monuments in invented settings.* This same church, 
or one nearly identical to it, appears again in a painting of 
1663 (fig. 3), this time situated in the open and placed 
parallel to the river. 

I. Van de Velde's etching of about 1611-14, ^'"^ Bretivry (Ludwig 
Burchard, Die hoUiindischen Radiercr vor Rembrandt, Halle, 1 9 1 i, no, 
13), first employed the diagonal recession that later reappears m Ruys- 
dael and van Goyen so frequently, although his two painted river scenes 
are composed more horizontally {View of Zierkzee of 16 18, Berlin- 
Dahlem, Gemaldegalerie, and The Ferry, 1622, Amsterdam, Ri|ksmu- 
seum). See Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, pp, 50—55, 

1. The strong diagonal recession of Moli|n's dune landscapes of the 
1620S (Sandy Road, 1626, Braunschweig, Herzog Anton LHrich-Mu- 
seum) prohahlv influenced the earlv riverscapes of van Goven and Ruvs- 

3, Hans-Ulnch Beck, /j« lan Goyen n-y6-i6f6, vol, 2, Amsterdam, 
1973, especially nos, 427, 432, 

4, Notably the paintings of 1650, 1653, and 1655 (Stechow, Salo- 
mon van Ruysdael, nos, 363, 373, 401B, 374), 

5, Hamburg, Kunsthalle (Stechow, Sj/omo«i'ij« Ruysdael, no. 514), 

6, The painting in the collection of A, Schwarz, Amstelveen, signed 
and dated 1650 (Stechow , Salomon van Ruysdael, no, 363 ; repr, m color 
in Dordrecht Museum, Nederlandse landschappen uit de zeventiende 
eeuw,e\h. cat., 1963, no. 106, fig. 75). 

7, One of the few river scenes in the spirit of Salomon van Ruysdael 
was etched by Jan van der Vinne (166^-1721), the view entitled Je 
Scholenaar, from the series Gesigten hiinteii Haarlem. See Irene de Groot, 
Landscape Etchings by the Dutch Masters of the Seventeenth (.'eiitiiry, 
Maarssen, 1979, no. 24-, 

8, Ruysdael was not alone in doing so; see Stechow, Dutch Land- 
scape Painting, pp, 8-9, for a discussion and literature. 


Pieter Jansz. Saenredam 


Son of the engraver Jan Saenredam, Pieter Saenredam was born in 1597 in Assendelft. He 
may have been first trained by his father, who died when the boy was ten years old. Two years later 
Saenredam went to Haarlem, where he was apprenticed to Frans Pietersz. de Grebber, a specialist in 
religious and historical subjects; in 1623 Saenredam entered the painter's guild there. He seems to 
have lived in Haarlem for the rest of his life, taking short trips to sketch the churches and other 
buildings of s'Hertogenbosch (1632), Assendelft (1633), Alkmaar (1634/35, 1638/39, and 1661), 
Utrecht (1636), Amsterdam (1641), and Rhenen (1644). 

With the exception of several views of Rome based on drawings by Maerten van Heemskerk, 
the artist devoted himself to architectural subjects. By faithfully representing an architectural site, 
Saenredam broke with the prevailing tradition of fantasized architectural views, established in 
Antwerp in the late sixteenth century and continued by Saenredam's contemporaries Bartholomeus 
van Bassen and Dirck van Delen. Saenredam also deviated from tradition by not using architectural 


Interior of the Mariakerk, Utrecht 

Signed on the plinth, lower right: PI Saenredam tecit A: 165 i 
Oil on wood, ig'/s x 14' 8 in. (48.6 x ^5.8 cm.i 

Collectiom: Mr. Alcott, Rugby; W. A. Coats, Edinburgh (Sale, W. B. 
Paterson, London, January- 3, 191^, no. 175'); Frits Lugt,Maartensdijk; 
Mrs. A. C. R. van Mandele-Vermeer, Bloemendaal, by 192.7 (Sale, Am- 
sterdam, .\lak van \X'aay, November 15, 19-6, no. 46); [London, Brod 
Gallery, 19^6- — J. 

Exhibition: Utrecht, Centraal Museum, Pietet l.vuz. Sae>ireda»i, 1961, 
English ed., no. 151a, pi. 153a. 

References: \X. .A. Liedtke, "Saenredam's Space," Oud— Holland 86, 
197 1, p. 139, note 53; W. A. Liedtke, "The New Church in Haarlem 
Series: Saenredam's Sketching Style in Relation to Perspective," Siniiu- 
liisH. m-5--6,p. 164, note 6i. 

FIGURE I . H. Tavernier, after Saenredam, The North Side Apse of the 
Maruikerk. Utrecht, about 1784. Pen and gray watercolor on paper, 
19V8 X 18V4 in. (50 X 47.5 cm.). The Hague, Koninkli|k Huisarchief. 
Collection of Her Royal Highness Princess Juliana. 


y -^■■-■: w^mmniilimmmvii^^ 



scenes as backdrops for religious subjects, portraying architecture for its inherent interest instead. 
Occasionally he made allusions to contemporary political events and moralizing ideas in his 
pictures. He seems to have preferred medieval buildings, with their smooth surfaces and substantial 
parts, to seventeenth-century structures. For example, he depicted the old Town Hall in Amster- 
dam before and after the fire that destroyed it, but he seems never to have recorded van Campen's 
new Town Hall, a building renowned throughout Europe. Saenredam's compositions vary from 
grand views of the entire church to intimate glimpses down a side aisle. They result from a process 
of transforming a faithful sketch made on the spot into an elaborate drawing, which then became 
the basis for a coherent and satisfying painting. The sharp contrast of black and white in 
Saenredam's paintings of the thirties yields to a more subtle range of gray, yellow, and pink tones in 
his mature works. In his later works Saenredam's viewpoint becomes increasingly oblique, allow- 
ing him more freedom to manipulate spatial relationships. This subtle alteration of reality- for 
pictorial ends was part of Saenredam's legacy to the next generation of architectural painters, led by 
Gerard Houckgeest and Emanuel de Witte (cat. nos. 28, Z9). Other artists such as Isaac van Nickele 
and Adriaen van Ostade sometimes painted the figures in Saenredam's pictures. 

FIGURE 2. Pieterjansz. 

Saenredam, The Mariaplatts and 
'- ^ Warukerk. Utrecht. 1663. 

Ilj Oil on wood, 43 '/T X 54-'/4 in. 

1 10.5 X 139 cm.). Rotterdam, 
'^1^ .Museum Boymans-van Beuningen. 


FIGURE ?. Pieterjansz. 
Saenredam, The Crossing and Side- 
Apses from the Southern Aisle. 
Mariakerk, 1636. Pen and chalk, 
12 X 15^/4 in. (30.4 X 39.9 cm.). 
Utrecht, Gemeentearchiet. 


" f 


.... iU. 


This panel is extraordinan- in the purity ot its concern 
with architectural form, color, and light. When it reap- 
peared twenn,' years ago- it had figures, but these were 
obvious additions of the eighteenth century and were sub- 
sequently removed in cleaning. There are only a few other 
paintings by Saenredam that lack figures, and in two of 
these attention is drawn to notable monuments that adorn 
the churches.^ 

The painting shows the interior of the Manakerk, a 
remarkable Romanesque building destroyed in the nine- 
teenth century and whose appearance we know today 
largely from Saenredam's drawings and paintings (fig. z). 
Tlie view is down the north aisle toward the shallow side 
apse in the transept, with a glimpse of the choir screen at 
the right, above which soars the Gothic choir beyond. 
Although It is evidently quite faithful to realirv', the paint- 
ing is full of subtle adjustments that heighten its aesthetic 
and psychological effect. These are best measured by con- 
sidering Saenredam's working method, which is now fairly 
well understood.'* His surviving studies show that his habit 
was first to make a sketch in pen and watercolor on the 
spot and often to take measurements. Later, sometimes 

many years later, he would prepare an elaborate construc- 
tion drawing based on the sketch, his measurements, and 
the modifications he wished to introduce. The main lines 
of this construction drawing might then be transferred 
mechanically to the panel or canvas by blackening the 
paper on the verso and retracing them. Neither Saenre- 
dam's sketch nor his construction drawing for the Carter 
painting has been preserved, but fortunately an eighteenth- 
centur)' copy of the sketch has come down to us (fig. i).' 
The lost sketch for the Carter painting must date from 
Saenredam's only known visit to Utrecht in 1636, when 
he made numerous studies of the interior and exterior of 
the church that supplied him material for his paintings of 
the next rv\ent\'-five years. 

A more finished sheet in Utrecht (fig. 3), representing 
the opposite side of the church and reversing the composi- 
tion of our panel, demonstrates how carefully Saenredam 
chose the vantage point of the Carter picture. Although 
viewed from only slightly further down the opposite aisle 
(between the third and fourth bays), the Utrecht drawing 
encompasses a much wider view, demonstrating the extent 
to which Saenredam intentionally restricted the space in 


the sketch (as it appears in Tavernier's copy) and in the 

The fact that the Carter panel lacks the customary bevels 
on all four sides ot the back strongly suggests that it has 
been cut, but it is impossible to be sure where and how 
much. The Tavernier copy of Saenredam's sketch indi- 
cates, however, that the painting may have been trimmed 
at the left and the top. 

Saenredam suppressed in the painting some details he 
had carefully noted in his sketch: the double string-course 
in the apse, the decorated blind wmdow, and a few minor 
elements that would have detracted from the simplicity of 
the geometry. On the other hand, he added the peculiar 
low opening that accentuates the bottom of the wall to the 
right of the apse and emphasizes the shadows on the floor. 
He also opened the composition slightly on the right to 
include the barest suggestion of the choir wall beyond 
(suppressing the bhnd arcade that was actually there, but 
which would have broken the vertical stripe of light) to 
reveal the bottom of one of the high clerestory windows 
that light the choir. The relatively dim illumination and 

heavy proportions of the Romanesque building are thus 
subtly contrasted with the airy brightness of its Gothic 

Recent investigations have shed light on the significance 
of many Dutch church mteriors, in which parts of the 
building may be mterpreted as religious metaphors,* as 
commemorations of an historical event and its implica- 
tions for the present,' or as more general images of faith.* 
None of these associations or the familiar allusions to the 
theme of Vanitas'^ seem to apply to the Carter painting, 
where pictorial interests outweigh those of content. Lack- 
ing figures, symbolic details, or any prominent decora- 
tions, the Carter panel is an uncommonly spare and pure 
exercise in rendering volumes, voids, textures, and colors. 
Saenredam models forms by a subtle modulation of tones, 
and he discovers a marvelous variety of tints — pink, slate 
blue, gray, and tan predominating — in the masonry and 
the pavement as they reflect the gentle, diffuse light. 

The significance of the Carter painting in Saenredam's 
development goes beyond that of an exceptional experi- 
ment in light and form. It exemplifies the trend in his work 

FIGURE 4. Pieter Jansz. Saenredam, Interior of the St. Laiirenskerk, 
Alkmaar, 1661. Oil on wood, iiV2x 1-V4 in. (54.5 x 43.5 cm.). Rotter- 
dam, Museum Boymans-van Beumngen. 


from the late forties onward toward simpler compositions 
animated by two-dimensional patterns of light and dark 
that culminates in the Interior of the St. Laurenskerk, 
Alkmaar oi 1661 (fig. 4). In both we look down a narrow 
space through which alternating patches of light and dark 
lead to an illuminated far wall, and each has on the right 

side a narrow but significant view of another part of the 
church. By 1661, however, Saenredam's manipulation of 
space was even more sophisticated: not only does he show 
a view through a series of open doorways, but he also 
suggests a slight curve to the right through the positioning 
of the arches and doors. 

I. The catalogue cannot he located; the mtormation comes from the 
notes of Frits Lugt. kindly supplied by Carlos van Hasselt. 

1. The painting was discovered after the close of the Saenredam exhi- 
bition m Utrecht in 196 1, but was added to the catalogue (Utrecht, 
Saenredam, no. 151a). 

3. The Interior of the St. Pieterskerk, Utrecht of 1644 shows the 
organ built by Gerrit Pietersz. in 1 5 io, and the Interior of the St. jans- 
kerk, s'Hertogenbosch of 1646 shows the altar by Hans van Mildert and 
altarpicce by Abraham Bloemaert. Saenredam's other unpopulated 
painting, the Interior of the St. janskerk. Utrecht of 1650—55, has no 
such single monument, but is much larger and more ambitious than the 
Carter picture (Utrecht, Saenredam, nos. 174, 94, 138). In addition, 
there are a number of paintings containing figures added later; for ex- 
ample, views of the Biiurkerk. Utrecht (ibid., no. i Z3. dated 1654; no. 
Ii8, dated 1645) and one of the Mariakerk (ibid., no. 153, dated 1637) 
whose modest content is closest to that of the Carter composition. 

4. F. W. Heckmanns, Pieter Janszoon Saenredam: das Problem semen 
Raumf'orm, Recklinghausen, 1965; Heinz Roosen-Rung, "Naer het Icv- 
en: Zum Wirklichkeitsgehalt von Pieter Saenredams Innenraumbildem," 
Festschrift fur Wilhehti Eiler, Wiesbaden, 196-, pp. 467-88; B. A. R. 

Carter, "The LIse of Perspective in Saenredam," review of Heckmanns, 
Burlington Magazine 109, I96~, pp. 594—95; Liedtke, "Saenredam's 
Space," pp. 1 16-41; Liedtke, "The New Church in Haarlem Series," pp. 
1 45-66. On the study of underdrawings on Saenredam's panels by infra- 
red reflectography, see J. P. van Asperen de Boer, "De ondertekening bi| 
Pieter Saenredam: twee voorbeelden," Bulletin van het Riiksmuseiim 
19, 1971, pp. 25-u. 

5. The attribution to H. Tavernier and the dating 1-84 are based on a 
comparison with the artist's other copies of draw ings by Saenredam in 
the Koninkli|k Huisarchief, The Hague (see Utrecht, Saenredam, no. 

6. Gary Schwartz, "Saenredam, Huygens, and the L'trecht Bull," .S';- 
miolus I, 1966-67, pp. 69-93. 

7. See de Witte, Interior of the Nieuive Kerk in Delft ifith the Tomb 
of William the Silent (cat. no. 18); and .Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., "Gerard 
Houckgeest and Emanuel de Witte: Architectural Painting in Delft 
around 16^0," Simiolus i, 19-5-76, pp. 179-85. 

8. Walter A. Liedtke, "Faith in Perspective," Connoisseur 193, 1976, 
pp. 11--133. 

9. See de Witte. Interior of the Oiide Kerk, .Amsterdam, cat. no. 19. 


Adriaen van de Velde 

1636— 1672 

Son and brother respectively of the marine speciaHsts Willem van de Velde the Elder and 
Willem the Younger, Adriaen van de Velde was baptized in Amsterdam in November 1636. He was 
probably first trained in his father's workshop. According to Houbraken he studied with Jan 
Wijnants in Haarlem, but Philips Wouwermans, who was also active m Haarlem in the fifties, may 
have exerted a more important influence upon Adriaen's early style. Van de Velde's collaboration 
with Wijnants in the sixties may account for the similarities in their mature landscapes. Paulus 
Potter seems to have set an example for van de Velde's forest scenes, his detailed renderings of 
animals, and the sharp, clear light in his works of the fifties. Aside from his Haarlem training 
Adriaen is not known to have left Amsterdam, where he is mentioned in 1657 and where he was 
buried in 1672. 

