DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
DALMI WORKING PAPERS ON ART & MARKETS
The Artistic Migration Between Mechelen and Delft (1550–1625)
Fiene Leunissen
Working Paper no. 15231
https://www.dukedalmi.org/wp-content/uploads/15231-Working-Paper.pdf
DUKE ART, LAW & MARKETS INITIATIVE 114 S. Buchanan Blvd. Campus Box 90766 Durham, NC 27708 May 2015
DALMI working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed. © 2015 by Fiene Leunissen. All rights reserved.
Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The Artistic Migration Between Mechelen and Delft (1550–1625) Fiene Leunissen DALMI Working Paper No. 15231 May 2015
ABSTRACT Mechelen (Malines) is a small city in present-day Belgium, positioned between Antwerp and Brussels, along the river the Dijle. While most people today have never heard anything about this city or its history, this small town was once one of the most important cities in the Low Countries. It was also hub for the production of watercolor paintings. During the religious turmoil in the second half of the 16th century a large portion of artists fled the city to find a better life in other European cities. One of these places was Delft, were a group of 24 Mechelen artists settled. In this paper we look at the lives of these artists to better understand the knowledge circulation between the north and the south at the turn of the 17th century. Keywords: Art Markets, Mechelen, Delft, Seventeenth Century JEL: Z11
Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Table of Contents Preface ...... 3 Introduction ...... 5 Migration from south to north ...... 5 Sources ...... 7 Outline ...... 8 Chapter 1. Mechelen: a small, but creative city ...... 9 History of the city ...... 9 Mechelen: the court city of the Low Countries ...... 9 Turmoil in the city ...... 11 Mechelen: an creative city ...... 14 The painting industry in Mechelen ...... 14 The production of tapestry in Mechelen ...... 17 Chapter 2. - The migration from Mechelen to Delft ...... 18 Motivation for migration ...... 18 The migration from Mechelen artists ...... 20 Historiography ...... 20 DALMI database ...... 21 Who came to Delft? ...... 24 Openness of Delft ...... 27 Chapter 3. - The painting industry in Delft ...... 28 Delft in the 16th century ...... 28 The St. Lucas Guild in Delft and its regulations ...... 30 A ‘small’ Mechelen in Delft ...... 32 Chapter 4. - The Mechelen painters in Delft ...... 35 Who are these painters from Mechelen? ...... 35 Measuring the impact from the Mechelen artists ...... 38 Where did they settle down? ...... 42 Elias Verhulst ...... 43 Chapter 5. - The tapestry production of the Northern Netherlands with a focus on Delft ...... 48 Tapestry historiography ...... 48 The techniques of making a tapestry ...... 49 The production of the cartoons ...... 50 Southern versus Northern characteristics ...... 51 Joost Jansz. Lanckaert ...... 58 Francois Spiering ...... 59 Karel van Mander the Younger & Aert Spierings ...... 61 Maximiliaan van der Gucht ...... 62 Tapestry and the St. Lucas Guild ...... 62 The Mechelen painters in the Delft tapestry industry ...... 63 Conclusion ...... 65 Why Delft? ...... 66 Bibliography ...... 68
1 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
List of figures ...... 72 Chapter 1 ...... 72 Chapter 2 ...... 72 Chapter 3 ...... 72 Chapter 4 ...... 72 Chapter 5 ...... 73 Appendix I - Biographical information with references ...... 75 Arentsz, Adriaen ...... 75 Burcht, Jan Jansz. van der ...... 75 Burcht, Jan van der ...... 75 Burcht, Janneken van der ...... 75 Burcht, Jonas van der ...... 75 Couwenbergh, Christiaen van ...... 76 Couwenbergh, Gillis van ...... 76 Hac(k)(xs), Michiel ...... 77 Hondecoeter, Adriaen d’ ...... 77 Hondecoeter, Annetge Claesdr d’ ...... 77 Hondecoeter, Aryen Ariensz. d’ ...... 78 Hondecoeter, Gillis d’ ...... 78 Hondecoeter, Guillam d’ ...... 79 Hondecoeter, Hans Claesz. d’ ...... 79 Hondecoeter, Jacob Jansz. d’ ...... 80 Hondecoeter, Jannetgen Claesdr d’ ...... 80 Hondecoeter, Nicolaes Jansz. d’ ...... 80 Matthys, Pyter ...... 81 Pastenaken, Augustijn van ...... 81 Pastenaken, Cornelis van ...... 81 Pastenaken, Jan Augustynsz. van ...... 82 Pastenaken, Matthijs van ...... 82 Pastenaken, Pieter van ...... 83 Schooten, Jan (I) van der ...... 83 Schooten, Jan (II) van der ...... 84 Servaes ...... 84 Thys, Esdras ...... 84 Thys, Hendrick ...... 85 Tielt, Jan van ...... 85 Verhaegen, Louwereyns ...... 86 Verhulst, Elias ...... 86 Verhulst, Francois ...... 86 Verlinden, Hans ...... 87 Vlam, Pieter Ghysbrechtsz ...... 87 Vromans, Jan ...... 87 Vromans, Pieter (I) ...... 88 Vromans, Pieter (II) ...... 88 Vromans, Pieter (III) ...... 89 Weyer, Jacques van den ...... 89 Appendix II ...... 91
2 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Introduction Mechelen (or Malines) is a small city in current Belgium, positioned in-between Antwerp and Brussels, along the river the Dijle. A lot of people nowadays never heard anything about this city or its history, not knowing that this tiny town was once one of the most important places in the Low Countries. Next to this it was also the place where a large production of watercolor paintings occurred. During the religious turmoil in the second half of the 16th century a large portion of these artist fled the city and searched for a better life in other cities in Europe. One of these places was Delft, were a group of 24 Mechelen artists settled down. In this paper we will take a look at their lives to get a better understanding of the knowledge circulation between the north and the south at the turn of the 17th century.
Migration from south to north The revolt in the Low Countries had ‘an enormous impact on the social fabric of Netherlandish society’. Between a 100.000 and 150.000 people, from the southern part of the Netherlands, left their homes to search for a better life elsewhere. Already in 1919 Dr. J.G. van Dillen noticed that the stream of migrants from the Southern Netherlands gave new impulses to the establishment of unknown or disappeared craft industries.1 He states that especially the industry for luxury products owed a great deal to the experience of Flemish and Brabantine craftsmen. The first scholar that extensively discussed the migration of these Flemish artists to the northern Part of the Low Countries was Jan Briels. In his book Vlaamse schilders in de Noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw, 1585-1630, Briels discusses how this migration had a major influence on the development of art in the Dutch Republic.2 Briels stated that “features which were always considered typical of Dutch school sometimes prove to be the direct continuance of specific aspects of the sixteenth-century Flemish school”3 He provides biographical information of the individual artists and systematically mapped out their movements. But in the decades after the publications of Briels no serious attention was paid to this subject any more.
Despite the fact that nowadays almost no one disagrees with the fact that the artistic exchange between the South and the North was of importance, most art historians still see the two areas as two separate entities with their own historiography and methodology. An example of a study where systematic cross-border research can be seen is the Unity and Discontinuity. Architectural
1 J.G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam I (‘s gravehagen 1929) 15-21 & 27-31. 2 J.G.C.A. Briels, Vlaamse schilders in de noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw (Haarlem 1987). 3 Briels (1987) 12.
5 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Relationships between the Southern and Northern Low Countries 1530-1700 (2007), by Krista De Jonge and Koen Ottenheym discussing the continuity and discontinuity in architectural styles between the two regions. Despite several calls for integration of these two schools, the implementation is still rare.
In 2009 Filip Vermeylen (in collaboration with other scholars) started a NWO funded project: Cultural transmission and artistic exchanges in the Low Countries, 1572-1672: mobility of artists, works of art and artistic knowledge (until 12-2014).4 In this project the migration of artists between the southern and the northern part of the Low Countries is central. The project consists out of three smaller sub-projects concerning the mobility of artists, artistic knowledge and works of art. One of the aims for the study is to ‘shed light on the way creative cities are able to attract creative industries and assemble a critical mass of human capital necessary to develop a local art school’.5
According to Vermeylen: ‘The real impact of the arrival of Flemish painters into the Dutch and foreign art centers remains to be examined in full, and would require more in-depth case studies focusing on particular emigrant destination towns and on individual artists’.6 In their sub-project about the mobility of artistic knowledge they chose to look deeper in the interaction between Haarlem and Amsterdam. The reason for this choice is ‘the fact that both cities played essential roles in the artistic developments of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’.7 Where Antwerp was the center for ‘Flemish’ Golden Age (Vlieghe 2001), Haarlem was the cradle for the developments in the Dutch Golden Age painting (Biesboer 2008). Traditionally, also Amsterdam is seen as a favorite destination for the refugees from the South.8 However, in this study we are not looking at one of the previous large cities of the Low Countries but the more modest examples to provide a case study on a different level than previous studies. Additionally the size of this case study is more suitable for in-depth study than most of the larger ones. In this research we will follow a group (until now 24 individuals) Mechelen painters that moved, with their entourage, and settled down in the city of Delft between 1566 and 1613. By choosing this different point of view we can analyze if the cultural exchange between larger cities was different than the equivalent in the more modest ones. This can shed a new light on our
4 For more information: https://artisticexchangeproject.wordpress.com/ 5 Filip Vermeylen, artistic exchange project: scientific relevance
6 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
knowledge of the artistic migration between the Southern and the Northern Netherlands in the 16th and beginning of the 17th century.