Adriaen van de Velde was an extraordinarily versatile artist. Although best known for serene 
landscapes populated with animals and figures, his repertoire includes winter and beach scenes, 
portraits, genre paintings, an allegory, and religious subjects. A Catholic himself, van de Velde 
reportedly painted a Passion series for the Spinhuiskerk, a Catholic "hidden church" in Amster- 
dam. Other landscapists such as Jacob van Ruisdael (cat. no. 22), Jan Hackaert, and Frederick de 
Moucheron employed him to paint the staffage in their pictures. Landscapes with warm sunlight 
and Italianate motifs that reflect van de Velde's knowledge of the Italianate style appear throughout 
the artist's career and dominate his production from 166- through 1672. Van de Velde made 
twenty-six etchings and many drawings, of which more than uvo hundred have survived. His 
preparatory studies demonstrate that he proceeded from a preliminary compositional sketch, to 
chalk studies of the animals and figures, to a finished drawing before executing a painting. 


The Beach at Scheveningen 

Signed and dated on boat, lower left: A \- Velde t i 6to 
Oil on canvas, 15 V2 x 19^/4 in. (39.3 x 50.1 cm.) 

Collections: Allegedly Pieter Stevens, Antwerp; de Guignes, Pans (his 
sale, Paris, January 17, 1846, no. 38); Leboeuf de Montgermont (his 
sale, Paris, June 16—19, i9i9, no- m, as dated 1630); A. Preijer (Sale, 
Amsterdam, November 8, 1917, no. 33); August Janssen (Sale, Amster- 
dam, F. Muller, November 30, 1932., no. 307); B. de Geus van den 
Heuvel, Nieuwersluis (his sale, Amsterdam, Sotheby Mak van Waay, 
April 2.6, 1 976, no. 74) ; [G. Cramer, The Hague, 1 9~6 1 . 
Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Museum Boymans, Schilderi/en . . . iiit par- 
ticiiliere verzamelingen m Nederlami, 1939—40, no. 54, repr.; Rotter- 
dam, Museum Boymans, Het Nederlandse zee- en riviergezicht m de 
XVIlde eeitw, 1945—46, no. 48, repr.; The Hague, Gemeentemuseum, 
Zeven eetiwen den Haag, 1948, no. 268; Schiedam, Stedelijk Museum, 

Schilderiien . . . iiit de ferzameling i\i>i B. de Ceiis van den Heui-el, 
Amsterdam, 195 1-52, no. 80; Amhem, Gemeentemuseum, Collectte B. 
de Geus fan den Heuvel, 1960-61, no. 72, pi. b-r, Dordrecht, Dordrechts 
Museum, Nederlandse landschappen uit de zeventiende eeuiv, 1 963, no. 
125. fig. 114; San Francisco, Palace of the Legion of Honor; Toledo 
.Museum of .Art; Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, The Age of Rembrandt, 
1966, no. 61, repr. 

References: O. Hirschmann. "Die Sammlung .-X. Preyer im Haag," Der 
Cicerone 15, I9Z3, p. 136. repr.; Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, 
p. 108, note 29; L. J. Bol. Die holLindische Wannemalerei des i-. jahr- 
hiinderts. Braunschweig. 19-3, p. 245, note 441. 



This is the last of five beach scenes Adriaen van de Velde 
painted between 1658 and 1670. The group ot beach- 
scapes, tiny in proportion to the artist's output of land- 
scapes with animals and figures, is nevertheless a great 
and original achievement. Van de Velde discovered a con- 
siderable range of human incidents and expressive devices 
in these five rather similarly composed pictures. The Carter 
example is the most somber of the group. 

The scene is set on the beach at Scheveningen, the fish- 
ing village west of The Hague, looking north from a point 
near today's man-made harbor. From van de Velde's time 
until 1 904, when the new harbor was dug, the fishing fleet 

was beached each day on the sands of Scheveningen and 
the catch traded on the spot. The beach was also a place of 
recreation, then as now, where people of all classes would 
stroll, ride, occasionally swim, and take the air. The earli- 
est Dutch beachscapes — prints made to ciimmemorate 
the stranding of whales — show crowds of citizens of all 
classes, from courtiers to common folk, witnessing the 
spectacle. A number of later beach views by such painters 
as Porcellis, de Vlieger, van de Cappelle, and Jacob van 
Ruisdael represent visits to the beach by well-dressed 
couples like the one in Adriaen van de Velde's painting.' 
These pictures, and the vogue for representations of fisher- 



FIGURE I. Adriaen van de Veldc, I he Beach at Schei-etnngen, 1658. 
Oil on canvas, ig'/s x 28^/8 in. (50 x 72 cm.). Kassel, Staadiche 

FIGURE i. .\driaen vandeVelde, The Coast near Schereningen, 1660. 
Oil on canvas, 17 x 11' 2 in. (43.2. x 54.6 cm.). London. Royal Col- 
lection. Reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen. 

folk in prints and paintings, suggest that the beach may 
have sometimes represented more for cirv-dwellers than a 
place of clean air and amusement — perhaps a place where 
a freer and happier life could be led than in the town, a 
sentiment expressed by the prolific moralizing poet Jacob 
Cats in a verse of 1655, "On the Situation of a Young 
Woman of Scheveningen with a Basket of Fish on Her 

Stechow wrote of the artist, "His day on the beach is the 
one which so many people miss on the Dutch beaches: the 
day when all forms stand out in unadulterated colors, 
bathed in fresh, clear light which softens their contours 

FIGURE V Adnaen van de Velde, A \obleman 's Carriage on the Beach 
at Schet'entngen, 1660. Oil on wood, i4'/8 .x 19 '/4 in. (37 .x 49 cm.). 
Pans, Musee du Louvre. 

without blurring them."^ This description applies best to 
the first of van de Velde's beach views (fig. i), which 
shows various fisherfolk and a few visitors in patrician 
costume scattered across a wide expanse of shore, seen 
from a distance that reduces their scale and from a height 
that keeps them below the horizon. The paintings of 1 660 
in the Royal Collection and the Louvre are more animated 
and treat the encounters of the social classes more ex- 
plicitly. The former (fig. 2) is full of activir.-: people walk- 
ing, riding, swimming, playing, and lounging, while a 
prominently placed, well-dressed couple converses with a 
fisherman and a wagon carrying another city couple is 
greeted with a respectful gesture by a peg-legged old man. 
In the Louvre painting (fig. 3) the carriage of some great 
noble is followed by a train of footmen; like the other 
painting of this year it adopts a closer vantage point and 
fully reveals van de Velde's skill in painting figures. The 
picture of 1665 in the Mauritshuis (fig. 4) shows a group 
of peasants at one side of a composition dominated by an 
expanse of towering clouds and a sunny shore against 
which a man and two boys are silhouetted. In the Carter 
painting of i6~o the artist combines various elements he 
had used in the earlier beach scenes, but gives them a 
distinctly different flavor. There are few encounters be- 
tween people: a boy chases a carriage in the background, a 
family converses on the beach, and an old fisherman looks 
in passing toward the city folk (fig. 5). Although no pre- 
paratory drawings for the painting are known, the care- 
fully studied figures and relationships suggest that .Adriaen 


FIGURE 4. Adriaen van de Velde, Beach \'ieu\ ibb\. Oil on wood, 
16 V2 X zi 'A in. (41 X 54 cm.). The Hague, Mauritshuis. 

may have followed his customary practice ot preparmg 
for the painting by a series of increasingly precise draw- 
ings." The tone of the picture is set by the sharply silhou- 
etted foreground figures lookmg out to sea (especially the 
boy at the far left) and by the declining afternoon sun and 
the subdued silvery tonality,^ qualities shared by Jacob 
van Ruisdael's beachscapes of the seventies. In its air of 
still contemplation, it anticipates the moods of many nine- 
teenth-century landscapes. 

FIGURE 5. .Adnaen van de Velde, The Beach M Scheveinngen (detail). 

1. .-Kmong others, the paintings by these ai^ists in the .Mauritshuis, 
The Hague: Porcellis's.S7;/pirrtv/(: off the Coast oi 1631 (cat. no. 969), de 
Vlieger's Bcjt7; V'/ficof 1643 ( 5 58),and van deCappelle"s.V/.'(ps 
off the Coast (cat. no. 8io). For the development ot the beachscape, see 
especially Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, pp. 101-9. 

i. Seymour Slive, Frans Hats, vol. i, London, I97i, p. 144; Cats's 
poem was first associated with these pictures by |uhus S. Held. 

3. Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, p. loS. 

4. For this process, see \X'illiam \X'. Robinson, "Preparatory Draw- 
ings by Adriaen van de Velde," .\liJS/t'r Drc;;r/»i;s I-, i9-'9,pp. 3-n. 

5. The painting is somewhat darker now than originalK, owing to 
wear and to the normal process of increased translucency m the upper 
layers of paint, which have permitted the dark ground to become more 
visible than the artist intended. 


Esaias van de Velde 

about 1590— 1630 

Esaias van de Velde was born in Amsterdam about 1590, the son of a painter from 
Antwerp, Anthonie van de Velde, and the cousin of the printmaker and draftsman Jan van de Velde. 
Esaias' teacher is not known, but Gillis van Coninxloo (i 544-1606) and David Vinckboons 
(1576— 1632), both Flemings who settled in Amsterdam, influenced his early style. By 1610 van de 
Velde was living in Haarlem, where he married in 1 6 1 1 and joined the guild in 1 6 1 2. Six years later 
he moved to The Hague, where he lived for the rest of his life. 

A key figure in the development of Dutch landscape, Esaias produced drawings and etchings 
from about 161 2 onward that were novel in their low viewpoint, open skies, and cohesive compo- 
sitions. He was the first artist to translate this new vision of landscape into paint. Van de Velde's 
small but potent pictures anticipate the atmospheric effects, the unifying tonalin.', and the humble 
subject matter of the next generation of the Haarlem landscape painters. After his move to The 
Hague, some of the multiplicity of color and detail characteristic of late-Mannerist landscapes 
reappears in certain of Esaias' paintings, but in the small sketchy pictures from these years he 
remains at the forefront of the new style. He also made purely imaginary landscapes, whose fanciful 
compositions and expressive contours have quite a different appeal. In addition, Esaias painted 
figure compositions, including some of the earliest and most unusual "merry company" scenes 
produced in Haarlem, as well as cavalry- skirmishes and scenes of plunder, some of which are 
nocturnal. Van de Velde was an important influence on the early development of his pupil Jan van 
Goyen (cat. no. 11), and on the work of Salomon van Ruysdael (cat. no. 12) and Pieter de Molijn 
(1599— 1661) as well. 

FIGURE I. Esaias van de Velde, Wmfer 
Landscape, 1615. Oil on wood, 1 1 x i8"8 
m. izS X 46 cm.). Leipzig, .Museum der 
Bildende Kunste. 




Cottages and Frozen River 

Signed and dated, lower left: E. \'. VELDE I6i9 
Oil on paper, mounted on wood, 8^/8 x i3'/4 in. (21.2. x 33.5 cm.) 
Collections: [D. Hoogendiik, .Amsterdam]; private collection, Groning- 
en, about 1948-80; private collection, Wassenaar, 1980; [Nystad, The 
Hague, 1980-81). 

Van de Velde represents cottages by a river hank and gives 
a glimpse across the glassy surface of the river to a distant 
church tower. There are only a few figures, most of them 
engaged in mundane activities: a woman looks out the 
cottage door at a man who approaches, greeted by a bark- 
ing dog; on the ice a man converses with another who has 
been pushing a sledge laden with firewood; a man skates; 
and in the background a few people walk toward the 

The artist has made a sharp break with the conventions 
of earlier winter landscapes, in which the ice was a play- 
ground for the amusements of all classes, the snow and 
bare trees identified the season as midwinter, and there 
was little to obstruct an e.xtensive view into the distance. A 

comparison with Avercamp (cat. no. i) demonstrates the 
change. Van de Velde has reduced the cast to a handful of 
people going about their ordinary occupations, has sug- 
gested the turn of seasons by the bare ground and green 
shoots on the branches, and has divided our attention 
between a view across the ice and a close-up study of 
fences, buildings, and trees. Color is reduced to browns, 
blues, greens, and a few touches of muted reds. 

Esaias van de Velde's originalit\' as a painter of winter 
scenes had been evident as early as 16 14.' In the following 
year he painted a picture, now in Leipzig, for which he 
devised a compositional formula that he would again em- 
ploy for the Carter painting and others, in which a group 
of buildings occupies half the picture and a frozen river 
the other half (fig. i ). He depicts the scene with a vigorous, 
suggestive handling of paint that differs greatly from that 
of Avercamp and the artists of his generation. A dozen- 
odd winter landscapes by Esaias followed in the years 
16 1 5-2.9, several of them variants of the intimate Leipzig 


composition, such as the well-known picture of 16Z4 in 
The Hague. In 1629 van de Velde painted three such winter 
landscapes; in addition to the Carter example, there is a 
tiny panel in Cologne (fig. z) and a larger one in Kassel 
(fig. 3). In all three the foreground is dominated by pic- 
turesque buildings, and the normal activities of the season, 
especially wood-gathering, are the main motif. Snow lies 
on the roofs and the ground in two of the pictures, but not 
in the Carter panel; it is this barrenness, relieved by the 
promise of new life in the branches, that gives the Carter 
picture its remarkable aspect. Van de Velde's pictures, like 
this one, are a significant contribution to the movement 
toward the new, sober, atmospheric painted landscape of 
which his younger contemporaries van Goyen and Salo- 
mon van Ruysdael were the chief exponents. 

FIGURE 1. 1 saias Jl- \ cldi.-. W mtet [.andscapf, 1619. Oil on wood, 
4-'/8 X s'/8 m. (I i.i X 14.9 cm.). Cologne, Wallrjf-Richartz-Museum. 

FIGURE 3. Esaias van de Velde, 
V,' inter Landscape, 1629. Oil on 
wood, 15 Vs X 23^8 in. (38.5 x 
59.5 cm.). Kassel, Staatliche 

I. In the painting in the North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh 
(Stcchow, Dutch Landscape, p. 8t, fig. 169). See also Esaias's etching 
Winter Landscape with a Square Tower (Ludwig Burchard, Dte hol- 
landischen Radierer van Remhrandt, Halle, 191 1, no. i4e), one of a 
series of landscapes of which one is dated 1^14 1 1. de Groot, Landscape 

Etchings hy the Dutch Masters of the Seventeenth Centur}\ Maarssen, 
1 9-9, no. 6^). Stechow's characterization of Esaias's contribution to the 
winter landscape, pp. 86—8-, is useful; also his ""Esajas van de Velde and 
the Beginnings of Dutch Landscape Painting," XederLvids Kunsthisto- 
nsch jaarboek, i, 194-, pp. S3-93. 