An important question in my research is why these Mechelen artists chose Delft as their new home and which factors were of importance in this choice? I try to give an answer to this question by examining the motivations behind the migration but also their settlement in Delft. How they became a part of the ‘urban fabric’ in Delft? Did they member of the Painters Guild? Did they established their own workshops and started to ‘transfer’ their knowledge to (local) pupils?
In many art historian studies the focus is on only one discipline within the creative industry, mostly painting.9 In this study this is not the case. Once settled in Delft, a large group of the Mechelen painters were occupied in the tapestry industry for the painting of cartoons. Because of this we will not only take a look at the painting industry but also the tapestry industry and the connection between them. This way we will not only look at the circulation of knowledge between the South and the North but also the knowledge spillover between different disciplines within the creative industry.
Sources I mainly used secondary literature and previously established databases. This is done because the main goal of this report is to get a sense of the literature that is already available and the scholarly debates which are ongoing. Next to this I used already existing databases to explore the possibilities with data that is already available or is still hidden in the archives. Another reason for the use of these databases is that during my stay at Duke University in North Carolina these archives where not physical attainable. The most important database, and starting point of this research, is composed by Duke Art, Law & Market Initiative (DALMI). This multi-rational database contains data of Mechelen painters and their apprentices between 1540 and 1680 and contains 1473 entries. It not only contains biographical information of the Mechelen painters, but also includes data on the artistic migration from Mechelen.
None of the artworks of the painters central in this study survived, with the exception of Elias Verhulst (see chapter 4). For most art historians, this situation would make this case study not interesting enough to study. However, my opinion is that by doing research to these ‘lower
9 James J. Bloom, ‘Why Painting?’ in: Neil De Marchi & Hans J. Van Miegroet (red.), Mapping Markets For Painings In Europe 1450-1750 (Turnhout 2006) 17-34.
7 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
bound’ paintings, that were often not meant to be durable, we can get a more sufficient and extensive image of the visual culture in the Low Countries during the 16th and 17th century. Next to this, work of other painters from Mechelen and the tapestries made in Delft, for which they may have made the cartoons, can help us to indicate what the works of the Mechelen artists in Delft looked like.
Outline In the first chapter I will discuss the history of the city Mechelen and the development in its creative industries. This knowledge is important to get an idea of the (cultural) traditions the Mechelen artists, who later settled in delft, grew up with. Next to this, it gives us an insight in the events that where going on during the religious turmoil at the end of the sixteenth century. In the following chapter I will discuss this migration of the Mechelaren in-depth and use migration theory to explain why the artists left Mechelen. Next to this I will discuss how welcoming Delft was towards these foreigners. In chapter 3 I will take a look at the painting industry in Delft. This can help us to understand in which milieu the Mechelen artists ended up. Moreover, I will discuss the organization of the St. Lucas Guild in Delft and how they played a role in the acceptance of the Mechelaren into the painting industry. Chapter 4 deals with the details of the Mechelaren that settled down in Delft. I will discuss how we can measure their impact and I will take a look at the life of one of the Mechelen painters as a case study. In the final chapter I will discuss tapestry industry in the Northern Netherlands and compare this with its equivalent in the southern part. Next to this, the tapestry industry in Delft will be examined in detail and the role of the Mechelaren in this industry. In the conclusion I will discuss the most important findings of this paper and possibilities for more research in this case study. Finally I will try to answer the question why Delft in particular was such a popular place for these artistic Mechelaren.
8 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Chapter 1. Mechelen: a small, but creative city
Once Mechelen was the capitol of the Burgundian-Habsburgian Netherlands. During this time, but also after this period, cultural industries played an important part in the history of this city. In this chapter we discuss the court that settled in Mechelen and the religious turmoil in the second half of the 16th century. Next to this we will discuss the painting industry and tapestry production of the town in more detail. With this we get a better view on the cultural and artistic traditions with which the Mechelaren grew up in their own town and possibly took with them during their migration.
History of the city Mechelen: the court city of the Low Countries With the Burgundian treaty of 1548, the Habsburg Netherlands or also called the ‘seventeen Provinces’ became one political entity within the Holy Roman Empire. This unity was even more underlined when a year later Charles V promulgated the pragmatic sanction. The goal of this edict was to establish a central administration and get rid of all the locally scattered laws, customs and political customs. The ‘seventeen provinces’ consisted of four duchies, seven counties and ten lordships. The smallest, but also one of the oldest lordships was Mechelen. The ‘heerlijkheid Mechelen’ was formed by the walled city of Mechelen and some surrounding villages.
Already in the 15th century Mechelen began to play an important role in the politics of the Low Countries. In 1473, Charles the Bold situated the high court and a high council for finances in Mechelen.10 For almost sixty years the city remained the center of the political, judicial and financial decision-making of the Low Countries.11 At this point in time, the city had circa 20.000 inhabitants. Despite the fact that Mechelen became the capital, Charles himself only rarely resided inside the city walls.
In 1507, the emperor Maximilian appointed his daughter, Margaret of Austria, as Governor- general and regent of the Burgundian-Habsburgian Netherlands after the dead of his son Philip
10 W.P. Blockmans, The formation of a political union, 1300-1600. History of the Low Countries (New York 1999) 116-120. 11 Walter Prevenier, ‘Mechelen rond 1500. Een kosmopolitische biotoop voor elites en non-conformisten’ in: Dagmar Eichberger, Dames met Klasse. Margareta van York & Margareta van Oostenrijk (Leuven 2005) 31-41.
9 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
the Handsome.12 Next to this she also became guardian of her nephew Charles, the future Roman emperor. In the same year she moved the court from Brussels to Mechelen, which was to become one of the cultural centers of the region. Whereas the courts of her male predecessors where itinerant and mobile, Margaret chose Mechelen as her permanent home. In the earlier years of her life Margaret lived at distinguished courts in France and Spain, because of this she gained familiarity with various cultural contexts and was exposed to high quality works of art by Italian, Spanish, Flemish and French artists. According to Dagmar Eichberger, ‘she had developed a fairly clear idea as to what to expect from her own courtiers and the artists attached to her court’. This was noticeable when she started the construction of her new palace, the court of Savoy, led by the architect Rombout Keldermans (Figure 2).13
Figure 1 Court of Savoye, Rombout Keldermans, 1507-1530 (Mechelen).
Her new home, with a colonnade in Italian style and a loggia, was more or less the first Renaissance building in the Low Countries. Moreover, Margaret kept several international artist in permanent employment on her new court.14 On her payroll in 1525, five artists can be found: an embroiderer, a goldsmith, a tapestry maker with two assistants, the sculptor Conrat Meit and the Brussels painter Bernard van Orley. Next to van Orley, the archduchess employed 4 other painters during her regency. These painters not only had responsibility for the painting of large
12 Dagmar Eichberger, ‘A cultural centre in the southern Netherlands. The court of Archduchess Margaret of Austria (1480-1530) in Mechelen’ in: Martin Gosman, Alasdair Macdonald & Arjo Vanderjagt (ed.), Princes and princely culture, 1450-1650 (Leiden 2003) 239-258, 239-241. 13 Prevenier (2005) 37. 14 Eichberger (2003) 243-245.
10 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
quantities of portraits, but also to prepare the designs for tapestry weavers and glass painters. After her death in 1530 the court moved back to from Mechelen to Brussels. Her body was buried in a mausoleum in the church of Bourg-en-Bresse in France.
Turmoil in the city Despite the move of the court the Brussels, Mechelen stayed a political center, housing the great council of the Netherlands.15 But more and more resistance grew against the centralization of the Low Countries and the abolishment of local politics. In this case, the elite saw their power and voice in politics diminishing. Next to this the Spanish throne became stricter and did not tolerate other beliefs like the upcoming Protestantism. King Philip II saw Protestants as heretics. The combination of this drive for centralization and religious intolerance led to the revolt. In 1564, William of Orange became leader of the revolt, which is seen as the starting point of the Eighty Years’ war.
On August 22 1566 the iconoclastic fury took place in Mechelen whereby churches were plundered and art works destroyed. Archival documents show that in this year there were two, well organized reformed communities in Mechelen.16 One of them was Calvinistic and the other Lutheran, probably both with a significant number of members. During the hagepreken in 1566, which according to estimations attracted 3000 people, both groups were represented by their own preacher. The repression began the following year in which 16 people were executed and another 83 were exiled.
A couple of years later, on August 29, 1572 proponents of William of Orange opened the city’s gate for his Lieutenant Bernard van Merode. Among the population of the city there was still a division between the proponents and opponents of William of Orange. Less than a month later, on September 18, the prince himself arrived in Mechelen and occupied the city with three hundred infantry and five hundred cavalry. These forces retreated on October 1, aware their forces were not sufficient for Alba’s army. A day later, Alba and his men sacked the city (Figure 2.). Alba himself described the plundering to Philip II as following: ‘not a nail was left in the wall’. Alba’s army ransacked, stole, ransomed, pillaged and assaulted for three days and did not spare anyone. Even the opponents of the Spanish throne or the catholic belief were not safe for there outrageous plundering. An anonymous eyewitness describes the event as follows: ‘first they killed several men and women, forcing open the doors of houses, and sacking randomly
15 Blockmans (1999) 116-120. 16 Jan Briels‚’De emigratie uit Mechelen naar de Noordelijke Nederlanden omstreeks 1572-1630’ in: Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 90 (Mechelen 1986) 243-257, 245-246.
11 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
everyone and everything they encountered, be it goods and persons of the officers of the Grand Council, the clergy, the nobility, women and girls, widows and good Catholics, rich and poor alike’.17 With this sack Alba violated the written codes of conduct because the city did not resist the attack of Alba’s men. He defended himself with the fact that the city earlier voluntarily opened the doors for Orange.
Figure 2 The Sack of Mechelen by Alva in 1572, Frans Hoogenberg, after 1572, Etching on paper (prentenkabinet Museum Boijmans van Beuningen).
During this period many people left the city to flea for the religious persecutions and the economic situation of the city. In a letter dated November 1576 the government in Brussels asks the magistrate to call an end to the depopulation: ‘Alsoe wy verstaen, dat vele ende diversche burgeren ende innegesetenen van onsen stadt van Mechelen hen dagelycx vervoirden, vuyt de selve stadt te vertrecken ende hun residentie aldaer verlaten, waerduere de voersz. Stadt mitter tyt gescapen soude wesen desolate ende geabondonneert te worden, indien van onser wegen daerinne nyet behoerlycken version en waere’18
17 Another eyewitness describes how women were hung by their breasts, how married women and young girls were raped and how a pregnant women was stabbed in the stomach, this violent assault inducing labor and resulting in a premature infant who died almost immediately. 18 Briels (1986) 246-247.
12 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
From the year 1577 onwards the Calvinist reformation came up strongly, in the following year the central government proclaimed freedom of religion.19 But in 1578 the Catholics succeed in expelling the states garrison, which tried (together with the Calvinist) to exclude the Catholics from their freedom of religion. This led to an exodus to Antwerp of 600 protestant people on May 31, who did not feel safe anymore with the states garrison out of town. Nevertheless, also 200 Catholics fled to city along the Scheldt on March 3 1579 since there was lack of food and employment. After the Spanish reconquest of 1572, the city stayed in Spanish territory but in the surrounding cities, like Brussels and Antwerp, Calvinist governments were in charge. Because of this, the food supply of Mechelen became harder and harder. On April 9, 1579 the city was sacked again, but this time not by the Spanish but by English soldiers. The city was taken under the guidance of the Brussels governor Olivier van den Tympel with help of the armies of the English colonel Norrits and the Scottish captain Stuart. Around sixty people died when the English plundered the cloisters, churches and houses in the city.
When the government became Calvinistic in 1580 everything that was Roman Catholic was prosecuted.20 This was also a reason for a lot of people to seek refuge outside the city walls. There were attempts to lure back people to the city, who fled with the previous turmoil, but this was not successful. For 5 years Mechelen was under Calvanist control, until Alexander Farnese conquered the city July 1585, a month before Antwerp fell. All non-Catholics were given seven months to put things in order or leave the city: ‘De borgeren en inwoonders van de stad van Mechelen, die voortaen niet sullen willen Catholijk leven onder de gehoorsaemheid van Zijne Majesteid, sullen mogen vertrekken, ‘t sy met den garnisoen of in een neutrale plaets en sullen hen ingewillicht warden seven maenden om hun goeden te mogen vaeralieren en verkopen’21
19 Briels (1986) 248. 20 Briels (1986) 248-249. 21 Briels (1986) 251.
13 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Mechelen: an creative city As shown before the settlement of the court in Mechelen resulted in a flourishing period for the creative industries in the city. After the death of Margret of Austria in 1530 the creative industries stayed an important source of income for the Mechelaren. There was a great variety of productions, for example gold leather wall coverings, etchings, embroidery, sculpture and alabaster paintings.22 Next to this Mechelen was a center for casting of cannons and bells.23 In this paragraph I will discuss the two creative industries that are central in my research: the painting industry and the production of tapestries.
The painting industry in Mechelen In 1566 Marcus van Vaernewijck claimed the existences of more than 150 master workshops in Mechelen. In his famous Schilder-boeck (1604) Karel van Mander I (1548-1606) also mentions the presence of 150 workshops in Mechelen.24 In spite of these large quantities, there was almost no attention to the painting industry in Mechelen by art historians. The only elaborate publication on the painting industry of Mechelen is by Emmanuel Neeffs (1841-1879) in his Histoire de la peinture et de la sculpture à Malines published in 1876. 25 Besides this, Mechelen is mostly discussed by art historians concerning the creative life at the court. With their article on ‘The Antwerp-Mechelen Production and Export Complex (2006)’ Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet shed a new light on the painting production and gained more attention for this little town.
Almost all the paintings produced in Mechelen where quickly produced cheap watercolor on linen, which were ‘often not durable by choice’. This was a total different ‘type’ of painting than was produced for the court in Mechelen. De Marchi and Van Miegroet calculated that an artist in Mechelen could produce 143 painting, of this inexpensive sort, in a year (consisting of 38.5 six-
22 One of the other popular cultural productions in Mechelen was that of alabaster paintings, which where produced in big series. These alabaster paintings were also popular in the Northern Netherlands, including Delft. In his chapter about the art-markets in Delft Montias discusses the dealer Hendrick Jansz. Vockestaert. (? - 1624) whose specialization was painting on alabaster. An entry in his estate papers discusses a debt for such goods to Hans van Beeck in Mechelen. Moreover, Vockestaert also sold paintings and a wide variety of other objects. See: John Michael Montias, Artists and Artisans in Delft. A socio- economic study of Seventeenth century (1982) 207-208; Aleksandra Lipińska, Moving sculptures. Southern Netherlandish alabasters from the 16th to 17th centuries in Central and Northern Europe (Leiden 2015). 23 Koen Cosaert, “De gietindustrie in Mechelen: een economische en culturele situering tot de 18e eeuw’ (2011)
14 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
day weeks).26 In 1541, after a major economic downturn, the fraternity of painters reorganized into a proper Painter’s guild together with the ‘klyenstekers’, sculptors, masons, goldbeaters, glaziers and jewelers.27 This was also the point at which the Mechelen painters decided ‘to position their painting production on the low end of the demand curve’.28 After this period we see a large growth in the number of new masters and apprentices. However, this growth was quickly interrupted by the iconoclastic riots during the 1560s. With this choice to produce these watercolor painting of the lower segment, Mechelen avoided overlap with the production in Antwerp, which was mostly concerned with oil on panel/canvas paintings.29 In 1604 Van Mander also discusses that the technique of watercolor on canvas was very common in the city of Mechelen.30 He also noted the process innovation that took place in the production of the paintings: “There [Mechelen] they employed the method whereby their canvases passed through various hands, one making the faces and hands, the other the costumes or the landscape…”.31
A massive production like this was not intended for the local market, but for export on global scale. De Marchi and Van Miegroet suggest that the Franciscan cloister in Mechelen functions as a ‘pand’ for paintings such as the Dominican cloister in Antwerp. A great deal of the Mechelen painters lived in the Katelijnestraat, located between the Franciscan cloister and the road to Antwerp. After (and during) the religious turmoil influence of the Franciscans narrowed down and the role of the Antwerp dealer became more and more important.32
There are almost no watercolor paintings that are preserved. One of the few that survived is by the Mechelaar Hans Bol and depicts the Fall of Icarus in a vast landscape with farmers in the foreground and castle-like buildings in the back (Figure 3). 33 Korneel Goossens compares the style of the landscape with Joachim Patinir (1480-1524), but a new element is the way the leaves of the trees are depicted. Goosens states that this reminds him of the ‘verdure’, mainly green, tapestries. Also the composition of the work has similarities with the landscapes seen in tapestries.