Willem van de Velde the Younger 


Willem van de Velde the Younger was baptized in Leyden in 1633 and moved shortly 
afterward with his family to Amsterdam. His first teacher was his father, Willem van de Velde the 
Elder, a specialist in elaborately detailed marine drawings on panel and on vellum. His younger 
brother Adriaen (cat. no. 24) was also trained in his father's studio. Willem, however, adopted his 
father's specialty; the eclectic Adriaen did not. Willem the Elder frequently sailed with the Dutch 
fleet to record battles and historic events, and the Younger probably did the same. The artist's 
paintings of the fifties and sixties combine his father's painstaking accuracy of nautical detail with 
soft lighting and atmospheric effects that reveal the influence of Simon de Vlieger, with whom 
Houbraken claims Willem the Younger studied. This training may have occurred at Weesp, where 
de Vlieger seems to have resided in 1650 and where Willem met his wife, Magdalena Walravens, a 
native of Weesp. Van de Velde was married in Amsterdam in 1652. He appears to have remained 
there, aside from his probable forays with the Dutch fleet, until he left Holland for England in 1672, 
the year of the French invasion. In 1673 Willem painted several overdoors for Ham House. The 
following year he and his father were taken into the service of Charles II, the father to sketch sea 
battles, the son to make paintings from his father's drawings. Their tasks, however, were not so 
neatly divided. In his later years the Elder painted, and both artists were engaged in making 
drawings for tapestry designs in 1674. Except for short visits to Holland and the Younger's voyage 
with the fleet to the Mediterranean in 1693, fhe van de Veldes remained in England for the rest of 
their lives, first residing in Greenwich, where they were given the Queen's House as a studio, then 
later moving to Westminster. The Younger died in Westminster in 1707; his father had died 
fourteen years earlier. 

Dated paintings by this prolific artist are known from 1653 to the year of his death. Twelve 
etchings and hundreds of drawings have also survived. The latter include fresh and summary 
impressions from nature as well as more meticulous studies of particular boats or events. After his 
move to England, van de Velde all but relinquished his earlier atmospheric seascapes for more 
formal, sometimes lackluster, portrayals of specific naval events. The van de Velde studio in 
Holland, and later in England, was highly influential for the later development of marine painting 
in both countries. Pupils completed or assisted with the master's paintings, a factor that compli- 
cates and qualifies judgments of authenticity. Willem the Younger has retained his high popularity 
since his death; he has always been particularly esteemed in England, where many of his paintings 
and the bulk of his drawings are located today. 



Beach with a Weyschiiit Pulled Up on Shore 

Signed on a piece of wood, lower center: WW 
Oil on wood, 12^8 X 17 in. (31.5x4^ cm.) 

Collections: Probably Richard Winstanley, by 1835 (his sale, London, 
Christie's, March 16, 1850, no. 57; |Holloway|; [Christie's, London]; 
[.•\ltred Grilten, London]; Major J. L. Curtis, Langford Hall, Newark, 
Nottinghamshire (his sale, London, Christie's, July 9, 1937, no. 95); 
(Horace Buttery, London]; [Thos. Agnew & Sons, London]; [P. de Boer, 
Amsterdam, 1962.]; H. Becker, Dortmund, 1967-73. 
References: Smith, Catalogue Raisonne, vol. 6, 1835, no. 150; HdG 
344; R. Lntz, Sammlurig Becker. Gemalde alter Meister, Dortmund. 
1967, no. 89. repr.; Michael S. Robinson, A Catalogue 0/ Drairings in 
the National Maritime Miiseimi Made by the Elder and the Younger 
Vi litem ran de Velde, vol. 1, Cambridge, 19^4, no. 971. 

This fresh and unusually spare beach scene probably rep- 
resents the shore near Den Helder, an anchorage point for 
the Dutch fleet in the strait between the mainland and 
Te.xel at the entrance to the Zuider Zee north of Amster- 
dam.' Two iveyschmti lie in the shelter of a groyne that 
extends into the sea; a larger one, which would have been 
used for fishing, has been rolled up on the beach. A man 
pulls a skiff into the water at the left, and at the right a 
ship's boat flying the six-striped "double prince" ensign 
approaches the beach, having been rowed to shore from a 
larger vessel. Four such ships are at anchor in the distance, 
two of them hidden except for the masts that peep above 


FIGURE I. Wllioni \ Jll Jc Vckic 

the V'ounger, .4 \X eysthiiit Hjiilcd 

Up on Shore near Den Helder, 

1665. Pencil and wash on paper, 

10 X i5'/8 in. (15.2 X 40.3 cm.). 

Greenwich, England, National 

Maritime Museum. 

the groyne. The picture is a tour de force of understate- 
ment, almost casual m its effect, by an artist best known as 
a master of the naval showpiece. The blond tonality uni- 
fies the scene, conveying the impression of sunlight muted 
by the clouds and the misty atmosphere and reflected by 
the warm yellow sand. A breathtaking touch is the tiny 
vista through the pilings at the left to the boats on the 
distant horizon. 

Van de Velde used his drawing inscribed Woonsdach 
den 10 Meij 1665- (tig. 1)- as a study for the pamting. The 
inscription suggests that he made the drawing on the spot; 
he returned later to the sketch and worked it up into the 
Carter painting, a characteristic practice for him.' In the 
process he transformed a momentary sketch into a co- 
herent composition with carefully distributed accents of 
light and dark and strategically positioned figures and 
boats, a kind of creative elaboration that recalls the work- 
ing methods of earlier landscapists such as Jacob van Ruis- 
dael (cat. no. iij.'^The right side of the Greenwich sheet is 
empty e.xcept for the two boats faintly visible in the dis- 
tance; van de Velde fills this space in the painting, bal- 
ancing the figures on the right with the distant view on the 
left. The stocky figures are very different from those of 
Adriaen van de Velde, his younger brother, who sometimes 
painted the staffage in Willem's beach scenes. Although it 
seems certain that Willem painted the figures himself, he 
may have lifted a pose from Adriaen in the case of the man 
sitting on the beach, who appears to have been based on 
Adriaen's young boy seated on the skiff in the left corner 
of the Carter beach scene (cat. no. 24). 

F IG u R K z. VX'illem van de Velde the Younger, Hailhoats Coining nito 
Shore, about 1670—74. Oil on canvas, i ^ 'A x zo'A in. (38.7 x 5 i.? cm.). 
Pans, histitut Neerlandais. 

Probably about seven or eight years lapsed between the 
drawing and the painting, to judge from the uniformly 
pale tonality of the painting, which suggests a date after 
the late sixties, and from the "double prince" ensign, which 
fell out of use from about 1665 until 1673, when it was 
adopted again after Admiral Tromp returned to command 
the fleet. 

A beach scene in the Institut Neerlandais, Pans (fig. 2), 
the only other painting by Willem van de Velde that is 
comparable to the Carter picture in composition and spirit, 
may have been based on the same drawing (fig. i). By 
raising the vantage point to show the full panorama of 


anchored vessels beyond the groyne, however, he produced 
a picture that lacks the casual intimacy and the subtle 
manipulation of views in the Carter painting. 

The Carter picture is something of a novelty in the de- 
velopment of the Dutch beachscape. Since the early 1630s 
two types had developed, one showing a view out to sea 
from a high vantage point in the dunes, and another show- 

ing a view along the beach seen from a lower point. ^ 
Conforming to neither type, van de Velde does not give 
either the sweep of the beach or the distant expanse of the 
sea; instead he pamts a slice of land and mere glimpses of 
the sea beyond the groyne, an arbitrariness that strikes 
today's spectator as distinctly modern and reinforces the 
lively sense of truth to nature it conveys. 

1. The drawing on which the painting is based (see note z) is inscribed 
on the back vuor de heUier. For help with topography, identification of 
the vessels, and van de Velde's chronology, we are indebted to Michael S. 
Robinson, who kindly gave us access to the manuscript of his fonh- 
coming catalogue raisonne of van de Velde paintings. 

2. Robinson, Van de Velde Drawings, vol. 1, no. 971. 

3. Other e.xamples of sketches that were used as studies for paintings 
are Robinson, Van de Velde Draii-ings, vol. i , nos. 464, 465 ; vol. 1, nos. 
1354, 1369. 

4. See cat. no. 1 1; cat. no. zi, note 3; and cat. no. zz, note 8. 

5. Of the first rype, Porcellis's Shipwreck off the Coast of 163 i (The 
Hague, Mauritshuis) was followed by many others, including works by 
de Vlieger, van Goyen, van de Cappelle, and others; of the second, de 
Vlieger's Beach near Scheveningen of 1633 (Greenwich, England, Na- 
tional Maritime Museum) initiates a succession of examples by van 
Goyen, van Ruisdael, and Adriaen van de Velde, among others. See 
Stechow, Dutch Landscape Painting, pp. loi— 9. 

FIGURE I . Willem van de Velde the 'i'ounger, A Yacht and 
Other Vessels m a Calm (detail). 



A Yacht and Other Vessels in a Calm 

Signed and dated on plank, lower right: . . . Velde i b-" i 
Oil on canvas, i? Vs x i7'/8 in. (^?.? x 4 V5 cm.) 

Collt'ctions: Despeniel, Pans, i-'fts;' Kalkbrenner (his sale, Paris, 1835); 
Nieuwenhuys; Joseph Barchard, by 1836 until 184Z at least;- sale, Lon- 
don, Sotheby, July 1, 1958, no. 35; [E. Speelman, London]; [Kleinberger 
& Co., New York, until 1959). 

Exhibition: London, British Institution, 18^6, no. 39. 
References: Possibly Smith, Catalogue Raisonne, vol. 9 (supplement), 
no. 1; possibly HdG 163. 

The elaborate decoration of the yacht's transom (fig. i) 
identifies her as belonging to the United East India Com- 
pany of Middelburg (the Vereenigde Ostindische Com- 
pagnie, whose initials are on the shield). A relatively light 
and speedy vessel, she was at the disposal of the officers of 
the company; here she ghosts along with sails barely full 
in the lightest of breezes, passing close to an anchored 
kjdg (a small transport) and another kjcig with rig low- 
ered that lies close to a sandbank in the right foreground. 


FIGURE 1. \X illem vjn de \'elde the 'lounger. 
Vessels in a Calm (detail). 

A Yacht and Other 

FIGURE 3. Jan van de Cappelle, 
A Small Vessel in Light Airs, an J 
Another Ashore. Oil on canvas, 
1 3^/4 X i8'/8in. (34.8x48.1 cm.). 
London, National Gallerv. 

1 10 

The picture teems with activity. Virtually every man is 
busy, ships are loaded or unloaded, sails are raised and 
lowered, and an anchor is handled (fig. i). The steely-gray 
water reflects here and there the hulls, sails, and the mas- 
sive clouds. 

Van de Velde had been painting such calm seas and 
stately assemblages of ships since 1653,^ taking as his 
model the paintings of Simon de Vlieger and Jan van de 
Cappelle (cat. no. 7). The Carter composition is very like 
one of Cappelle's that must date from some years earlier 
(fig. 3), although van de Velde elaborated the formula by 
the addition of many more ships. He had earlier painted a 
similar yacht seen from much the same vantage point in a 
picture dated 1654.'' By 1671 van de Velde frequently 

adopted for these scenes of shipping in a calm the nearly 
square format he used here, and allowed himself a wider 
range of colors and values. There is a marked contrast 
between these more highly finished compositions and his 
beach views (cat. no. 26), which give an impression of 
greater spontaneity. 

M. S. Robinson believes that the participation of van de 
Velde's studio assistants helps to explain the large number 
and variable quality of the paintings of this period, and 
that the artist may have had help in executing this pic- 
ture.^ The signature and date cannot be easily read, but a 
comparison of the picture with others of these years 
shows that a date of 1671 is perfectly reasonable. 

I. The ownership from Despeniel through Joseph Barchard cannot 
be veriKed; information was provided hy Kleinberger & Co. 

i. The Sotheby sale catalogue of 195S identified this picture as HdG 
z6?, a painting HofstededeGroot had not seen but for which he adapted 
the information from Smith {C'.jtjlognf Rciisoune, vol. 9, no. 1). There 
are enough discrepancies in the dimensions and the description to make 
us uncertain that this is really the Carter picture. 

5. The paintings in the Gem.ildegalerie, Kassel, and the Hermitage, 
Leningrad (Stcchow, Diitci) LamiscLipe I'tiintnig, Hgs. 138, i39). Stechow 
has a useful summary of Willem's career (Dutch Ljiidsciipc l\untiuii. 

pp. 1 19—2 1 ). See also L. |. Bol, Die holljujischc Marmemalcrci, Braun- 
schweig, 1973, pp. 231-44. 

4. A Fleet 0/ Fishmg-hoats iind a Yacht 111 Port in a Calm (HdG 3 10), 
formerly jonkhcer H. A. Steengracht van Duivenvoorde, The Hague. 
According to the photograph mount in the Ri|ksbureau voor Kunst- 
histonsche Documentatie, The Hague, it is signed and dated 1654. 

5. We are indebted to Mr. Robinson for advice and for the use of his 
draft entry for the catalogue raisonnc he is preparing, in which the ships 
are identified and the provenance examined. 


Emanuel de Witte 


Born in Alkmaar between 1616 and 1618, de Witte entered the St. Lucas Guild there in 
1636. According to Houbraken he had been a pupil of the still-life painter Evert van Aelst in Delft, 
where he spent most of the 1 640s before settling in Amsterdam about 1652. Plagued with financial 
difficulties, de Witte put himself under contract to a succession of patrons who served him as 
landlord and dealer. His first works from the early 1640s treat historical subjects, often in noc- 
turnal settings. In the early 1650s de Witte and Gerard Houckgeest together transformed an earlier 
tradition of architectural painting m which views of the interiors of Dutch churches had been 
painted in a style of sober restraint. They developed in Delft a new type of picture characterized by 
an oblique view into the buildings, a free interpretation of the architectural site, strong contrasts of 
light and dark, and a vivid portrayal of activities in the church. De Witte specialized in church 
interiors after 165 1, although he painted a few domestic interiors and harbor views and, after 1660, 
several market scenes that included portraits. 


Interior of the Nteitwe Kerk in Delft with the 
Tomb of William the Silent 

Signed and dated on the column, lower left: E. De Witte A 1653 
Oil on wood, ?i^/8 x is'/s in. (82.. 3 x 65 cm.) 
C<)//c(7(o»;:(Newhouse Galleries, New York, 1978I. 

This painting, unknown until its recent reappearance,' is 
one of de Witte's most original works. It represents a view 
from the ambulatory of the Nieuwe Kerk looking west- 
ward through the screen of columns toward the large 
monument of William the Silent in the choir. Although the 
location was familiar to de Witte's audience, the extreme 
close-up view and the striking illusion of the swept-up 
curtain combine to produce a picture whose unprece- 
dented boldness must have been as evident in the artist's 
own time as it is today. 

By 165 s de Witte had already painted other views of the 
monument of William the Silent, and his Delft colleague 
Gerard Houckgeest had also done so (fig. i).- It is not 
certain which of the two can claim credit for inventing the 
format that both employed, characterized by an oblique 
view through the columns into the choir and up into the 
space that soars above the monument. In any event the 
Carter painting is composed differently from these earlier 
views. The spectator stands close to the columns and al- 

F I CURE I. Gerard Houckgeest, The Interior of the 
\ieiiice Kerk. Delft, tfith the Tomb of Wtlliiim the 
Silent, 165 I. Oil on wood, 11 x 14 in. (56 x 38 cm.). 
The Hague, Mauntshuis. 




FIGURE 1. Interior ot the Nieuwe Kerk in Delh with the Tomb of 
W'lMiam the Silent (photograph: Thomas J. Schneider:. 

HCURE 3. Emanuel de \Xitte, haintly Portrait, 1678. Oil on can\as, 
2.6 X 33 Vs in. (66 x 84 cm.). Munich, Alte Pinakothek. 

most exactly on the center line of the building, so that 
attention is focused on the sharply foreshortened monu- 
ment and on the figures admiring it. The curtain blots out 
the vast space above and beyond the monument, allowing 
only a tantalizing glimpse of the nave vaulting, and fur- 
ther concentrates the view. 