26 Neil de Marchi & Hans J. van Miegroet, ‘The Antwerp-Mechelen Production and Export Complex’ in: Amy Golahny, Mia Mochizaki & Lisa Vergara (red.), In his Milieu. Essays on Netherlandish art in memory of John Michael Montias (Amsterdam 2006) 133- 147. 27 Neeffs (1876) 10-11. 28 Miegroet, ‘New Data Visulizations on the Mechelen Export Industry and Artitst Migration patterns’ (Duke University 2014) 3. 29 De Marchi & Van Miegroet (2006) 133-135. 30 Karel van Mander (1604), fol. 259v. 31 Karel van Mander (1604), fol. 250r. 32 Van Miegroet, (2014) 11-15. 33 Korneel Goossens, Een aspect der Beeldende Kunsten: De Waterverfschilderingen te Mechelen in de 16e en de 17e eeuw (Mechelen 1943) 33.
15 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 3 The fall of Icarus, Hans Bol, 16th century, watercolor on paper 133x206 mm (Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Antwerp).
According to Goossens this specialty of landscape painting was formed in Mechelen and spread later, for instance in the work of Gielis van Coninxloo (1544-1606). Next to this, he provides a description of the characteristics of ‘Mechelse Waterverfschilderingen’: ‘Bijzonder nadruk moet gelegd worden op een zoo sterk mogelijken aanleg van den voorgrond, waardoor een gunstig effect van de atmospherische perpectief gemakkelijk bereikt wordt. Het aspect van den voorgrond moet nog versterkt worden door het aanbrengen van statige bomen, die vervolgens de compositiebegrippen aan weerszijden van het voorplan zullen oprijzen. Alle nuttelooze stoffeeringen met huizen op den voorgrond zullen achterwege blijven, wanneer men hem beter met landschapstukken of met figuren verlevendigen kan. (..) De verte moet groeien door de verschillende plans als golven in elkaar te laten vervloeien.’34
34 He bases this on Karel van Mander’s chapter about landscape painting in which Conixloo and Bol are recalled. Goosens (1943) 34-35.
16 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The production of tapestry in Mechelen In his essay La fabrication de tapisseries aristiques à Malines, published in 1925, G. van Doorslaer complains about the fact that in the history of tapestry in Belgium, Mechelen is not seen as a center of production.35 According to him “la part que prit cette ville, dans la production de tapis artistiques est donc totalement ignore”. One of the reasons of this ignorance is due to the fact that there are no surviving tapestries with the mark of Mechelen. Also in the contemporary literature and research on tapestry, the name of the city is almost never mentioned.36 However, without a doubt the craft of tapestry played an important part among the cultural industries in the city.
Van Doorslaer shows that the tapestry production in Mechelen goes back to an early date. He discusses the weaver Jean de Malines, who at the end of the 13th century or the beginning of the 14th century worked in Italy. ‘Y interpréta des dessins fournis par des artistes peintures’ (where he made cartoons from the artists paintings).37 Next to this, documents survived from someone called Jakes de Malines also ‘tapissieres’ and working in Tournai in 1350. But there is also documentation of tapestry workers in Mechelen, like ‘tapytwevere’ Inghelbert who lived in the Katelijnestraat in 1354. This was also the street where most painters of the city lived. Subsequently Doorslaer lists all the names of the tapestry workers and ‘legwerkers’ from Mechelen known from archival documents (from 1350 to 1627).38 In a document from 1549 31 tapestry masters are mentioned in Mechelen. According to Doorslaer the tapestries produced in Mechelen did not have their own style. They worked in various styles, such as ‘Verdure’ (greenery), but also worked in Brussels style.39 The production included tapestries from the highest quality, woven with the finest wool, silk thread and gold. More archival research and digitalization from Doorslaer’s data could give us a better insight in the tapestry industry of Mechelen, which is almost never mentioned in the literature.
35 Dr. G. van Doorslaer, ‘La fabrication de tapisseries artistiques à Malines’ in: Annales de l’Académie de Belgique LXXIII serie 7 (Anvers 1925) 18-109, 18. 36 Mechelen is only discussed in connection with the court of Margret of Austria. Next to this it is shown on the map in Thomas Campbell book about tapestry in Europe but not further reviewed. 37 Doorslaer (1925) 67. 38 Doorslaer (1925) 67-78. 39 Doorslaer (1925) 78.
17 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Chapter 2. - The migration from Mechelen to Delft
During and after the turmoil in the 1570s and 1580s in Mechelen a lot of families left the city behind and searched for a better life elsewhere. Around 1550 the town had between 25.000 and 30.000 inhabitants, which was more than halved to 11.000 around 1585-1594.40 In 1588 the magistrate of the city wrote that one third of the city was deserted. In this chapter we will take a look at the artistic migration from Mechelen with a focus on Delft as a destination. But we will start with the motivations that where behind this migration with the help of migration theory.
Motivation for migration The migration from the southern part to the northern part of the Low Countries was for a long time only explained by religious motivations. But in 1972 the Italian economic historian Carlo Cipolla noted the following: ‘The dramatic story of the religious refugee has such an appeal that one is often inclined to forget that not all migrations of skilled workers and innovations in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries can be ascribed to religious fanaticism’.41 In 2005, also the migration historians Jan and Leo Lucassen noted that ‘almost all refugees combine political and economic motives’.42 This indicates that we have to take more factors then only religion in consideration when we are looking at the motivations for migration. We have to take into account economic, social, religious and artistic factors next to network effects and ‘the perceived attraction of the artists’ destination’, states Vermeylen.43
The most traditional way to explain migration, on the macro level, is the push-pull model. According to this approach the main reason for migration is ‘economic disparities between the place of origin and the destination’.44 However, this model does not explain why some people move and others stay, for this we need other explanatory frameworks. The other two explanatory frameworks that are available, concerning the meso and the micro level, take into account social networks, information channels, the household and individual characteristics of the migrants.
40 In the 17th century it hovered around 20.000. Briels (1987) 251. 41 Carlo M. Cipolla, ‘The diffusion of innovations in Early Modern Europe’ in: Comparative studies in society and history 14.1 (1972) 46-52, 49. 42 J. Lucassen & L. Lucassen (eds.), Migration, migration history, history: old paradigms and new perspectives (Bern 2005) 14-17. 43 Vermeylen, (2014) 41. 44 Anne Winter, Migrants and Urban Change: Newcomers to Antwerp, 1760-1860 (London 2009) 9-34.
18 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
In his article Greener pastures (2005), Filip Vermeylen looks at the motivations behind the migrations during the Dutch revolt by looking further than only the push and pull factors.45 With this he gives a survey of the main motivations that can help us explain the migration in the context of the Dutch Revolt.46 The first driving force Vermeylen lists is religion, an obvious reason during the religious turmoil of the revolt (and already extensively discussed). Secondly, he discusses the economic incentives. As a result of the war and military campaigns Antwerp’s access to the sea was blocked and the number of foreign merchants decreased. The partial loss of local and international demand, forced artists to move elsewhere or quit their art. Moreover, ‘distance plays both a role in the decision to migrate and in the choice of destination’. Vermeylen states that the farther away the destination is, the higher the cost of the migration. On one hand this concerns the money for the journey and the time this takes, but on the other the psychological cost of the migration. The crossing of borders raises the real and psychological distances. Next to this, migrants are more likely to move to an area that is culturally similar.
One of the important factors in the choice of destination is information, according to Clé Lesger, ‘Information allows the potential migrant to weigh the pros and the cons of this or her existing situation, and the possible benefits of moving to a new location.’47 But Lesger also warns that sometimes this information only contains the reputation of a certain place. Another important aspect for the destination choice is the fact that the new hometown is ‘not susceptible to the influx of foreigners’.48 There had to be and open and tolerant climate in the cities the migrants settled down. Finally, scholars are paying more attention to migrant networks in their studies. Douglas Massy defines these networks as ‘sets of interprofessional ties that connect migrants, former migrants and nonimmigrants in origin and destination areas through ties of kinship, friendship and shared community origin’. 49 Belonging to a network like this, ‘generates employment opportunities and facilitates integration in the new urban environment’.50 The recent years there is especially attention for chain migration, which operates at both the micro and the meso level.51 According to Charles Tilly: ‘Chain migration moves sets of related individuals or households from on place to another via a set of social arrangements in which people at the
45 Vermeylen (2014) 42. 46 Vermeylen (2014) 43-45. 47 C. Lesger, ‘Migrantenstomen en economische ontwikkeling in vroegmoderne steden. Nieuwe burgers in Antwerpen en Amsterdam, 1541-1655’ in: Stadsgeschiedenis 1 (2006), 97-121, 104. Citation from Vermeylen (2014) 44. 48 Vermeylen (2014) 44-45. 49 D.S. Massey et al, ‘Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal’, Population and development review 19 (1993) 448. 50 Vermeylen (2014) 45. 51 Clé Lesger, Leo Lucassen & Marlou Schrover, ‘Is there a life outside the migrant network? German immigrants in XIXth century Netherlands and the need for a more balanced migration typology’ in: Annales de demographie historique 2 (2002) 29-50, 29-30.
19 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
destination provide aid, information, and encouragements tend to produce a considerable proportion of experimental moves and a large backflow to the place of origin. At the destination, they also tend to produce durable clusters of people linked by common origin’.52
To study the real motivations for an artist to migrate is a challenging task, states Vermeylen. He opts individual case-studies as a way to overcome this and find more general trends.53 My research specifically investigating the migration between Mechelen en Delft can be seen as such case study.
The migration from Mechelen artists In this section I will look at the artistic migration from Mechelen. First I will discuss the historiography of this migration in the literature. Thereafter I will discuss the analysis of the migration behavior of the artists in the DALMI database.
Historiography Already in 1913 Hyacinthe Jan Baptist Coninckx wrote an article, published in the Belgium journal for archeology and art history, about artistes malinois à l’étranger. In this piece he provides the names of artists that sought refuge in Antwerp, the Low Countries, Germany, Austria, Sweden and Italy. Next to this he provides monographs of the most important, artistic families involved: Colyns, Rutz, Bol, Vinckboons and Van Valckenborch. Another effort to get a better view on the migration from Mechelen and its influence is by Hugo Rau in his contributions to a catalog (1985) for an exhibition on the Mechelen botanist Rembert Dodoens (1517-1585).54 In his brief overview of the migration around 1585, with some biographical information of the migrants, he concludes that the emigration from Mechelen was mostly to Amsterdam. With this he focused on the influence of the Mechelaren on the gold leather industry in Amsterdam.
A year later, in his essay De emigratie uit Mechelen naar de Noordelijke Nederlanden (1986), Jan Briels states that the reason behind the migration from Mechelen was both religious and social- economic, but the ration between them is unclear.55 With the help of the preserved factual
52 Charles Tilly, ‘Migration in Modern Europe history’ in: William H. McNeill (ed.), Human Migration. Patterns and Policies (Bloomington 1978) 53. 53 Vermeylen (2014) 46. 54 Hugo Rau, ‘Een beknopt overzicht: emigratie uit Mechelen rond 1585, voornamelijk naar Amsterdam’ & Hugo Rau, ‘Mechelse (goud)leermakers in Amsterdam’ both in: Tentoonstelling luister en rampspoed van Mechelen ten tijde van Rembert Dodoens 1585-1985 published as part II from: Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 88 (Mechelen 1985). 55 Jan Briels, ‘De emigratie uit Mechelen naar de Noordelijke Nederlanden omstreeks 1572-1630’ in: Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 89 (Mechelen 1986) 243-257.
20 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
information he tried to get more knowledge about the background and the size of the emigration, but also the meaning that can be attributed to this event. He starts with the examination of the religious and economic developments in Mechelen during the first half of the 16th century to explain the migration. However, the research in these three studies is fragmented which makes it hard to understand and analyze the artistic migration as a whole.
DALMI database In the DALMI database of painters and their apprentices in Mechelen (1540-1680), as discussed before, there is also attention for the migration of the artists.56 With the help of this information, we can get a better view on the time and destination of multiple and multi-stage immigration patterns of the Mechelen artists. In this paragraph I will discuss the results of the analysis of the database.
In the period between 1540 and 1570 the great majority migrates from Mechelen to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Delft or Brussels, a smaller amount choose Cologne or Italy for refuge (Figure 4). In the previous chapter we saw that there was already some religious persecution at this time, but this was on a small scale. This can suggest that the migration in this period was mostly motivated with economic reasoning.
Between 1571 and 1608 there was a migration peak, where at least 85 of the 252 active masters (34%) left the city. This period is also the time that city was sacked multiple times and religious persecutions occured. In the previous chapter we saw that there was both a Lutheran and a Calvinistic community in Mechelen with a large number of followers. Probably a large portion of the artists left the city because of their religious believes. Also the fact that almost half of the artists that move to Delft (11 of the 24) are registered at the reformed church can tell us that religion played an important part in their migration.57 On the other hand, we saw that the sacks had a large impact on both Catholics and Protestants and caused economic decline for the city. Therefore it could be possible that religious believes where not a motivation for all the artists to pack their belongings. If we look at the destinations the Mechelen artist move to this period we see that a similar pattern is visible in the first two periods (Figure 4 & Figure 5). In both periods the largest part of the migrants move to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Delft or Brussels. The fact that this is characteristic for both periods, can suggest that the painters used migrant networks.
56 Van Miegroet, (2014). 57 Hendrick Thys, Jacques van den Weyer, Jan van der Schooten, Matthijs van Pastenaken, Augustijn van Pastenaken, Hans Verlinden, Cornelis van Pastenaken, Pieter Vromans, Jan Vromans, Francois Verhulst and Jan van Tielt
21 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 4 Destination for Mechelen artists between 1540 and 1680
Figure 5 First-stop destination for Mechelen artists between 1540 and 1680.
22 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
After 1609 the migration decreased, which could be dedicated to the The Twelve Year Truce, which was introduced in that year and lasted until 1621.58
In Figure 6 we see an overview of the final destinations of the Mechelen artists between 1540 and 1621 from the DALMI database. We see that most of the migrants went to the city of Antwerp. Next to this, the city was also popular as a first stop in the migration process. Antwerp was of course a close option to flea to from Mechelen. But next to this, the painters from Mechelen also got help from the city of Antwerp. In the ‘liggeren’ of the Antwerp we can read that special regulations where introduced for 40 Mechelen artists and there family. ‘In ‘t jaer duysent vyfhondert seeventich en twee, doen die stat Mechlen befooft was van die soldaten, den tweeden octobris, soo ‘t blyckt met goeden beschee, hebben d’Ouders van Sinte Lucas toeghelaten die Mechelsche schilders, dat sy hier in stadt saten tot by de veertich, elck voor hem selven gheworckt, d’welck wy haer jonde vryhertich wt caeritaten, sommeghen vel anderhalf jaer lanch noyt boete aen haer versoecht, d’nocht is ghedenckens weyrdt in den tyt de noyts volbroecht.’ In which condition these Mechelen artists arrived in Antwerp becomes clear with the report of the painter Jan Bol, who apparently arrived the city butt-naked.59
After Antwerp, Amsterdam was the most popular final destination for the Mechelen painters. Two well know painter ‘clans’ that moved from Mechelen to Amsterdam are the family Bol and Vinckboons. Not that far behind, with only a couple of painters less is Delft. This is remarkable because Delft was a lot smaller than both Antwerp and Amsterdam. Surprising is the fact that only one painter moved to Haarlem. Traditionally Haarlem, together with Amsterdam, is seen as the preferred destinations for the Flemish artists.60 In the following chapters we will look further into the magnetism of Delft and try to explain why so much artists chose Delft as their new hometown.
58 Next to this, Van Miegroet observes at the same time a rise in the critical mass in Mechelen and a stream in apprentices. 59 F.J. van den Branden, Geschiedenis van de Antwerpse Schilderschool (Antwerpen 1883) 229. 60 Vermeylen (2014) 47.
23 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Furthermore, we can observe that a small group of painters moved back to Mechelen after they left the city. Van Miegroet, suggests that the migration to Brussels was stimulated by the opportunity to work as designer or cartoon producer in the tapestry industry.61 Also Rome is a popular destination for the artists, where they probably moved to learn more about Italian painting.
Figure 6Migration of Mechelen artists by final city of destination (1540-1621).
Who came to Delft? The DALMI database gives us insight in the migration of artists from Mechelen to Delft and other places in Europe. But to fully understand this migration we also have to look at the general, not necessarily artistic, migration from Mechelen to Delft. This is why I composed a database with the data from the marriage documents from the website of the city archive in Delft.62 In this database I included all the marriages that where sealed in Delft between 1580 and 1625 where the grooms or the bride’s origin (or both) is noted as Mechelen. Next to this, I did the same with the marriages of the people originating from Antwerp to make a comparison between the two migration flows. One of the first things that stands out is the large difference in number of marriages between the two cities of origin. Whereas there are 72 ‘Mechelen’ marriages, there are 338 marriages with migrants from Antwerp.63 In Figure 7 & Figure 8 the details of the two databases are summarized.
61 In one of his footnotes (No. 17), Van Miegroet (2014) suggests that the tapestry industry in Antwerp also attracted watercolor painters from Mechelen. 62 Because there was no accessible database of the marriage documents I made use of the search forms on the genealogic website of the archive in Delft
24 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Most of the time the profession of the man is mentioned in the marriage document. In the marriage document where the groom came from Mechelen, this is the case 32 of the 40 times. There is a wide variation of the professions with for instance 2 bakers, 2 tailors, 2 ‘brouwersknechten’ and 4 people working for the army. Next to this there are 5 individuals working in the textile industry, for example recorded as ‘bouratwercker’, ‘(linde)wever’ or ‘saywercker’. But the largest group is the painters with 8 individuals; this is 25% of the known professions.