FIGURE 4. Em3inue\de\i.'nxe,The Interior of the Oiide 
Kerk in Delft, 1650-53. Oil on wood, iS's x iz'A m. 
(73.5 X 59 cm.). Formerly .Montreal, .Mrs. William van 

For de Witte, who often altered the architectural ele- 
ments and distorted the space vvithm his church interiors 
(see the Interior of the Oiuie Kerk, Amsterdam, cat. no. 
29), this represents a relatively realistic view. The artist 
has only made one small change in the tomb: he has 
switched the positions of the reliefs above the double col- 
umns. Otherwise the church is portrayed accurately but 
seen from a low vantage pomt, as shown by comparison 
with a photograph of the site taken with a wide-angle lens 
(fig. 2). This low view enables the artist to emphasize the 
magnitude of the columns, which determine the unusually 
narrow scope of the composition. The unexpected view- 
point provides a perfect foil for the illusionistic curtain. 

Since Dutch paintings were sometimes furnished with 
real curtains that could be drawn across the surface for 
protection against light and dust (fig. 3), artists occasion- 
ally painted imitation curtains to fool the eye.^ Rem- 
brandt's Holy Family of 1646 (Kassel, Gemaldegalerie) is 
the best-known example, but there are many others, in- 
cluding church interiors of the 1650s by Houckgeest, 
Hendrick van Vliet, and de Witte.-* Not only does the 
curtain in this picture make a verv' early appearance in 
architectural painting, but it is also put to a rather differ- 
ent use than is common. We do not see the rod that is 
almost always shown supporting the curtain, usually em- 
phasized by the choice of a cur\ed top for the picture 


FIGURE 5. Emanuel de Witte, The Interior of the Niet4U'e Kerk in 
Delft, 1656. Oil on canvas, 38 'A x 33 V2 in. (97 x 85 cm.). Lille, Musee 
des Beaux-Arts. 

behind, so that the rod appears to extend across the paint- 
ing from one frame edge to the other (fig. 4). Instead there 
is no rod visible, and the curtain is not drawn to one side 
but Hfted up as though by an invisible hand. Rather than 
gently suggesting the intimate nature of the spectator's 
encounter with the picture, the curtain here resembles the 
rich swagged drapery placed above religious personages 
and important sitters in paintings from the Renaissance 
onward.^ It asserts the artifice of the picture by its own 
robust form and by the strong shadow it seems to cast on 
what looks like the plane of the picture. The shadow seeks 
to distinguish the curtain from the two-dimensional 
painted image behind and implies that the curtain belongs 
to a world outside the painting, that of the spectator. In de 
Witte's only other painting in which a curtain casts a 
shadow, he mitigates the effect of the illusion by including 
the rod.* In our picture the curtain also gives honor and 
ceremonial significance to the scene represented. 

In this painting, as in another of 1656 (fig. 5), a man 
gestures toward the tomb, evidently talking about it with 
his companion. The chronicler Dirck van Bleyswyck, de 
Witte's contemporary in Delft, urged his readers to visit 
tombs every day to contemplate death and the vanities of 
life (he might have added, even the death of princes).' It is 
easy to imagine that de Witte's couple are doing just this. 
His pictures frequently show graves and gravediggers (see 

cat. no. Z9), which are not only realistic touches but also 
aids to meditation on the brevity of life. Even such details 
as the dog relieving himself against the column seem to 
have been understood in the seventeenth century as allu- 
sions to the transitory nature of man and his creations.^ 

The monument was the Netherlands's most important 
shrine. Designed by the great sculptor Hendrick de Key- 
ser, It was dedicated to Stadholder William I, Prince of 
Orange (1533— 1584), who led the rebellion of the North- 
em Netherlands against Spain that eventually resulted in 
the creation of the Dutch Republic. It consists of a stone 
canopy, with bronze statues of Religion, Liberty, Justice, 
and Fortune at the corners, surmounting the marble figure 
of Prince William lying in state. Facing the nave is a bronze 
statue of William, represented seated and alert. At the feet 
of the recumbent effigy is a bronze figure of Fame blowing 
her trumpet to sound the eternal glory of the prince. It is 
this statue that is prominent in de Witte's picture. 

There may have been a political motive for the produc- 
tion of so many paintings of the famous tomb by Houck- 
geest and de Witte in the 1650s.' William the Silent's 
grandson William II died in 1650 at the age of twenty-four 
after a brief, tumultuous reign in which he had angered 
the States of Holland and inflamed anti-Orange sentiment 
by trying to involve the Netherlands in a war with Eng- 
land. He was succeeded by his infant son William 111, 


leaving supporters of the House of Orange in great doubt 
about the future of the dynasty. As William II was buried 
in 1650 beneath the tomb of William the Silent, it is rea- 
sonable to suppose that paintings of this hallowed place. 

showing onlookers in respectful attitudes (fig. i), not only 
honor the first Prince of Orange but reflect a nostalgia for 
the relative political stability of his era and may actually 
have been painted with an Orangist clientele in mind. 

I. Use Manke [Emanuel de W'ltte, 161^-1692, .■\msterdam. 1963, 
nos. Z9-33) lists representations of the Nieuvve Kerk with the Tomb of 
William the Silent recorded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
and whose dimensions are unknown. The Carter painting may have 
been one of these. 

i. Houckgeest"s painting of 1650 (Hamburg, Kunsthalle) may be 
earlier than any of de Witte's versions of the sub|ect, but there is an 
engraving after a painting of the Interior of the Nieuti'e Kerk. Delft, with 
the Tomfc o/VVV//um f/;e S//(?Hf credited to de Witte and dated 1650 ;J. B. 
P. Lebrun, Calerie des Pemtres Flamandi, Hollandais et Allernands, 
Paris and Amsterdam, 1791, vol. 1, p. 31). For copies and variants, see 
Arthur K. VCheelock, Jr., "Gerard Houckgeest and Emanuel de Wine: 
Architectural Painting in Delft around 1650," Simiolus 8, 1975-^6, p. 
170, note 15. Lyckle de Vries ("Gerard Houckgeest," Jahrbuch der 
Hamburger Kimstsammlungen 20, 1975, no. 1 1) attributes this compo- 
sition to Houckgeest. Since only the print and a number of variants and 
copies of unknown authorship survive, it is impossible to be certain 
about the inventor of the composition, Manke [de W'ltte, nos. 23, 24) 
attributes two other views of the Nieuvve Kerk to de Wirte which she 
dates 1647-48 and 1650 respectively; Wheelock (".Architectural Paint- 
ing," p. 170) doubts these attributions. 

3. James .A. Welu [i-th Centur\' Dutch Painting: Raising the Curtain 
on New England Private Collections, Worcester \n .Museum, exh. cat., 
19-9, pp. 9-1 1 ) devotes a brief essay to this subject and cites earlier 
literature; see also C. Burda, Das Tronipe-L'Oeil in der holldndischen 
Malcrei des i~. lahrhiinderts. diss., \lumch, 1969. pp. 10—14. 

4. By Houckgeest: Oude Kerk. Delft, 165 . . . , .Amsterdam, Ri|ks- 
museum; Groote Kerk, Bergen-op-Zoom, 1655, Copenhagen, Statens 
.Museum. By de Witte: The Interior of the Oude Kerk in Delft, undated 
(early 1650s), formerly Mrs. William van Home, .Montreal, .Manke, t/e 
Witte, no. II, pi. 13, our fig. 4; Oude Kerk, Amsterdam, 1655, sale, 
.Amsterdam (F. Muller), December 16, i9i9,no. 104, .Manke, i/e Witte, 
no. 73; Oude Kerk. Amsterdam, Kapstadt, Akes Stadthaus, Michaelis 
collection, Manke, de Witte, no. 54, pi. 37. By van Vliet: Oude Kerk, 
Delft, 1654, Leipzig, .Museum der Bildenden Kiinste. No earlier church 
interiors with curtains are known. De Witte's painting in Montreal (fig. 
4) is undated, and the last digit of the date of the Houckgeest in Amster- 
dam cannot be read (recent writers have supposed it to date 1654: 
Manke, de Witte, p. 22, fig. 14; and Timothy T. Blade, "Two Interior 
Views of the Old Church in Delft," Museum Studies 6, 1 971, pp. 48—49, 
note 8). 

5. Anne Hollander {Seeing Through Clothes, New York, 1978, pp. 
23-58) discusses the evolution of the late-medieval Cloth of Honor into 
the background drapery of the seventeenth century . 

6. Oude Kerk, Amsterdam, 1658, Kapstadt, Altes Stadthaus, .Mi- 
chaelis collection, .Manke, de Witte, no. 54, pi. 37. 

-. Dirck van Bleysvvyck, Beschryvinge der Stadt Delft, Delft, 1667, 
vol. I, pp. 2^off, cited in Wheelock, "Architectural Painting," p. 181. 

8. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-.Museum, Die Sprache der 
Bilder, exh. cat., 19^8, pp. 1-1--2, no. 40. 

9. Wheelock, ".Architectural Painting," pp. 1^9-85. 

FIGURE I. Interior of the Oude Kerk, .Amsterdam iconiposite photograph; ThomasJ, Schneider,. 




Interior of the Oude Kerk, Amsterdam 

Signed and dated on a paving stone, lower center: E. De Vi IT. . . 165 .. . 

Oil on wood, i8 Vs x zzVs in. {46 x 56.2. cm.) 

Collections: Wierman, Amsterdam, 1761 (his sale, Amsterdam, August 

18, 1762, no. 106);' N. Nieuhoff, Amsterdam (his sale, Amsterdam, 

April 14-17, 1777. no. 142); Wagenaer, Amsterdam; Sir H. Bedingfeld, 

(his sale, London, Christie's, May ?i, 1902, no. 102); Franijois Boucher, 

Pans; M. Salavin, Paris; [Frederick Mont, Inc., New York, 1968]; 

[Newhouse Galleries, New York, 1968]. 

Exhibition: Pans, Musee Camavalet, Chefs d'oeuvre des collections 

parisiens, 1950, no. 85. 

References: Edouard Trautscholdt, "Emanuel de Witte,"" m Thieme- 

Becker, vol. 36, p. 125; Use Manke, Entamiel de \V;«f 161--1692, 

Amsterdam, 1963, no. 44, tig. 39; Wolfgang Stechow, ""A Church Inte- 

rior b\ Emanuel de Witte," Bulletin oj the Cleveland Museum 0/ An ^9, 
19^2, p. 232, fig. 9. 

De Wirte represents a view in the Oude Kerk in Amster- 
dam from the south aisle across the west end of the nave 
toward the north aisle. The congregation listens to a ser- 
mon by the preacher, a tiny figure in the pulpit at the far 
right, while other people outside the stalls pay more or less 
attention to the service. 

Among de Witte's paintings this one is remarkable for 
the sense of vast open space it imparts and for its strict 


FIGURE 1. Cornells Pronk, after 
Emanuel de Witte, Interior of the 
Oude Kerk. Amsterdam. Ink and 
wash, iz'A X i7'/8 in. (33.6 x 44.9 
cm.:. Amsterdam, Konmklijk 
Oudheidkundig Genootschap. 

planar organization. More than most works of the artist it 
recalls the more austere paintings of de Witte's predeces- 
sor Pieter Saenredam (see cat. no. 23 ). 

De Witte chooses to render actual architectural details 
quite faithfully here. The leaves that decorate the column 
capitals are shown accurately, for e.xample, while in other 
pamtings of this church they are arbitrarily replaced by a 
pattern of interlocking wavy lines.* But the artist exercises 
his characteristic freedom to manipulate and alter the 
scene at his own convenience by exaggerating the length 
and width of the buildmg. .A composite photograph shot 
with a wide-angle lens (fig. i) shows how much narrower 
the aisles and nave really are and, in particular, how much 
closer the entrance to the chapel of Cornelis de Graeff^ is 
to the south wall and to the pews in the center of the 

The apparent accidents of light and the seemingly cas- 
ual placement of figures disguise the artist's knowing de- 
sign of the composition. The dazzling light that fills the arc 
of the de Graeff chapel plays across the empty floor in a 
horizontal band and picks up the bright red cloak of the 
man at the right edge, a stock figure m de Witte's pictures. 
Here he helps to establish visual equilibrium while direct- 
ing attention to the service at the rear. The volume of the 
building is made believable by the scale of figures in stra- 


tegic places, such as the little family and the dog in the 
nave at the left (who are actually only halfway across the 
church from our vantage point). 

The extreme foreground is marked by a newly lifted 
grave slab, tools, and skull, common motifs in Dutch 
paintings of church interiors, where they carry x^te obvi- 
ous reference to human mortalitv."' Nearby are young 
children, one of whom studies a book with his mother, 
perhaps a suggestion of industrv" or pier\' to serv e as a foil 
to the inevitabilir\- of death. 

Although the last digit of the date cannot be read clearly, 
Manke was probably right in supposing it to be a 9.' The 
composition and technique are rvpical of de Witte in the 
late 1 650s, having the wider open spaces, strongly hori- 
zontal organization, smaller figures, and tighter brushwork 
that characterize the other views of this church dated 
1659, 1660, and 1661.'' One of the most beautiful ob- 
servations in the picture, the vague pink shapes in the 
windows made by the trees and houses outside — a motif 
already used in Netherlandish paintings of the fifteenth 
century^ — is found in a number of de \X'itte's pictures of 
1659—61 and becomes a rarirv afterward. 

A date of 1659 is supported by a bit of topographical 
evidence. By that year renovations of the small organ, 
located at the corner of the crossing close to the pulpit. 

were finished.* Before the aherations de Witte had re- 
corded its appearance in several pictures of the mid- 1650s, 
a slender columnar form with no wings and a narrow loft. 
The new organ, with folding wings painted by Cornells de 
Brise and a much brt)ader loft, is shown from various 
angles in a series of pictures beginning in 1659.'* The or- 
gan in the Carter painting, although closed and obscured 
by the column to the left of the preacher, is obviously the 
renovated instrument. 

The Carter picture was copied in a careful watercolor 
drawing by Cornells Pronk (i 691— 1759) which differs in 
some respects from the original but is faithful to the ap- 
pearance of the church (fig. 2). '" In a number of instances 

the watercolor records details that are now obscure or 
worn away in de Witte's painting — for example, the 
planks of the wooden vaulting and the iron struts that 
support the canopy to the left of the preacher. In other 
instances it delineates features of the church that de Witte 
had evidently suppressed or treated summarily, but which 
Pronk, who knew the church well and whose interests 
may have been as much antiquarian as aesthetic, chose to 
introduce: for example, the iron gate and the elaborately 
carved marble screen of the de Graeff chapel at the left, or 
the statue that surmounts the third rib just below the vault 
at the right. 

I. Gerard Hoet and Pictcr Terwesten, Cjtjlogiis of Njmh'st van 
Schilciertjen . . . , s' Gravenhage, i7''o, p. 170, no. 106. 

1. See the example of 1686 m Detroit, for instance (Manke, Jc \\ itli.\ 
no. 46, fig. 108). 

3. Originally a baptismal chapel of the late fifteenth century, it was 
purchased by Cornells de Graeff for his family in i ^48. Jacob van Cam- 
pen has been credited with the design of the tombs and the entrance, and 
the young Artus Quellinus with the statues above the door (E. Nuerden- 
burg, De ieveiitiende eeiiwsche heetdhounkunst in de noordhike Neder- 
landen. Amsterdam, 1948, p. 195). P. T. A. Swillens, however, does not 
mention the chapel Ijjcoh van Campen, Assen, 1961). 