Figure 7 Composition of the marriages of Mechelen and Antwerp migrants in Delft
In the case of Antwerp we know the profession of 152 from the 159 men that married in Delft. A large part of this group, at least 45 individuals, had various jobs in the textile industry. The most striking fact is that there is only 1 painter among these men, Jacques Francois (married in 1618). This means that from the known professions in these marriage documents only 0,66% was a painter.
We have to keep in mind that this database can not give an overall view on the migration from Mechelen and Antwerp because not all the migrants from these cities married in Delft. Next to this I have no assurance that all the marriage documents from Delft are incorporated in the digital database of the archive in Delft. However, this information can still give us an indication that a considerable amount of the migration from Mechelen was artistic, especially in comparison with the larger migration flow from Antwerp.
25 Leunissen May 2015 2015 May 26 15231 No. Paper Working Figure 8 Number of marriages per year of migrants from Mechelen and Antwerp in Delft. in and Antwerp from Mechelen Figure 8 Number of marriages per year migrants DALMI Leunissen
DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Openness of Delft As shown before, Vermeylen discussed how the new hometown of the migrants should have certain openness and tolerations to enable the settlement of the newcomers. In this paragraph I will take a look how open Delft was for the migrants from the South. This can help us to get an answer on the question why Delft was so popular among the artistic Mechelaren, which I will try to do in the conclusion.
The cities in the Holland noticed that the influx of the Flemish immigrants also brought economic incentives to the local economy. The cities even took measures to attract migrants inside the city walls. At first, when the migration from Flanders started, the magistrate of Delft tried to prevent foreigners to settle inside the city walls scared of Spanish reprisals.64 But in Guicciardini we can read that the city regretted this when the saw that ‘het merckelijk welvaeren der selver steden door dit ontfangen der vreemdelingen’.65 Delft also tried to benefit from the newcomers and signed contracts with several ‘saaiwerkers’ between 1595-1596. This measure was apparently not enough to boost the textile industry in Delft. In 1595 the city approached Flemish textile manufacturers in Leiden to relocate to Delft. They would not only get a settlement bonus of 900 guilders, but also the free workforce, compensation for the moving costs and free accommodation. But when Leiden discovered these briberies, it turned into a conflict in which the States of Holland had to intervene. Delft got permission to attract thirty more ‘meester-saaiwerkers’ from Leiden, but after these they had to search for them elsewhere.
The example above shows how workers in the textile industry where drawn to Delft. But Delft also wanted to attract cultural industry to the city. On December 24, 1592 the city of Delft signed a contract with Francois Spiering, a weaver from Antwerp, to transform the former Agnietenklooster into a tapestry workshop. After the alteration, spaces that previously belonged to the Catholic Church, such as monasteries and cloisters, had no function any more. Spierings workshop will be discussed more elaborately in chapter five.
64 Gustaaf Asaert, 1585. De val van Antwerpen en de uittocht van Vlamingen en Brabanders (Tielt 2004) 160. 65 J. Briels, ‘De emigratie uit de Zuidelijke Nederlanden omstreeks 1540-1621-1630’ in: Opstand en Pacificatie in de Lage Landen. Bijdrage tot de studie van de Pacificatie van Gent (Gent 1976) 205.
27 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Chapter 3. - The painting industry in Delft I his essay about the art of painting in Delft between 1570 and 1650, E.J. Sluijters states the following: ‘Wanneer wij de 17e-eeuwse schilderkunst in Delft trachten te overzien, dan valt het op dat daar de algemene trends in de Hollandse schilderkunst worden gevolgd, zonder dat daarin een vooraanstaande rol wordt gespeeld. Slechts gedurende een korte periode, van ca. 1645 tot ca. 1660, zien wij dat schilders in Delft een kunst produceren, die van zó hoog gehalte is, dat deze plotseling ver boven het provinciale gemiddeld uitgetild wordt. Door het grote talent van een paar schilders die in de i periode in delft werkzaam waren is de benaming ‘Delftse School ‘ een begrip geworden voor de twintigste-eeuwse kunstliefhebber.’ 66 The preference for this short period is also visible in the published literature about the painters in Delft. This is further exenterated by the fact that in this period also one of the most popular and well-known painters from the Golden Age resided in the city, Johannes Vermeer. There is almost no attention for the period before this master was active in Delft, especially the last quarter of the 16th century, much is unknown about this cultural industry. One of the reasons for this is that a great part of the work that was produced this period did not stand the test of time. Next to this a large part of the archival documents from this period were lost. For the period between 1593 and 1613 we only know very little about the composition and activities of the St. Lucas Guild, because the accounts break off in 1593. However, exactly this period was of great importance for the development of the cultural industries in Delft. In his book Artists and Artisans in Delft (1982), Montias names this period The Transition Years, because they form ‘the bridge between medieval and modern Delft’. This period is also the time that most of the migrants from Mechelen settle down in Delft. In this chapter I will start to discuss the developments in Delft and her painting industry. This is of importance for my research to get an idea in which milieu the Mechelen painters landed.
Delft in the 16th century On 3 May 1536 a great fire hit the city of Delft. The fire was caused by several lightning strikes that hit the city, including the wooden spire of the Nieuwe kerk. The fire not only destroyed hundreds of buildings within the city, but also most of the archival documents, concerning the period before the fire, where lost in the flames.67 The devastation of the city is visible in a plan of Delft after the fire, wherein the areas where the fire raged are indicated by a lighter color.
66 E.J. Sluijter, ‘De Schilderkunst van ca. 1570 tot ca. 1650’ in: De stad Delft; cultuur en maatschappij van 1572 tot 1667 (Delft 1981) 172-173. 67 According to some account only 300 buildings, of the more than 2500 in the city, where not damaged by the fire.
28 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
(Figure 9) Soon the reconstruction of the New Church and other edifices started, which led to a great bustle of craft activity in the city.68 This reconstruction also attracted artisans from outside the city walls. According to Montias, 7 glassmakers, 4 sculptors/stone carvers and 1 painter became citizen of Delft. This sounds as a small influx, but for 16th century standards these were large numbers. Next to this, the new activity in the city also attracted painters that stayed in Delft for a shorter amount of time, for instance Maerten van Heemskerck (1498-1574) from Haarlem and Jan van Scorel (1495-1562) from Utrecht.69
Figure 9 Map of Delft after the fire of 1536, Anonymous, after 1536, Oil on paper 92x165 cm (Museum het Prinsenhof, Delft).
But in 1566 a new catastrophe for the cultural life took place: de Beeldenstorm.70 Many small pieces of church decoration could be saved last minute, but most of the larger panels, graven images and altarpieces where annihilated. Six years later, July 1572, the great alteration took place.71 From this moment on Delft joined the revolt against Spain and became protestant.72 In the same year, Willem of Orange settled in the St. Agatha convent, or named de Prinsenhof from that moment on. Different than was the case in Mechelen, the settlement of the Willem of Orange court, until his death in 1585, had almost no impact on the cultural life in Delft.73
68 Montias (1982) 16-17. 69 Walter Liedtke, A View of Delft: Vermeer and his Contemporaries (Yale 2001) 33-37. 70 Montias (1982) 28. 71 Montias (1982) 33. 72 According to Montias this also led tot the secularization of the Guid of St. Lucas. ‘Now that it no longer had to spend its dues on the upkeep and repair of chapel altars and on religious processions, the guild had enough money to spare to help out its members in need and to provide a banquet for the headmen and incoming masters’. Montias (1982) 43-44. 73 B. Kruimink & K. Schuur, ‘Het St. Agathaklooster’ in: I. V. T. Spaander & R.A. Leeuw (red.), De stad Delft. Cultuur en maatschappij tot 1572 (Delft 1979) 40-51, 42; Montias (1982) 42-43.
29 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The St. Lucas Guild in Delft and its regulations In this paragraph I will discuss the history and its regulations of this guild in Delft to get a better view on the acceptance of the Mechelaren and the development of the painting industry in general.
According to Montias, the foundation of the St. Lucas Guild in Delft found place around the same time that the chapels of the new church were vaulted (1434-1435).74 Much more information about the guild before the great fire in 1536 is not there. For the period between 1537 and 1593, the account book of the dean is preserved which can give us an insight, but still fragmented, in the guild life of the 16th century. In 1569 the number of guild brothers was 39, including four headmen. Of these headmen two where glassmakers, one was a sculptor and the other a painter. This illustrates the 16th century domination of the glassmakers in the guild. This was mostly attributed to the rebuilding of the churches with their new glasswork. After the great alteration the public patronage declined, but the growing market for individual consumption regained this. ‘The shift of demand from glass products and sculpture towards painting and decorated earthenware [..] was a consequence of this individualization of demand’75.