4. Braunschweig, Herzog .^nton Ulrich-Museum, Die Sprjche der 
B/Wcr, exh. cat., 1978, pp. 171— 72, no. 40. 

5. Manke [de Witte, no. 44, "165(4 eher 9)") suggests 1659 as more 
likely. Trautscholdt ("de Witte," p. 115) notes that the copy by Cornells 
Pronk is allegedly dated 1654. In fact the copy is not dated. 

6. A view of 1659 IS in the Kunsthalle, Hamburg (Manke, de Witle, 
no. "^o, fig. 5 8); another of about 1660 was formerly with Mortimer 

Brandt, New York (ibid., no. bs, fig. 46); and another of 166 1 is in the 
Oude Kerk, Amsterdam (ibid., no. 50, fig. 50). 

-. For example, in the Annunciation in Dirck Bouts's Adoration of 
the Magi triptych in the Prado, Madrid. 

8. The exact date of the renovation is uncertain. .-Xccording to M. 
Fokkens ( Besehritt -inge der Wi/dt- Verniaarde Kool}-Stadt Anistelredani, 
Amsterdam, 1661, pp. 186— 8~; cited in Manke, i/c W/tte, p. 41, note i) 
the large organ was reconstructed in 1660—61 and the small organ two 
years earlier. In any case de Witte's pictures show that the renovation of 
the small organ was completed by 1659. 

9. The earlier organ can be seen in rwo paintings dated by Manke 
about 1655 in Strasbourg (de Witte, no. 66. fig. 19) and in a New York 
private collection (ibid., no. 64, fig. 18). .^fter the renovations de Witte 
showed It closed, thus displaying the decoration by de Bnse, in the 
painting m Groningen of 1659 (ibid., no. ~4, fig. 44), and open in 
another picture of 1659 in Hamburg (ibid., no. ~o, fig. 38). 

10. A. Bredius and H. Brugmans, Amsterdam in de zeventiende eeuw. 
The Hague, i 89-, p. 8, repr. 


Jan van Goyen 

1596— 1656 

For the biography of the artist, see page 46. 


View of Arnhem 

Signed and dated at the lower right edge V GOYEN 1646 
Oil on wood, tyVs x 2i'/i in. (43.7 x 54 cm.) 

Collections: C. Hoogendijk, The Hague, by 1899 (his sale, Amster- 
dam, F. Mullet & Co., May 14, i9ii, no. 2.3, repr., tl. 10,000); Piek, 
The Hague; sale, Amsterdam, June zo, 1916, no. 192, fl. 10,400 to 
F. Mulier & Co.; M. Onnes van Nijenrode, Breukelen; (J. Goudstik- 
ker, Amsterdam, by 1920]; A. Goekoop, Wassenaar; [Nystad, The 
Hague, 1982]. 

Exhibitions: The Hague, C. Hoogendijk, 1899, no. 19; The Hague, 
Pulehri Studio, Catalogue Je la collection Goiidstikker a Amsterdam, 
November 1920, no. 43, repr. 

References: HdG, 9; Hans-Ulrich Beck, Jan van Goyen is')6—i6s(>. 
vol. 2, Amsterdam, 19-3, no. 280, repr.; Peter C. Sutton, "Recent 
Patterns of Public and Private Collecting of Dutch Art," in Great 
Dutch Paintings from America, exh. cat.. The Hague; Mauritshuis, 
1990, p. 109, fig. 4- 

In this view of Arnhem from the northwest the spires 
of the city punctuate the seemingly endless, flat hori- 
zon. This was evidently a successful subject: nearly 
twenty Arnhem landscapes by van Goyen have sur- 
vived. These can be divided principally into views from 
the northwest like this painting and views from across 
the Rhine (fig. i).' 

Van Goyen had employed the viewpoint in the Car- 
ter painting frequently by 1646; he used it for his first 
dated Arnhem landscape, painted in 1633, as well as 
for seven others.- In the early work van Goyen dramat- 
ically accentuated the foreground with a diagonal slice 
of land, shown in shadow, extending from upper right 

FIGURE I. Jan van Goyen, View of Arnhem from across the Rhine, 
signed and dated 1646. Oil on wood, 25'/* x 37V4 in. (65 x 96 cm.). 
Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst. 




FIGURE i. Jan van Goyen, View 
of Rhenen, signed and dated 1646. 
Oil on canvas, 40 x 53 'h in. 
(101.5 X 136 cm.). Washington 
D.C., in the Collection of the Cor- 
coran Gallery of Art, William A. 
Clark Collection, 2.6.95. 

to lower center. By the 1640s he had eliminated any 
such abrupt shifts in light and shadow in favor of sub- 
tler, more unified values. The Carter painting retains 
vestiges of the tricolor scheme favored by mannerist 
artists, but here the darker greens and ochers in the 
foreground lead gradually and naturally to lighter 
earthen tones in the middle ground and delicate, pale 
blue-green in the distance. Van Goyen thus displays the 
atmospheric unity that was the hallmark of his land- 
scapes of the 1 640s (see cat. no. 11) while differentiat- 
ing the spatial areas of the composition. 

Arnhem, the capital of Gelderland, was one of a trio 
of cities that van Goyen painted repeatedly, the others 
being Dordrecht (see cat. no. 11) and Rhenen (fig. 2). 
Arnhem and Rhenen must have attracted the artist for 
similar reasons. Both were historic towns with pictur- 
esque buildings and lofty spires, facing rolling plains 
on one side and water on the other. In his views of each 
city van Goyen juxtaposed their bold silhouettes and 
the vastness of the flat, open land. The elegant spire of 
the St. Cunera church, one of Holland's most impor- 
tant late Gothic structures, soars above the countryside 
in the Corcoran Vieiv of Rhenen (fig. 2), just as the 
massive, square tower of the Grote Kerk dominates its 
surroundings in the Carter painting. 

Although four painted views of Arnhem from 1646 
are known, no drawing of the city dating from before 
1 65 1/5 z exists.' The one surviving Arnhem drawing 
belongs to a sketchbook of views of German border 
towns that can be dated to 1651/52 on topographical 
grounds.'' If, as seems likely, van Goyen made similar 
sketches in 1646 that since have been lost, then they 
would have provided him with basic outlines of the 
town, which he then could have adjusted and reshaped 
for the sake of design.'' 

While remaining basically faithful to topography, 
van Goyen felt free to alter proportions and spacing in 
his city views. Comparison with other views of 
Arnhem demonstrates that each time he painted the 
city, he made minor adjustments for artistic purposes. 
For example, the spire that appears between the Grote 
Kerk and the double-towered St. Walburgskerk in the 
1646 Berlin painting (fig. 3) and in the 1651/52 sketch 
does not appear in the Carter picture, nor does the 
spire immediately to the right of the Grote Kerk.^ The 
spacing between the buildings also varies from painting 
to painting to a greater degree than changes in the 
artist's vantage point would warrant. For example, in 
comparison with the Carter picture, the distance 
between the Grote Kerk and the St. Walburgskerk is 


greater in the Berlin landscape (fig. 3) and greater still 
in another view now in Dusseldorf.^ 

The Carter painting differs from the other Arnhem 
views in its more open foreground. Wagons along the 
road or boats along the river (figs, i and 3) normally 
enliven the foreground, but here the view is populated 
by two figures, a few cows, and several distant wagons. 
It is van Goyen's virtuoso technique rather than any 
anecdotal details that animates the foreground: a 
remarkable variety of strokes and dabs that recreates 
for the viewer the artist's sure and swift application of 
paint. The rough outlines of van Goyen's energetic 
underdrawing are visible through the relatively thin 

paint, demonstrating that he did not always follow in 
paint the underlying sketch but instead improvised 
with the brush. Superb examples of this technique, 
such as the Carter painting, make it easy to understand 
why van Goyen was chosen as an example of speedy 
execution (vaerdigheyt) by the writer Samuel van Hoog- 
straeten. He tells the story of a painting contest in 
which van Goyen depicted "all sorts of pleasant drol- 
leries . . . with many small strokes of the brush ... his 
eyes, practiced in seeing the forms that lay hidden in a 
chaos of paint, steered his hand and intellect so skill- 
fully that one saw the completed painting before one 
could properly make out what was in front of him."** 

FIGURE 3. Jan van Goyen, View of 
Arnhem, signed and dated 1646. Oil on 
canvas, },$V» x ^iV» in. (90 x 105 cm.). 
Berlin, Staatliche Museen. 

1. For tlie view from the northwest see Beck, van Goyen, vol. 1, 
nos. 172, 176, 28Z (fig. 3), 283, 285-88. For the view across the 
Rhme see ibid., nos. 127, 273-75, 278-79, 281 (fig. i). 

2. Ibid., p. 131, no. 272, and nos. 276, 282-83, 285-88. 

3. In addition to the Carter painting the other views of Arnhem 
dated 1646 are illustrated in ibid., nos. 281 (fig. i), 282 (fig. 3), and 

4. Ibid., pp. 285-86, no. 847/84, and p. 298. 

5. See cat. no. 11 for a discussion of the sketch of Dordrecht and 
its relationship to van Goyen's painting. 

6. The possibility that it corresponds to the small tower on a 
square base to the left of the windmill in the Carter picture cannot be 
ruled out. If so, then van Goyen significantly altered the spacing in 
the Carter picture. 

7. Ibid., no. 283, p. 138. 

8. Samuel van Hoogstraeten, InlcyJtng tut de Hooge Schoole tier 
SchilJerkonst. Rotterdam, 1678, pp. 237-38 (our translation). For an 
analysis of the story see E. van de Wetering in Geschildert tot Leyden 
Anno i6z6, exh. cat., Leyden, Museum De Lakenhal, 1976, pp. 


Willem Kalf 

1619— 1693 

Willem Kalf was born in Rotterdam in 1619, the son of a wealthy cloth merchant. Little 
is known of his early life. According to Arnold Houbraken, Kalf studied with Hendrick Pot in 
Haarlem, but his work appears more closely related to that of Frans Ryckals, a Rotterdam painter 
of peasant interiors and banquet still lifes. Kalf was documented in 1642 in Paris, where he stayed 
until about 1646. In 1651 he married Cornelia Pulvier van Vollenhove, an artist who specialized in 
glass engraving; two years later they settled in Amsterdam, where Kalf spent the remainder of his 
life. Kalf's dated works span the early 1640s to the late 1670s, when he appears to have abandoned 
painting to devote himself to art dealing. 

The most celebrated still-life painter of his day, Kalf specialized in pronkstilleven, or sump- 
tuous still lifes. He also painted barn interiors, farm scenes, and landscapes. Kalf's works are 
distinguished by a dark, almost mysterious atmosphere and sparkling highlights. While other 
specialists, such as Abraham van Beyeren and Jan Davidsz. de Heem, favored bountiful arrange- 
ments of foodstuffs and elegant vessels, Kalf concentrated on a narrower repertoire of precious 
objects combined with foods, such as lemons or lobsters, which he carefully selected for their color 
and texture. His judicious arrangements have been compared with Vermeer's for their restrained 
elegance and to Rembrandt's for their evocative atmosphere. Kalf's praises were sung by the poets 
Joost van den Vondel and Jan Vos during his lifetime. The eighteenth-century writers Houbraken 
and Gerard de Lairesse, despite their prejudices against still life as a low-ranking genre of painting, 
wrote about him in admiring terms. 


Still Life with a Porcelain Vase, 
Silver-gilt Ewer, and Glasses 

Remains of a signature at lower center: KALF 
Oil on canvas, 2i7i x ij'/i in. (55.5 x 44.5 cm.) 

Collections: J. Braz, Lenmgrad (his sale, Paris, Charpentier, May 11, 
19^8, no. I?, pi. V); [art market, Amsterdam]; F. G. J. Beerkens, 
Haarlem, 1939-83; [Hoogsteder-Naumann, Ltd., New York, 1983]. 
References: A. I. Spriggs, "Oriental Porcelain in Western Paintings 
1450— 1700," Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 36 (1964- 
65, 1965—66), 1967: 83; Lucius Grisebach, Willem Kalf 1619— 169}, 
Berlin, 1974, PP- ^37~38> "O- ^5' fig- ^9: S'^m Segal, A Prosperous 
Past: The Sumptuous Still Life in the Netherlands t6oo—tyoo, exh. 
cat.. The Hague: Mauritshuis, 1988, pp. 184-85, tig. 10. i. 

This somber and evocative still life, painted during 
Kalf's sojourn in Paris, displays the judicious selection 
and arrangement of beautiful objects, the mastery of 
light and te.xture, and the mysterious atmosphere that 
would become the hallmarks of the artist's mature 
style. It belongs to a group of eight Paris still lifes 
dominated by tall, ornate gold vessels.' Kalf arranged 
and rearranged a limited repertoire of objects, some of 
which he may have owned, always finding new solu- 
tions to the problems of selection and composition. 
The silver-gilt ewer that dominates the Carter painting 
also appears in the monumental still life, dated 1643, 
in Cologne (fig. i),- while the Venetian wine glasses. 




FIGURE I. Willem Kalf, Still Life with Pilgrim Fbsk. Silver-gtlt 
Ewers, and Cold Plate, 1643. Oil on canvas, 45 '/4 x 34 In. (115 x 
86.5 cm.). Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Muzeum. 

FIGURE i. Willem Kalf, Still Life ivith Pilgrim Flask and Nautilus 
Shell, 1643. Oil on canvas, ig'/s x zi'/s in. (74 x 58 cm.). Le Mans, 
Musee de Tesse. 

the glass jar, and the knife can be found in other con- 
temporary works.' 

Its unusually low viewpoint and its compact group- 
ing of objects give the Carter painting a distinctive 
position within the Paris still lifes. Sam Segal, who 
detected the vestiges of a signature and date, W. Kalf 
1 6s-, identified it as the earliest Paris still life and dated 
it to 1639.'' Since a recent examination revealed no 
trace of a date, however, there is no reason to place the 
painting before the dated Paris still lifes, all of which 
belong to 164 s and 1644.'' Indeed, the compositional 
similarities to a still life of 1643 in Le Mans (fig. 2), 
with which the Carter picture shares a similar vantage 
point, bare tabletop, and arrangement of horizontals 
and verticals further support a date of around 1643—44. 
(The absence of any dated works from 1644 to 1653, 
when Kalf settled in Amsterdam, leaves open the ques- 
tion of whether he painted at all during those years.) 

In his later work the artist seldom deviated from the 
format used in this painting. A simple, stable arrange- 


ment is created by grouping a variety of objects to form 
a triangle rising toward the upper right. The overturned 
porcelain vase that presents its bottom to view — an 
unusual motif — provides an accent that enlivens the 
group of vertical objects on the table. Following the 
lead of earlier still-life painters (cat. nos. 8 and ii), 
Kalf positions certain elements such as the knife, watch, 
and overturned jug to project into the viewer's space, 
creating an illusion that invites our vicarious response 
to the objects. 

While Kalf's audience would have valued the aes- 
thetic qualities of the painting, they also would have 
been attuned to its potentially symbolic meanmg. 
Interpretation of seventeenth-century Dutch still lifes is 
not a simple matter and in recent years has run the 
gamut from systematic identification of symbols based 
upon texts and emblem books to more sophisticated 
readings that involve multifaceted approaches.*" Kalf 
was criticized by Lairesse, who admired the artist's 
style but faulted him for not painting loftier subjects, 
admonishing him for "[only depicting] what occurred 
to him, a Porcelain Pot or Dish . . . without any 
thought of doing something of Importance which 
might bear some particular Meaning or be applicable 
to something."" 