After the States General and Spain signed the truce in April 1609, the St. Lucas guilds of several cities in Holland issued new ‘letters’.76 On 11 March 1610, a petition by the painters of Leyden was handed over to the burgomasters and tribunals of the city. In this petition the painters report that in October 1609, ‘some individuals had come here from Brabant and other neighboring places with various paintings which they had sold with the help of the public caller (uytrouper)’. With this the Leyden painters asked for the permission to set up a guild and accept the selling of paintings only on free-market days. Attached to the petition was a previous petition from Amsterdam.
The petition from Amsterdam, dated November 1608 (even before the truce was signed), of the dean and headmen of the St. Lucas Guild in Amsterdam. In this petition the painters reported: ‘A short time ago, some foreigners, who were neither citizens nor members of the guild, had on various occasions sold by public auction and otherwise various kinds of paintings coming from Antwerp and other enemy quarters. [These paintings] as a result of the cunning and ungodly pressure of certain individuals had been sold far above their worth [..] through the introduction or the admittance of such malicious public auctions on the
74 Montias (1982) 13-14. 75 Montias (1982) 48. 76 Montias (1982) 70-73.
30 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
part of foreigners, which will be increasing from day to day, in a short time, this city, yea the whole country, will be flooded with rubbish and the work of poor boy-apprentices, such tat all the painters living here will be adversely affected in the necessary earning of their bread, and also held back in their diligent studies in the art of painting; and yea also the good burghers who on the whole have little knowledge of painting will be cheated’ In Amsterdam the authorities agreed with the request of the cities painters. However, the town authorities of Leiden did not accept the set up of a painter’s guild (‘for the time being’) but forbade non-residents of Leiden to sell paintings outside the free-market days.
Not long after this petition by the painters in Leiden, the members of the painter’s guild in Delft filled in an attestation: ‘Today the 27th of March 1610 there appeared before me Otto van Setten, public notary admitd by the court of Holland and the witness mentioned below: Pieter Ariens, glass- engraver, 47 years old; Mr. Cornelis Jacobsz Delft, 39 years old; and Jan Garbrants de Jongh, 37 years old, painters all living in Delft, and declared by their conscience and salvation in place of oath, at the request of Mr. Cornelis Boissens, painter in the town of Leyden, also on behalf of the other master painters n the aforenamed town, to be aware that, in memory of man, it has been the practice in the town of Delft, among those of the craft of painting or otherwise named St. Lucas Guild, that no one in the trade or craft may exercise any craft or mastery unless he be first and beforehand a citizen of the same town and in the guild of St. Lucas, and that also such persons being from places where the citizens of this town are not free likewise may bring or sell no paintings within this town, except on the yearly and weekly markets, unless they pay a certain fine which has been set from olden times.’
On 29 May 1611, a new guild letter was ordained with the new statutes. Firstly there is listed to which professions these new rules have influence on: ‘alle diegene die haer genere met de schilderconst, hetsij met pincelen ofte andersints, in olijen ofte watervorven, als oock glaseschrijvers, glasemackers, glasevercopers, plattielbackers, tapessiers, borduyrwerckers, plaetsnijders, beeldesnijders werckende in hout ende steen ofte ander substancie, scheemackers, konstdruckers, bouckvercopers, konstvercopers ende schilderievecropers, hoedanich die souden mogen sijn, …’77 One of the most important new regulations is that one can only ‘exercise mastery’ being a citizen of the city and having paid for his entry. Normally this entrance fee was 6 carolus gulden
77 John Michael Montias, , ‘The Guild of St. Luke in 17th-century Delft and the Economic Status of Artists and Artisans’ in: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 9.2 (1977) 93-105, 105.
31 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
but for a foreigner this was the double amount, 12. Also the entrance fee for boy-apprentices (leerjongens) was double, from 1 gulden tot 2 gulden, if it concerned a foreign boy. Next to this, they also introduced no rules to limit the trade with paintings coming from outside the city walls. ‘No one shall bring here from outside any painting or other work comprised under this guild unless he be a guild brother of the same guild, of the same trade’. Exceptions where made for the weekly free-markets and the yearly free-markets. Another exception was made for a period of 48 hours (2 times 24 hours), whereby a daelder of thirty stuivers went to the guild. Also it is stated that foreigner that are coming to the city with paintings, must obtain permission and consent from the lord burgomaster before they could sell the pieces (or cause to sell the same at public auction).
Taking into account an transition period of 19 months, a new list of masters was compound in 1613 (published in 1877 by Obreen in his Archief voor Nederlandsche Kunstgeschiedenis 1). This new master list of the St. Lucas Guild shows almost a hundred registered guild members (including the chair painters). The composition of the various crafts is different than was the case in the middle of the 16th century (Table 1). Despite the fact that the profession of glassmaker (but also engraver or glass dealer) is still well represented, half of the guild members are subscribed as a painter.
Table 1 Composition guild 1613
Painters 45 (39 oil painters & 7 watercolor painter) Glass-engravers, -makers and -sellers 17 Illuminators, print sellers and booksellers 10 Embroiderers 5 Sculptors 7 Faienciers 8 Furniture makers ±5
32 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
A ‘small’ Mechelen in Delft Surprisingly, we can even connect Vermeer to the small town along the Dijle. This since, Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) grew up in a tavern called ‘De Mechelen’ located on the corner of the Great Market and the Oude Manhuissteeg (Old Men’s alley) in Delft.78 Unfortunately the building was destroyed in 1885, but a drawing of the exterior from circa 1730 survived (Figure 10).
Vermeer’s father, Reynier Jansz., bought the place in 1641 from the rich merchants Willem Jansz. Slooting and Pieter van Vliet for the amount of 2.700 guilders. That the inn was not a small residence is apparent by the fact that one had to pay fireplace tax for no less than six hearths. In Vermeer and his milieu (1988) Montias states: ‘In inn, it should be noted, was a nodal point in the social life of the city. Ideally situated on the Great Market Square between the New Church and the Town Hall, Mechelen was a place where townspeople and foreigner gathered to talk about their affairs, exchange political news, and discuss the ideas of the day.’79
Figure 10 detail showing Mechelen from View on the Delft Market Place with stadhuis, Oude and Nieuwe Kerk, Leonard Schenk after a drawing by Abraham Rademaker c. 1730, Engraving 57x98cm (Gemeentearchief, Delft).
78 J.M. Montias, Vermeer and his milieu. A web of social history (Princeton 1988) 72. 79 Montias (1988) 76.
33 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Moreover, Vermeers father was not only herbergier, but also a member of the St. Lucas Guild as an art dealer (subscribed in 1631).80 Reynier probably learned the businesses from his mother Neeltge Gorisdr., who organized lotteries and worked as a secondhand dealer. During his stay at the Mechelen inn, we can also trace back contact with several painters, for instance: Jan Baptist van Fornenburch, Pieter Steenwijck, Balthasar van der Ast, Pieter Groenewegen and Egbert van der Poel. Probably De Mechelen was a meeting place for artists where they could do their shoptalk or discuss other businesses. The location of the inn was not only in the center of the city, but also close to the Guild Hall of the St. Lucas Guild.
The next question is: why was this tavern in Delft named De Mechelen? Is the name related to the influx of artistic Mechelaren into town? This could be the case if the inn was indeed an important meeting and business place for the local artists. First we need to know since when the inn bore this name and who provided it. Was it for instance already called De Mechelen when Reynier bought the place? Or was it Slooting or van Vliet who came up with it? An inventory from 1650 shows, for instance, that Slooting left a legacy with numerous paintings.81 Another reason for the designation could be the origin of Reynier Vermeer’s wife and Johannes’ mother, Digna Baltens (1595-1670). 82 Digna was born in Antwerp and may have had a special connection with the neighboring town. To get an answer to these questions more archival research is necessary. Also a better look at the social networks of Reynier Vermeer, Willem Jans Slooting and Pieter van Vliet could help us to understand why this inn in Delft was named after the city of Mechelen.
80 Montias (1988) 82. 81 A. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, Urkunde zur Geschichte der Holländische Kunst des 16bis 18ten JH vol. 7 (Den Haag 1922) 216. 82 Montias (1988) 13-14.
34 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Chapter 4. - The Mechelen painters in Delft The literature discussing the migration from artists from the southern part of the Low Countries to Holland focuses mostly on the migration to towns like Haarlem and Amsterdam.83 Looking at the data from the research done by DALMI, we noticed that indeed Amsterdam was a preferred destination, but only a very small group of painters sought refuge in Haarlem. However, a large group of the Mechelen artists settled down in Delft. In this chapter we will take a closer look at this group of painters and how they became a part of Delft’s urban fabric. In this chapter I will also discuss one of the Mechelen painters in more detail, Elias Verhulst and the possible influence he had on the painting industry in Delft.