Ever the promoter of history painting, Lairesse chose 

to overlook the symbolic meaning inherent in some of 
Kalfs still lifes. The Carter painting, for example, 
alludes to the virtue of temperance. Three elements — 
the ewer, which bears the figure of Temperantia pour- 
ing wine, the overturned wine glass, and the pocket 
watch — make this clear. Although pocket watches 
usually are interpreted as vanitas symbols, Ingvar 
Bergstrom, using as evidence a still life by Jan Davidsz. 
de Heem, has demonstrated that these timepieces also 
may refer to temperance.** Kalf may have conveyed a 
similar moral in his Cologne still life, which also con- 
tains a watch and a ewer decorated with a personifica- 
tion of Temperantia. 

Exotic wares such as imported oriental porcelains 
were included not only for their intrinsic beauty but 
also as a reminder of the vitality of the Dutch economy 
and its reliance on a flourishing overseas trade. The 
overturned vase in the Carter painting has, in fact, 
been identified as a transitional style "knotted flask," 
imported from Formosa in 1640.'^ It is tempting to 
suppose that these exquisite still lifes may have been 
commissioned or purchased by those wealthy enough 
to own such exotic wares. If so, then such pictures 
might have played a role similar to gamepieces, sought 
after by the aristocracy as symbols of their status, since 
hunting was an upper-class sport.'" 

I. Grisebach, Kalf, p. 98, nos. 63-70. 

z. Segal believes that the Cologne painting, once praised by 
Goethe, is a copy and that the original is a painting he recently 
discovered in a Paris private collection (Segal, Prosperous Pjst, 
pp. 187-88). In any event the Cologne painting reflects a Kalf 

3. Grisebach, Kjlf, no. 65, p. 138. 

4. Segal, Prosperous Past. pp. 186-87. 

5. Grisebach, Kjlf, nos. 61, 63—64, 70. 

6. See E. de Jongh, Zmne-en mmnebeelden in de schdderkunst 
van zeventiende eeutv, Amsterdam, 1967; Ingvar Bergstrom, "Notes 
on the Boundaries of Vamtas Significance," in I/delheid der 
Ijdelheden. exh. cat., Leyden, Museum de Lakenhal, 19^0; E. de 
Jongh, "The Interpretation of Still-Life Paintings: Possibilities and 

Limits," in Still-Life in the Age of Rembrandt, Auckland City Art 
Gallery, 198Z, pp. Z7-39; Lawrence O. Goedde, "A Little World 
Made Cunningly: Dutch Still Life and Ekphrasis," in Still Lifes of the 
Golden Age, exh. cat., Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art, 
1989, pp. 3 5-44- 

7. Gerard de Lairesse, The Art of Painting in All Its Branches, 
trans. John Frederick Fritsch, London, 1738, p. 555, cited from 
Segal, Prosperous Past, pp. 185—86. 

8. Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, pp. 189—90, fig. 163, 
where the de Heem painting is reproduced. On the tradition of Tem- 
perantia. see Segal, Prosperous Past, pp. 35-36. 

9. Spriggs, "Oriental Porcelain," p. 83. 

10. Scott Sullivan, The Dutch Ganiepiece, Totowa and Montclair, 
1984, p. 1. 


Clara Peeters 

about 1594— after 1657 

Little is known about Clara Peeters's life. When she was born, where she lived, and when 
she died must be deduced from a few scraps of evidence. A daughter of Jan Peeters was baptized on 
May 15, 1594, in Antwerp. Since Clara Peeters's earliest signed work is an accomplished still life 
dated 1608, we must assume either that she was a child prodigy or that the baptismal record refers 
to another daughter in the family. She is reported by Bredius to have been in Amsterdam in 161 2 
and in the Hague in 1617. No documentary evidence of the trip to Holland, however, has ever 
been published, although a comparison of Peeters's still lifes with those done in Haarlem from 
1610 onward suggests that she probably worked in Holland. In any case, by 1639 Peeters must 
have returned to Antwerp for she married Hendrick Joossen there in May of that year. 

There are dated pictures by Peeters from 1608, 161 1, and 161 2. These early works show 
Peeters as a precocious artist who from the beginning specialized in still life, a genre of which she 
was one of the originators. Nothing is known of her training. It seems possible that she might have 
studied with Osaias Beert, who introduced the banquet piece in Antwerp, but her name is not 
listed among his pupils. To judge from Peeters's works of the 1620s, she must have been familiar 
with still lifes by the Dutch painters Pieter Claesz. and Willem Claesz. Heda. Peeters's still lifes 
cover a broad range of subjects: flowers, fruits, fish, vanitas pictures, and, the largest category, 
breakfast pieces. None of Peeters's works is listed in the cabinets d'amateurs in Antwerp of her 
time. She must have earned some renown, however, for in 1675 Joachim van Sandraft described 
her as a Dutch woman whose small pictures were unequaled for their fine quality and naturalism. 
He describes her vanitas pictures, in which she often included a vessel with her own reflection 
painted so realistically that many took it for a real person. 


Still Life with Cheeses, Artichoke, and Cherries 

Signed on lower left: CLARA. P. 
Oil on wood, iSVs x 1 3V8 in. (46.7 x 33.3 cm.) 

Collections: J. Goekoop-de Jongh, Breda; Edward Hertzberger, Lu- 
gano; [Nystad, The Hague, 1982]. 

Exhibition: Rotterdam, Museum Boymans, Meesterwerkcn nit vier 
eeuwen 1400— 1800, 1938, no. 18. 

References: N. R. A. Vroom, De schilders van het monochrome bank- 
etje, Amsterdam, 1945, pp. 1 14-1 5. 2.15, no. 244; Edith Greindl, Les 
Peintres flamands de nature morte, Brussels, 1956, p. 35. 

Peeters represents a "breakfast" still life, a specialty of 
Haarlem, in which familiar foods such as bread, but- 
ter, salt, and fruit are grouped together; to these she 
has added an artichoke, which is seldom encountered 
in paintings. The three cheeses are arranged to empha- 
size their different colors, textures, and shapes. Crown- 
ing the pile is a Wan Li plate containing soft, fluted 
butter shavings, which contrast with the dry, crumbly 
consistency of the cheese. The parcel-gilt silver salt cel- 
lar with engraved decorations is of a design that was 
popular in the mid-i62os.' Peeters follows the conven- 
tions of early seventeenth-century still life by display- 



ing food that has been laid out for a meal and hy 
suggesting that someone has already sampled it — who- 
ever ate the cherry in the foreground. She exhibits the 
bisected artichoke as an object of great beauty, 
revealing the crimson inner leaves and the soft, furry 
needles above the heart. It is halved not simply to dis- 
play its graceful form but evidently because artichokes 
were eaten differently in Peeters's time than in our 
own, sliced lengthwise in sections. 

This painting belongs to a group of signed, undated 
pictures by Peeters that differ markedly in content and 
style from the few dated examples, which are all from 
1608—12.- The latter show neatly arranged tables of 
different foods (or in one case, precious objects such as 
decanters, coins, and shells) viewed from above and 
rendered in clear outlines and bright colors. 

These early compositions are in the style of the first 
generation of still-life painters, such as Beert, whose 
work Peeters might have known in Antwerp, and Nico- 
laes Gillis and Floris van Dijk (fig. i), both Haarlem 
artists active in 1612, when Peeters is reported to have 
been nearby in Amsterdam.' In comparison with the 
dated works, the Carter painting is less strictly sym- 
metrical, uses a lower vantage point that permits 
objects to overlap, and has a strikingly subdued color 
scheme. Its compactness and austerity, which are 
shared by others of its type, have led writers to suppose 
that Peeters must have made contact with her younger 
contemporaries in Haarlem, Pieter Claesz. and Willem 
Claesz. Heda (cat. nos. 8 and 12), in whose work these 
characteristics emerged during the mid- 1620s.'' Having 
neither dated works by Peeters of these years nor any 



FIGURE I. Floris van Di|k, Breakfast Still Li/c, i6ii. Oil on wood, 
39% X 53V8 in. (100 X 135 cm.). Private collection. 

secure information about her travels, we can only spec- 
ulate whether she was a leader or follower in this 

In any case, even in the paintings that are most mod- 
est in subject and tone, such as this one, Peeters never 
entirely sheds the tendency of her generation to rep- 
resent each object, or group of objects, as distinct 
entities. Whereas Claesz. and Heda bind a composition 
together by superimposing objects, giving a partial 
view of each, Peeters insists far more on the integrity of 
each object. Here, for example, the edges of the bun 
and the plate do not meet, nor do the edges of the two 
plates. Each element is complete in itself, yet the art- 
ist does not sacrifice pleasing relationships or the 
coherence of the composition. 

Certain motifs in this picture appear in the works of 
older still-life painters and may have been inspired by 
them. For instance, in his breakfast pieces of 1610'' and 
1612 (fig. i), Floris van Dijk included similar piles of 
cheeses seen in raking light. Familiar elements in the 
earliest Haarlem still lifes, piles of cheese were not 
taken over by Claesz. and Heda; in fact, they do not 
seem to have been popular after Peeters. 

There has been speculation of late as to whether 
these cheeses may have had a significance that went 
beyond that of their appearance and everyday charac- 
ter. It has been suggested that cheese may have sym- 
bolized the solidified milk of heaven and may have 
been understood together with the bread as part of a 

eucharistic meal that would contrast with the worldly 
banquets shown in other still lifes.'' There seems to be 
little support for this idea. Another writer has made 
some new observations about the consumption of 
cheese and butter in the seventeenth century which 
point to more plausible readings of the painting. Writ- 
ing about a similar picture by Clara Peeters, he recalls 
the vital economic importance of the dairy industry in 
the Netherlands; points out that while cheese was the 
cheap food of the common man, butter was an expen- 
sive luxury; and demonstrates with good literary evi- 
dence that eating butter with cheese was considered a 
thoroughly objectionable waste — thus the proverb "zuivel 
op zuivel, is't iverk van den duivel.'" A picture in which 
cheese and butter are literally piled on top of one 
another could therefore be not only a display of the 
production of a thriving Dutch industry but also an 
allusion to the vice of waste. 

Beert, among others, portrayed artichokes in several 
still lifes and even displayed them in cross section.** The 
artichoke was a fairly new arrival to Holland at the 
time of this painting, havmg been introduced from the 
Levant to Italy in the latter half of the sixteenth cen- 
tury and subsequently brought to England, France, and 
Holland.'' Hondius of Leyden, who had imported 
artichoke seeds from Italy, boasted in 1621 that 
artichokes could be found first in his house."' 

The same assemblage of cheeses surmounted by a 
plate of butter appears in a number of other paintings 

FIGURE i. Clara Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Bread, and Pretzels. 
Oil on wood, 19V8 X i$'U in. (49.1 x 64.1 cm.). Private collection. 


FIGURE }. Clara Pcetcrs, Still Life with Lobsters. Artichoke. Cher- 
ries, and Bread. Oil on wood, 12V4 x 18 in. (31.4 x 45.7 cm.)- Zurich, 
David Koester collection. 

by Peeters that look to be roughly contemporary with 
the Carter picture (fig. 2)." The halved artichoke, the 
salt, the bun, and the cherries are combined with a 
plate of lobsters in an impressive still life sold in 
London (fig. 3).'-^ Peeters's vivid renditions of surfaces 
enlivened by clear light and her inventive arrangements 
of round, angular, and pointed shapes give remarkable 
variety to these compositions of the same repertoire of 

I. We are indebted to Anne Poulet, Leslie Campbell, and Chris- 
tina Corsiglia for information about the salt cellar. 

1. The painting of 1608 is reproduced in Bergstrom, Dutch Still- 
Life Painting, p. 106, fig. 95, and in N. R. A. Vroom, .4 Modest 
Message as Intimated by the Painters of the Monochrome Banketje. 
Schiedam, vol. 1, 1980, p. 99, no. 494. There arc three still lifes 
dated 161 1 in the Prado; see Matias Diaz Padron, Mnseo del Prado, 
catdlogo de pintiiras escuela flamenca sigld XVII. Madrid, 1975, nos. 
1619-ii. Finally, a still life in Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, is 
signed and dated 1612; see Vroom, .4 Modest Message, vol. i, 1980, 
p. 90, fig. 1 1 5, and vol. 2, p. 100, no. 503. 

Vroom also lists as dated some additional paintings whose dates, a 
few very late, are not given elsewhere in the literature and are not 
easily verified (ibid., vol. 2, nos. 506, of 1624; 508, of 1629; 535, of 
1655; 536, of 1656; and 537, of 1657). Primarily on the strength of 
a new reading of the monogram Pc. he also reattributes to Peeters a 
large group of pictures, many of which are dated (ibid., vol. 2, nos. 
504, 507, 510, 512, and 550— ?4), which have always been consid- 
ered to be by Pieter Claesz. Peeters's oeuvre would be greatly 
enlarged thereby and her period of activity extended by three 
decades. But Vroom's stylistic arguments are less than convincing. It 
is prudent to confine the present discussion of Peeters's work to the 
group of paintings securely datable to between 1608 and i6^o. 

3. A. Bredius in Thieme-Becker. vol. 27, 19^ ?, p. 7. 

4. Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Lifc Painting, p. 106; Ann Sutherland 
Harris and Linda Nochlin, Vi'omen Artists: ; 5-^0-1950, exh. cat., 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1976, pp. 132-33, no. 18. 

5. Reproduced in Bergstrom, Dutch Still-Life Painting, p. 10^, 
fig. 92. 

6. Joseph Lammers, "Fasten und Genuss: Die angerischtete Tafel 
als Thelma des Stillcbens," in Stilleben in Europa, exh. cat., Miinster, 

Westfalisches Landesmuseum fur Runst und Kulturgeschichtc, 1979, 
pp. 404-8. 

-r. E. de Jongh, entry on a Still Life with Cheeses by Clara Peeters 
in a private collection, Amsterdam, for the catalogue of an exhibition 
of still lifes (de Jongh, Still-Life in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat., 
Auckland City Gallery, 1982, p. 65-69). The similar painting by 
Peeters is our fig. 2; Vroom, A Modest Message, vol. 2, no. 5 i 5a. De 
Jongh's literary sources include a cookbook, a medical treatise, and a 
play of 1682. He also cites a legend in which Prince Maurits was 
taken to task by a boatman for putting cheese on buttered bread. 
The rhyming proverb cannot be translated exactly, as zutvcl means 
dairy produce generally, particularly cheese and butter; to eat two 
varieties together "is the devil's work." 

8. One of the rare signed still lifes by Beert contains an artichoke, 
as do a number of other still lifes ascribed to him; see Edith Greindl, 
Les Pemtres flamands. pp. 29, 35, 149-50. See also All of the Paint- 
ings in the Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam, 19^6, no. A2549, for a still life 
with a bisected artichoke attributed to Beert. 

9. G. D. J. Schotel, Het maatschappelijk leven onzer vaderen in de 
zeventiende eeiiw. Leyden, 1905, pp. 202— i. 

10. P. Hondius, Dapes examptae of de Moufe-schans, d.i. de 
soeticheydt des Buytenlet'ens. Leyden, 1621; quoted in Schotel, 
Maastschappelifk lei'en. p. 20^. 

11. See Harris and Nochlin, Vi'omen Artists, no. 18, where the 
painting is dated about 1630. Other still lifes with the pile of cheeses 
are listed by Vroom in A Modest Message, vol. 2, nos. 5i5a-b, 

12. Sale, London, Christie's, June 29, 197?, no. 55. It is noted in 
the sale catalogue that Ingvar Bergstrom, in a letter of March 30, 
1965, suggested a date of about 1610 for the painting. 


Jacob van Ruisdael 


For the biography of the artist, see page 84. 


The Great Oak 

Signed and dated lower right: J. V. Ruisdael (J.V.R. joined) 1651 
Oil on canvas, 34 x 4Z in. (86.4 x 106.7 tm.) 

Partial gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward William Carter in honor of the 
museum's twenty-fifth anniversary 
M. 91. 164. 1 

Collections: Cardinal Silvio Valenti Gonzaga, Rome, by 1749 (his 
sale, Amsterdam, May 18, 1763, no. 39, as Berchem, to P. Fouquet, 
fl. 1,000); P. Fouquet, Amsterdam (his sale, London, Langford, Feb- 
ruary lo-ii, 1773, no. 67, as Berchem); Pierre de Grand-Pre, Paris 
(his sale, Paris, Langlier, February 16, 1809, no. 98, 7,001 francs); 
Duke de Bern (his sale, London, Christie's, 1834, no. 3-, 480 
pounds); Duchesse de Bern, 1834 (her sale. Pans, April 4-6, 1837, 
no. 16, 8,000 francs); Samuel Wheeler, by 1856 (his sale, London, 
July 29, 1871, to King, 792. pounds, 15 shillings); King, 1871; G. 
Cavendish Bentinck, 1876 (his sale, London, July 8-1 1, 1891, no. 
566, to Colnaghi, 1,470 pounds); [P. &C D. Colnaghi, London]; 
Arthur Sanderson, Edinburgh, by 1893; [P. & D. Colnaghi, 
London]; F. Fleischmann, London, 1897; F. N. Ashcroft, London, by 
1949; (Harari &: Johns, London, 1985]. 

Exhibitions: London, The Collection of the Duchesse de Berry, 1834; 
London, British Institution, 1856, no. zz (lent by Samuel Wheeler); 
London, British Institution, 1867, no. 54 (lent by Samuel Wheeler); 
London, Royal Academy, winter exhibition, 1876, no. 67 (lent by G. 
Cavendish Bentinck); London, Royal Academy, 1890, no. 73 (lent by 
G. Cavendish Bentinck); London, Grafton Galleries, October 1911, 
no. 69 (lent by Mrs. Fleischmann); London, Thos. Agnew & Sons, 
June 1915, no. i6; London, Tate Gallery, Richard Wilson and His 
Circle, January 1949, no. 142 (lent by Noel Ashcroft); The Hague, 
Mauritshuis, and Cambridge, Mass., Fogg An Museum, Jacob van 
Ruisdael, 1981-81, no. 16, repr.; Los Angeles County Museum of 
Art, As Many Worlds As There Are: zsth Anniversary Gifts, 1990-91. 
References: Smith, Catalogue Raisonne, 103; Charles Blanc, Le Tresor 
de la curiosite, Paris, 1857-58, vol. 1, pp. 423-24; C. Hofstede de 
Groot, "Hollandsche Kunst in Schotland," Oud-Holland 11 (1893): 
211— 12; HdG, 550; J. Rosenberg, yjiToii van Ruisdael, Berlin, 1928, 
339; E. Schaar, "Studien zu Nicolaes Berchem," diss., Cologne, 
1958, p. 36; S. Slive, "Dutch Pictures in the Collection of Cardinal 
Silvio Valenti Gonzaga," Simiolus 17, no. 2/3 (1987): 169-70, 173. 
175-77, 179-80, :87, fig. 3; Peter C. Sutton et al.. Masters of 17th- 
Century Dutch Landscape Painting, exh. cat., Boston: Museum of 
Fine Arts, 1987, p. 444, tig. i.; F. J. Duparc and L. L. Graif, Italian 
Recollections: Dutch Painters of the Golden Age, exh. cat., Montreal: 
Museum of Fine .\rts, 1990, pp. 15-16, fig. i; Peter C. Sutton, 
"Recent Patterns of Public and Private Collecting of Dutch Art," in 
Great Dutch Paintings from America, exh. cat., The Hague: 
Mauritshuis, 1990, p. 109, fig. 5; Paul Huys Jansses and Peter C. 

Sutton, The Hoogsteder Exhibition of Dutch Landscapes, exh. cat.. 
The Hague: Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder, 1991, pp. 28-29, fig- "; 
E. John Walford, Jacob van Ruisdael and the Perception of Landscape, 
New Haven and London: 1991, pp. 80-81, fig. 70. 

The Great Oak, dated 1652, is Jacob van Ruisdael's 
most majestic treatment to date of a single tree. More 
than any other artist of his generation, Ruisdael 
exploited the expressive potential of individual trees in 
the landscape, transforming the craggy trees and 
stumps that dominated the imaginary forest scenes of 
mannerist artists such as Roelandt Savery and Gillis 
van Coninxloo into heroic protagonists of the native 
landscape.' The twisting branches, reaching out like so 
many gnarled arms, give the trees in the Carter paint- 
ing the same picturesque appeal as the mighty speci- 
mens clinging to riverbanks in Ruisdael's etchings of 
the early 1650s (fig. i).- In the etchings, however, 

FIGURE I. Jacob van Ruisdael, Two Farmers with iheir Dog, about 
1650-54. Etching, yVi x lo's in. (19. i x 27.6 cm.). Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art, gift of Dr. and Mrs. Werner Z. Hirsch, 
M. 83. 309. 1. 




nature dwarfs the tiny humans; in the painting the trav- 
elers move through a more hospitable landscape. 

The Carter painting is an early example of Rusidael's 
collaboration with a figure painter, in this case Nico- 
laes Berchem.' Ruisdael and Berchem, good friends 
according to Arnold Houbraken,'' presumably collabo- 
rated on this picture soon after they returned from 
their journey to the German border region. The 
absence of any dated pictures by Ruisdael from 1650 
led John Walford to the hypothesis that the two artists 
spent that year traveling together.' Berchem painted 
the figures in at least one other painting by Ruisdael, 
Wooded Landscape with Figures and Cattle (fig. 2), dat- 
ing from the mid- to late 1660s,'' whose exceptionally 
large size may reflect the wishes of a patron who wanted 
the two artists to collaborate on a monumental scale. 

The Great Oak stands out among Ruisdael's land- 
scapes for the central role the figures play in conveying 
meaning (fig. 3)." This function of providing an edify- 
ing commentary was usually performed by the land- 
scape itself, such as the Carter View of Grainfields with 

a Distant Town (cat. no. 21) with its reminders of the 
polarities in nature, such as stacked grain and unhar- 
vested fields, open spaces and dense forests, bright sun- 
shine and dark shadows.'* In The Great Oak, however, 
the figures are more prominent, and they represent dif- 
ferent types — a well-dressed gentleman accompanied 
by a soldier and young boy on the left and a barefoot 
shepherd and shepherdess with their sheep on the 
right. How to interpret these figures and, indeed, how 
to interpret potentially symbolic elements in Dutch 
landscapes in general remains a subject of debate."* 
Ruisdael and Berchem may have intended to allude 
through the contrasting figure types to two different 
paths of life — rural and urban; peasant and gentry. 'o 
Travelers are commonplace in Dutch landscape, per- 
haps retaining their late medieval connotations as pil- 
grims of life." If it is present here, this theme is trans- 
lated into contemporary, everyday language, so that 
the figures, while potentially conveying a general mes- 
sage, fit credibly into their specific setting. One other 
element suggests that more than pure representation 

FIGURE z. Wooded Landscape 
with Figures and Cattle, about 
1665—68. Oil on canvas, 67% x 
76% in. (171 X 194 cm.). Paris, 
Musee du Louvre, on extended 
loan to Douai, Musee de la 
Chartreuse. Cliche des Musees 
Nationaux, Paris. 


FIGURE 3. Jacob van Ruisdael, The Grt\!t Oiik (detai 

was on Ruisdael's mind. The bones, positioned promi- 
nently where the two roads meet, like the dead trees in 
some of Ruisdael's landscapes, are a general reminder 
of the transience of earthly life'- and perhaps a refer- 
ence to the destination to which all roads ultmiately 
lead, death. 

If Berchem's figures contribute a moral commentary 
to the landscape, might not the two artists have 
planned the painting together? Their collaboration 
appears to have involved more than Berchem's simply 
painting his figures into the space allotted them by 
Ruisdael. The Carter painting may well be the excep- 

tion to the rule in this regard, for the majority of land- 
scapes in which Ruisdael had a collaborator, including 
Woodland Forest with Figures and Cattle, the staffage 
animates the scene but does not seem to communicate 
any particular message." 

Early in the history of The Great Oak the figures 
were seen to have greater importance, for when the 
painting belonged to the collection of Cardinal Silvio 
Valenti Gonzaga in the first half of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, it was attributed to Berchem. Seymour Slive, who 
recognized the Ruisdael among the hundreds of mas- 
terpieces included in Panini's pamtmg commemorating 


Valenti's collection (fig. 4), noted that this attribution 
testifies to the preference among eighteenth-century 
connoisseurs for Italianate over native Dutch land- 
scapes.'^ Indeed, The Great Oak is the only known 
Ruisdael in an Italian collection before 1797.'^ 

It was not until 1809 that Ruisdael's authorship was 
acknowledged.'* Since then writers from John Smith 
through Jacob Rosenberg have recorded that The Great 
Oak was signed by both artists, although today only 
Ruisdael's signature and the date 1652 are visible.'" 

The Great Oak appears to have inspired a series of 
paintings similar in theme by Ruisdael's follower Meyn- 
dert Hobbema, including cat. no. 14a— b. Typically 
Hobbema tempers Ruisdael's grandiose conception of 
nature: the trees are less overpowering, the forest, not 
so dense, and frequently cottages or farmhouses attest 
to man's peaceful coexistence with nature."* Ruisdael's 
painting continued to have a following in the nine- 
teenth century, when it was imitated by B. C. Koek- 
kock in Holland and James Stark in England.''* 

FIGURE 4. Giovanni Paolo Panini, The Interior of j Picture Gallery Shoiviiig the Collection of Cardinal Silvio Valenti-Gonzaga, 1749. 

Oil on canvas, 78 x 104 7s in. (198.2 x 266.5 cm.). Hartford, Wadsworth Atheneum, Ella Gallup Sumner and Mary Catlin Sumner Collection. 

Photo: Joseph Szaszfai. The Great Oak is displayed by the window at the left. 


1. Examples are Savery's etching Guint Trees (repr. Stechow, 
Dutch Landscape Painting, fig. i ?6) and Gillis van Coninxloo's For- 
est Landscape with Resting Hunter. 1598, Prince of Liechtenstein 
collection, Vaduz, inv. 751 (repr. Sutton, Masters of lyth-Century 
Dutch Landscape Painting, p. 21). 

2. Jeroen Giltay m Masters of uth-Century Dutch Landscape 
Painting (p. 444) notes that Ruisdael's old, gnarled trees probably 
were considered "picturesque" subjects by his contemporaries. 

3. Rosenberg attributed to Berchem the staffage in up to seven 
paintings, including the Carter picture (Riiisdael, nos. 335, 339, 354, 
458, 467, 500, and possibly 461). Walford follows nearly all of Rosen- 
berg's attributions and assigns to Berchem the figures in six paint- 
ings, including The Great Oak and fig. 1 (see Walford, Ruisdael, pp. 
7, 66, 77, 85, 95, 97); Eckhard Schaar, "Studien zu Nicolaes 
Berchem," p. 36; Ruisdael, cxh. cat., p. 13; and Slive, "Dutch Pic- 
tures," p. 177, n. 2Z, appear to attribute only the figures in the 
Carter painting and fig. 1 to Berchem. Other artists who occasionally 
painted the staffage in Ruisdael's paintings include Adriaen van de 
Velde, Thomas de Keyser, Dirk Wi|ntrack, and possibly Gerard van 
Battem (see Ruisdael. exh. cat., no. 15, pp. 84-85; no. 37, pp. 1 10- 
11; no. 43, pp. 124-15; p. 14; no. 4, pp. 34-35; and no. 55, pp. 
152-54). On van de Velde, sec also Walford, Ruisdael, pp. 137, 145, 
152-54. Rosenberg identified these and other artists as the authors 
of staffage in Ruisdael's paintings; see Ruisdael nos. i, 8, and 568 
(van Battem); nos. 42, 106, 246, 328, and 398 (J. Lingelbach); nos. 
59, 178, 319, 325, 369, 394, 435, 440, 455, 537. and 618 (van de 
Velde); nos. 257?, 310, 560, and 604 (P. Wouvermans); no. 338 
(B. Gael); no. 495 (de Keyser); no. 511 (A. van Ostade); nos. 335, 
354, 458, 461, 467, and 500 (Berchem). 

4. Arnold Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche 
Konschilders en Schilderessen. The Hague, 1753, vol. 3, p. 65. In the 
first line of Ruisdael's biography, Houbraken describes him as a 
"groot vriend" of Nicholas Berchem. 

5. Walford, Ruisdael, p. 7. 

6. Slive, in Ruisdael, exh. cat., pp. 58-59, dates it to the late 
1660s; Walford {Ruisdael, p. 136) seems to place it in the mid- 1660s. 
On other Ruisdael landscapes v\'ith figures by Berchem, see note i. 

-. One other possible example is A Stag Hunt in a Wood with a 
Marsh, for which Adriaen van de Velde supplied the staffage; see 
Ruisdael, exh. cat., no. 37, pp. iio-ii, and Walford, Ruisdael, 
p. 137. 

8. See R. H. Fuchs, "Over het landschap: een verslag naar 

aanleiding van Jacob van Ruisdael, Het Korenveld," Tijdschrift voor 
Geschiedenis 1973, pp. 281-92. Walford, Ruisdael (esp. pp. 84-85), 
also discovers contrasting elements in Ruisdael's scenes. 

9. Although they approach the problem somewhat differently, 
both I. Kouznetsov ("Sur le symbolisme dans Ics paysages de Jacob 
van Ruisdael," Bulletin du Musee National de Varsoi'ie 14 I1973I: 
31-41), and J. Bruyn ("Toward a Scriptural Reading of Seventeenth- 
Century Dutch Landscape Paintings," in Masters of nth-Century 
Dutch Landscape Painting, pp. 84-104) interpret many landscape 
elements as religious symbols. Cynthia P. Schneider [Rembrandt's 
Landscapes, New Haven and London, 1990, pp. 105-27) and Wal- 
ford [Ruisdael. pp. 1 5-46) recognize the potential for seventeenth- 
century Dutch landscapes to convey religious meanings but also 
emphasize the importance of their visual appeal. 

10. See Walford, Ruisdael. pp. 15-29, and Schneider, Rembrandt's 
Landscapes, pp. 106—14. 

11. In another contemporary painting. Hilly Landscape with Oak, 
Cornfield, and Castle (Braunschweig, Gemaldegalerie), two roads 
meet in the foreground, but it is difficult to fathom the artist's mean- 
ing because cropping on all sides has so significantly altered the 
composition (Walford, Ruisdael, pp. 83-85). On the tradition of 
representing the paths of life in Dutch art, see ibid., pp. 34-36, and 
R. L. Falkenburg, "Joachim Patinir: het Landschap als Beeld van de 
Levenspilgrimage," diss., Ni|megen, 1985. 

I 2. For a good discussion of skeletons and other vanitas symbols 
in landscapes in the context of selective naturalness, see Walford, 
Ruisdael. pp. 34-39. For more orthodox interpretations of elements 
in landscapes as religious symbols, see Kouznetsov, "Sur le sym- 
bolisme," and Bruyn, "Toward a Scriptural Reading." 

13. See note 3 for references to other landscapes with staffage 
painted by other artists. 

14. Slive, "Dutch Pictures," pp. i~6— 77. 

15. Ibid., p. 175- 

1 6. Pierre de Grand-Pre sale. Pans, Langlier, February 16, 1809, 
no. 98. 

17. An exception is Hofstede de Groot, who mentions only 
Ruisdael's signature in an article of 1893 ("Hollandschc Kunst 111 
Schotland," p. 211). 

18. Other examples are cat. no. 14a— b, fig. 1 (p. 60); Wooded 
Road with Cottages (Philadelphia Museum of Art, William L. Elkins 
Collection); and Village Road (New York, Frick Collection). 

19. Walford, Ruisdael. p. 81. 


Salomon van Ruysdael 

1 600/1 603— 1670 

For the biography of the artist, see page 88. 


View of the River Lek and Vianen 

Signed and dated at lower right, S V Ruysdael (SVR joined) 1 668 

Oil on canvas, zz'h x 357a in. (57— " 9i-2. cm.) 

Collections: Sir William Drake, London; Mrs. E. K. Hornsby-Drake, 

London (sale, Christie's, London, March 11, 1931, no. 88, 630 pounds, 

to Gooden & Fox); [Gooden & Fox, London]; (A. Brod, London, 

1955]; J. Lowenstein, London; [Noortman & Brod, Maastricht, 


Exhibition: London, Alfred Brod, Autumn Exhibition of Dutch and 

Flemish Masters, 1955, no. 25, repr. 

Reference: Wolfgang Stechow, Salomon van RuysJael. md ed., 

Berlin, 1975, no. 473A. 



Riiysdacrs painting shows the River Lek seen from the 
north looking south. The town of Vianen, about five 
miles south of Utrecht, is on the opposite bank. The 
prominent tower at right belonged to Batestein Castle, 
now destroyed; the large Gothic church to the left and 
the rest of the skyline convey an accurate impression, if 
not a faithful record, of the appearance of the town 

(fig. I). 

This is one of the last in Ruysdael's long series of 
broad views of rivers, estuaries, and inland seas, some 
of which include recognizable towns or cities in the 
distance. A few have populated foregrounds like that of 
the Carter picture, with boats, cattle, and men pulling 
nets, such as those in the Barnes Foundation (fig. i) 
and in Poznan,' which show other locations farther 
upstream on the same river. 

Like Ruysdael's marines and beach views, this paint- 
ing depends for its effect on dramatically open 
expanses of water and sky. Ruysdacl subtly mterweaves 
and juxtaposes the forms of land, sky, and water. The 
sliver of blue cutting into the arc of clouds in the center 
of the sky mirrors the sunlit spit of beach that extends 
into the river. The far riverbank, narrowing to a ribbon 
in the distance, sets apart sky and water. The composi- 
tion is animated by a long stripe of light that spans the 
entire foreground from the gray water at left to the 
pinkish sandy shore at right. 

The development toward more open, expansive com- 
positions in Ruysdael's work can first be observed in 
his marines of the 1640s. Paintings such as the Sailboat 
and Fishing Boat in Frankfurt (fig. 3) set a precedent 

FIGURE I. Abniham Rademaker, Vunen, 1630, 
from Kahinet van NederlanJsche outbeedeii en 
gezigten, 1715. Etching. Amsterdam, Ri|ksprenten- 

FiGURf 3. Salomon van Ruysdael, Sailboat and Fishing Boat, 
1640S. Oil on wood, i6'/« x z}V» in. (41 x 60.5 cm.). Frankfurt, 
Stadelsches Kunstinstitut. 

FIGURE 1. Salomon van Ruysdacl, The Rhine near Rhenen, 1660s. 
Oil on wood, i4V« x 2.4 'A in. (37 x 61.5 cm.). Merion, Pennsylvania, 
the Barnes Foundation. Copyright 1991, the Barnes Foundation. 

not only for the vast stretches of water and sky in the 
Carter river view but also for its tranquil mood.- The 
Frankfurt painting, once attributed to Simon de 
Vlieger, has a silvery-gray color scheme. The Carter 
painting, of at least twenty years later, is colder in 
overall effect, more subtly variegated in color, and 
more emphatic in value contrasts. The pale eggshell 
blue sky with clouds sweeping up from the horizon is 
one of the most majestic in all of Ruysdael's work. 

1. Stechow, Ruysdael, no. 52,8, repr. fig. 64, pi. 46 (dated 1659). 

2. For Ruysdael's other marine paintings, see ibid., nos. 31-32, 



Simon de Vlieger 

1 600/1 601—1653 

De Vlieger was born in Rotterdam, where he was married in 1627 and where he seems 
to have remained until October 1634, when he became a member of the guild in Delft. By July 
1638 de Vlieger had moved to Amsterdam. He lived there for more than a decade and during 
this time received important public commissions: he worked on cartoons for the city of Delft in 
1640-41, in the following year he painted the wings of the organ of the Grote Kerk in Rotterdam, 
and in 1648 he contracted to design windows for the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam. In early 1650 de 
Vlieger bought a house in Weesp, a village ten miles to the east of Amsterdam, where he resided 
until his death in 1653. 

Known primarily as a prolific painter of seascapes and beach views, de Vlieger was also a 
gifted draftsman and printmaker. His subjects include landscapes, animals, and figures. Nothing is 
known about his formal training, but his style apparently developed under the influence of Jan 
Porcellis (cat. no. 18). In the late forties and early fifties the rough seas and gray tonalities that 
dominate de Vlieger's earlier works gave way to calms that are silvery-gray in tone and pervaded by 
shimmering sunlight. These paintings parallel similar developments in Jan van de Cappelle's work 
(cat. no. 7) and were an important influence on Willem van de Velde the Younger (cat. no. z6), 
whom Arnold Houbraken names as de Vlieger's student. 


View of a Beach 

Signed and dated on plank, lower right: S DE VLIEGER 1646 
Oil on canvas, 35 x 53 in. (88.9 x 134.6 cm.) 

Collections: T. A. Carlyon, Bournemouth; (his sale, London, Chris- 
tie's, October 4, 1946, no. 83); |D. Katz, Dieren]; [A. Kaufmann, 
London, 1946]; [Alfred Brod, London, 1952.); Mrs. M. D. Langloh- 
van den Bergh; sale, London, Sotheby, December 10, 1980, no. 82; 
[David Koetser, Geneva, to 1981]. 

Exhibition: The Hague, Mauritshuis, and San Francisco, Fine Arts 
Museum, Great Dutch Pamttngi from America, 1990-91, no. 68, repr. 
Reference: Jan Kelch, "Simon de Vlieger, als Marmemaler," diss., 
Berlin, 1971, p. 148, no. 12.9. 

This sweeping view of a beach and the North Sea 
beyond is one of de Vheger's most ambitious paintings. 
Seldom did he represent such a broad expanse of shore 
or portray a scene populated by such a variety of 

De Vlieger's beach is a place of work and of recrea- 
tion, as it is so often in Dutch paintings (see cat. no. 
24). Like Avercamp's frozen waterways (cat. no. i), it 

FU, I'Ri- 1. Simon do Vlieger, The hishermcn. Etching. Pans, 
Musee du Petit Palais, Dutuit Collection. Photograph courtesy of 
Lauros-Giraudon, Paris. 



























teems with people of all classes: fishertolk occupy 
much of the foreground, selling fish, putting fish in 
wagons, resting, talking, and even embracing. De 
Vlieger was a close observer of peasant life on the 
beach, as his etchings demonstrate (fig. i). Fishermen 
encounter a lady and several gentlemen at the left cor- 
ner, and to the right of that group a gentleman gestures 
out to sea, while several men face him, one kneeling (in 
deference or begging?). By the water's edge at center, 
another group may be awaiting one of the boats that 
ferries passengers to and from vessels offshore. There 
are many other details: fishing boats are tended by 
their crews, an elegantly dressed rider with hunting 
dogs approaches at right, and a large crowd operates a 
pile driver to repair the jetty in the distance. 

It is tempting to suppose that a specific historical 
event might be commemorated here, perhaps a mo- 
mentous embarkation or landing of the sort recorded 

later by Willem van de Velde the Younger and Ludolf 
Bakhuysen. Since its reappearance at auction in 1946, 
the Carter painting had been known as The Arrival of 
the Prince of Orange at Flushing. Prince Frederik 
Hendrik had, in fact, led an assault on Antwerp in 
1646, the year of the Carter beach scene; the attack 
was supported by the Dutch fleet under Admiral 
Maerten Halpertsz. Tromp, whose flagship, Aemilia, is 
shown at the far left.' But nothing in the picture actu- 
ally suggests this specific event, nor are any of the peo- 
ple identifiable. It is more probable that by including 
the Aemilia de Vlieger intended to dignify an unusually 
large and imposing beachscape with an allusion to 
important current events and to the makers of history. 
De Vlieger's painting recalls the crowded beach- 
scapes of an earlier northern tradition that began with 
Jan Brueghel and was carried on during the first half of 
the seventeenth century by Adam Willaerts (1577- 


FIGURE i. Adam Willaerts, 
Vessels at Sea with a Fishmarket. 
Oil on wood, i8 /s x 41 'A in. 
(48 X 106 cm.)- Oxford, Ash- 
molean Museum. 

1664) and his son Abraham (about 1603-69). That de 
VHeger actually had such pictures in mind may be 
demonstrated by comparing the Carter painting with a 
beach view by Adam Willaerts (tig. 2), so similar in 
composition that it may have served de Vlieger as a 

The Carter painting is the largest and one of the 
finest in a series of beach scenes de Vlieger painted in 
the 1 640s. His beachscapes of the previous decade 
represent views that are less extensive and are pervaded 
by a graying tonality derived from the example of Jan 
Porcellis. In the 1640s the artist sometimes adopted a 
great expanse of beach and water, as he did in the 
celebrated picture of 1643 (fig. 3), in which the silvery 
light comes from behind the clouds and floods the 
warm brown sand, creating a lively interplay of cool 

FIGURE 4. Simon de Vlieger, Visit of Frederik Hendrik to the Fleet 
at Dordrecht in 1646, 1649. Oil on wood, z8 x 36'/^ in. (71 x 92. cm.). 
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 




FIGURE 3. Simon de Vlieger, Bt?iic/.' Vteu\ 1643. Oil on wood, i?' 
3z78 in. (60.6 X 83.5 cm.). The Hague, Mauritshuis. 

and warm tones.' In the Carter painting the effects of 
light are even more varied and complex. Extensive 
areas of half-shadow in the foreground are full of sub- 
tle gradations of tone and hue; in the middle ground 
blond light bathes the sand, which serves as backdrop 
for the crisp forms of the figures. Broad shadows cast 
by the towering clouds play across the sea beyond. 
Despite the animation of life on the beach, de Vlieger's 
scene has the air of stately calm that pervades the most 
successful paintings of his last years. By 1649 he (fig. 4) 
and van de Cappelle had created a splendid new kind 
of marine painting, characterized by a multiplicity of 
incident and a binding structure and atmosphere that 
has much in common with the Carter picture. 


1. Jan Kclch kindiy identified the ship and suggested the possibil- ;. For a discussion ot dc Vhcger's development see Stcchow, Dutch 
ity that Frederik Hendrik's campaign of 1646 might he connected to Landscape Painting, pp. 104, 115-17; L. J. Bol, Die hciHandische 
this picture (in a letter ot March 1, 1981). Three years later de Mannemalerei des 17. jabrhunderts. Braunschweig, 197^. PP- 176- 
Vlicger painted a visit hy the Stadholdcr to the fleet in 1646 (fig. 4). 90; and Jan Kelch, Simon de Vlieger, Berlin, 1981. 

2. Kelch proposed this picture as de Vlieger's prototype (ihid.). 



Deane Dana, Chairman 
Michael D. Antonovich 
Edmund D. Edelman 
Kenneth Hahn 
Gloria Molina 


Richard B. Dixon 


Daniel N. Belin, Chairman 

Robert F. Maguire ill. President 

Julian Ganz, Jr., Chairman of the Executive Committee 

Dr. Richard A. Simms, Vice-President 

Walter L. Weisman, Vice-President 

Dr. George N. Boone, Treasurer 

Mrs. Lionel Bell, Secretary 

Earl A. Powell in. Director 

Mrs. Howard Ahmanson 
William H. Ahmanson 
Howard P. Allen 
Robert O. .Anderson 
Norman Barker, Jr. 
Donald L. Bren 
Mrs. Willard Brown 
John E. Bryson 
Mrs. B. Gerald Cantor 
Mrs. William M. Carpenter 
Mrs. Edward \X'. Carter 
Hans Cohn 
Robert A. Day- 
Michael R. Forman 
Camilla Chandler Frost 
David Gclfcn 
Herbert M. Gcltand 
Arthur Gilbert 
Stanley Grinstein 
Robert H. Halff 

Feli.\ Juda 

Mrs. Dwight M. Kendall 

Mrs. Harry Lenart 

Eric Lidow 

Steve Martin 

William A. Mingst 

Sergio Mufioz 

Dr. Franklin D. Murphy 

Mrs. Barbara Pauley Pagen 

Sidney R. Petersen 

Mrs. Stewart Resnick 

Hiroyuki Saito 

Richard E. Sherwood 

Michael G. Smooke 

Ray Stark 

Frederick R. Weisman 

David L. Wolper 

James R. Young 

Julius L. Zelman 

Selim Zilkha 


Robert H. Ahmanson 
Mrs. Anna Bing Arnold 
R. Stanton Avery 
B. Gerald Cantor 
Edward W. Carter 
Mrs. Freeman Gates 
Mrs. Nasli Heeramaneck 
Joseph B. Koeptli 
Mrs. Rudolph Liebig 
Mrs. Lucille Ellis Simon 
Mrs. Lillian Apodaca Weiner 


Edward W. Carter, ig6i— 66 
Sidney F. Brody, 1966-70 
Dr. Franklin D. Murphy, 1970—74 
Richard E. Sherwood, 1 974—78 
Mrs. F. Daniel Frost, 1978-82 
Julian Ganz, Jr., 1982.-86 
Daniel N. Belin, 1986-90 


A Mirror of Nature was originally typeset in 
Linoterm Sabon at the Stinehour Press in 
Lunenberg, Vermont, and printed on Warren's 
Lustro Offset Enamel paper at the Meriden 
Gravure Company in Meriden, Connecticut. 
The book was designed by Freeman Keith. 

Additions to A Mirror of Nature were typeset in 
Sabon by Andresen Graphic Services in Tucson, 
Arizona, and printed on Productolith paper at 
Alan Lithograph, Inc., in Inglewood, California. 
The book was bound by Roswell Bookbinding 
in Phoenix, Arizona. 

CYNTHIA P. SCHNEIDER, associate professor 
of fine arts at Georgetown University, is the author 
of Rembrandt's Landscapes (Yale, 1990). She was 
curator of the exhibition Rembrandt's Landscapes: 
Drawings and Prints (1990) at the National Gallery 
of Art, Washington, D.C., and author of the accom- 
panying catalogue. 

JOHN WALSH, JR., isthe director of the J. 
Paul Getty Museum. He has done curatorial work at 
the Frick Collection, the Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and 
taught art history at Columbia and Harvard 

Cross River Press 

A Division of Abbeville Publishing Group 

488 Madison Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

Printed in the United States of America 


9 "781558"594456