Who are these painters from Mechelen? The database compiled by DALMI gave us 21 names of Mechelen masters that settled down in Delft: • Adriaen Arentsz. • Jan van der Schooten • Adriaen d’Hondecoeter • Matthys van Pastenaken • Niclaes Jansz. d’Hondecoeter • Augustijn van Pastenaken • Hans Claesz. d’Hondecoeter • Cornelis van Pastenaken • Michiel Hack • Pieter van Pastenaken • Pieter Matthys • Jan van Tielt • Servaes • Elias Verhulst • Hendrick Thys • Francois Verhulst • Jacques van der Wyer • Hans Verlinden • Jan van der Burcht • Pieter Ghysbrechts • Louwereyns Verhaegen
35 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Next to this, a couple of other names from Mechelen artists that ended up in Delft where found with the help of Briels biographical information or by going through the registers of marriages on the website of the Delft archive • Pieter Vroomans I (from Walem near Mechelen) • Jan Vromans (from Walem near Mechelen) • Adriaen Hendhout There is also a group of painters, who where not born in Mechelen, but where from parents native in Mechelen. These involve: • Esdras Thys • Jonas van der Burcht • Pieter Vroomans II • Pieter Vroomans III • Jan van der Schooten II • Jan augustijn van Pastenaken • Christiaen van Couwenberg In all these cases the father was also active in the painting industry in Delft. 84 Some of these children where born during the migration process (most of them in Antwerp). It is of importance to include this group of ‘second generation’ Mechelen painters in my research, because they probably inherited some of the Mechelen painter’s tradition from their fathers. Moreover, there is a large probability that they worked as pupils and/or assistants in their father’s workshop. The total brings us on a total of 24 first generation painters from Mechelen and 7 second generation painters from Mechelen parents that are central in this research. The biographical information, archival documents and literature references of all these artists can be found in appendix I (together with other individuals connected to these Mechelen artists that can be of importance for my research).
In Figure 11 we can see at which moment the 24 artists arrived in Delft and if they were active in other cities before. The periods in which each painter was active in the cities derived from the Ecartico database and the archival documents provided by Briels. We can see that Pieter Ghysbrecht Vlam was the first artist (in our research) that moved from Mechelen to Delft, where he was registered as poorter in 1566. The real migration flow from Mechelen artists to Delft got into gear in the 1580’s and stopped already in 1613. This is the moment the regulations for entering the guild became stricter accompanied with higher entrance fees for foreigners (see previous chapter).
84 With exception of Christiaen van Couwenbergh, who’s father was a silversmith in Delft but born in Mechelen.
36 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 11 Migration Pattern of the Mechelen artists in Delft.
37 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Measuring the impact from the Mechelen artists In his socio-economic study on the artists in Delft Montias states: ‘I dare to say that no city of Holland was a dominated by Flemish antecedents as Delft in this early period [1595-1613]’85 Montias based this dominance of ‘Flemish antecedents’ on origin of the artists mentioned on the master list that was compounded in 1613 (N=47).86 In an overview of this he shows that 13 out of the 32 painters (from who we know their origin) originate from Flanders (Figure 12). 87 But if we look at the cities instead of the overarching Flanders, we get a different view on the composition of the master list (Figure 13). Now we see that after Delft, the most guild members inscribed in 1613 are from Mechelen (6 out of the 32). Next to this we see again that Antwerp is only represented by 4 painters, from which one (Pieter Vromans II) is born from Mechelen parents (Pieter Vromans I). This is again a very small amount considering the large migration flow from Antwerp that is visible in the amount of marriage documents.
Another thing that stands out looking at the guild list of 1613 is the number of Mechelaren in the section of watercolor painters. From the seven painters that are listed here, four are born in Mechelen (Adriaen d’ Hondecoeter, Francois Verhulst, Hans Verlinden and Cornelis van Pastenaken) and another two are from the second generation Mechelaren (Pieter Jansz Vroommans and Pieter Pietersz Vroommans). Only one of the painters in this list, Jan Jansz Schootelmans, from Antwerp, cannot be connected to Mechelen. From this large representation of Mechelaren in the branch of watercolor painters we may conclude that these painters must have been influential for the developments in Delft within this technique.
85 Montias (1982) 291. 86 John Michael Montias, ‘Painters in Delft: 1613-1680’ in: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 10.2 (1978-1979) 84-114, 85-87. 87 Including Maastricht
38 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 12 Origin guild members according to Montias (N=32).
Figure 13 Origin guild members according to Montias but Flanders split into different cities (N=32).
39 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
But if we look at Figure 11 again we see that most of the artists from Mechelen where mostly active before the master list was composed, between 1590 and 1610. This means that this master list cannot help us to get a reliable and complete view on the possible impact and domination of the migrants. However, as noted before, there are no (complete) guild records for this early period.
In an attempt to make a reconstruction of the painters milieu between 1550 and 1613 I used the Ecartico database and RKDARtists&88. Here I looked up all painters that where active in this early period and added the place where they were born and the period they were active in Delft (according to Ecartico). For the painters that were administered in the master list between 1613 and 1679 I also used their birthplace and period of activity in Delft as mentioned in Ecartico. This ‘period of activity’ is based on the existence of archival material from which can be derived he was located in Delft at that point of time. The visualization of this data can be found in Figure 14. We have to keep in mind that for some painters only 1 document was available and is because of this only ‘active’ one year, according to this database.89 However this person could be active for a more extensive period than this. Next to this, the origin is determined by the place of birth, where the second generation is not visible as Mechelaren in this visualization.
The light-blue area, on the bottom of the graph, shows the number of Mechelen artists that were active in Delft in each year. We see that in 1590 the Mechelen painters represented almost half of the total number of painters in Delft. After the death of Pieter Mathys van Pastenaken in 1641 the activity of Mechelen painters in delft disappeared completely. Where the number of Mechelen Painters remained almost stable, the next two decennia the total population of painters grew steadily with a high peak in 1613 caused by the new registration of painters in the guild list. We also observe that in the beginning very few painters are born in Delft itself (orange area), this changes around 1600. The group of painters from Delft grows quickly and from 1625 and beyond they are the majority.
88 Both databases contain biographical data of people engaged in the ‘creative industries’ of the Low Countries. Ecartico is an initiative of the University of Amsterdam started in 2010 as part of the research project ‘Economic and Artistic Competition in the Amsterdam art market c. 1630-1690’ by Eric Jan Sluijter and Marten Jan Bok. The scope of the database became wider with the help of Pieter Groenendijk’s lexicon, which contains biographical information from visual artists from the Low Countries between ca. 1350 and 1720.
40 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 14 Artists in Delft with their origin (1550-1679)
Leunissen May 2015 41 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Where did they settle down? The most frequent documents wherein the Mechelaren show up are the Marriage registers. They not only tell us with whom they married, but also the street or neighborhood both lived in. From 23 painters, both 1st and 2nd generation Mechelen artist we know approximately where they lived (Figure 9). Eight of these painters settled down on ‘Oosteynde’ along the channel between the east-gate and the marketplace. Also the streets perpendicular to ‘Oosteynde’ (both north and south) were popular spots for these painters, such as the ‘Vlamingstraet (2)’, ‘Rietveld (3)’ and ‘Gasthuislaan (3)’. Striking is that this is in the neighborhood where Spiering had his tapestry business in the Agnietenklooster. With the help of more archival research we can map the Mechelen artists in more detail and have a better idea of the clusters that arose.
Figure 15 detail Map of Delft, J. Blaeu (Amsterdam 1649).
1. Oosteinde 2. Rietveld 3. Vlamingstraat 4. Gasthuislaan 5. Oosterpoort 6. Oude Markt 7. Agnietenklooster/Spierings workshop
42 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Elias Verhulst We do not know much about the work that the painters from Mechelen produced in Delft. There is only one artist, from whom we know a little bit more about his production: Elias Verhulst. In this paragraph I will discuss his life and career in more detail to get a better view on the work and influence of the Mechelen artists in Delft.
The painter Elias Verhulst was born in Mechelen and married in Delft in 1589 with Katlijne Doudaer, who originated from Antwerp.90 His marriage document states that at the time of his marriage he was living in de Doelstraet in Delft. In his book about Flemish painters in de Dutch Golden Age, Jan Briels designates Elias as the ‘first mentioned still-life painter’. But the only visual image Briels could link to Verhulst is an etching after his design, from 1599 by Hendrick Hondius in which a bouquet of flowers is accompanied by some exotic birds, insects and a turtle (Figure 16). Walter Liedtke discusses how the same kind of compositions was applied by Ambrosius Bosschaert (1573-1621), who was born in Antwerp, but active in Middelburg after 1587 (Figure 17).91 Later the same composition also shows up in the work by Jacob Vosmaer (1584-1641) and Balthasar van der Ast (1593/94-1657), both active in Delft (Figure 18 &
Figure 19).92 Vosmaer was the son of the silversmith Wouter Vosmaer and uncle of Christiaen van Couwenbergh (2th gen. from Mechelen). Often the Antwerp painter Jacques de Gheyn is appointed as his teacher, but Liedtke suggests that there is also a possibility Elias Verhulst acted as such.93
During his visit of Delft in May 1598 the humanist Aernout van Buchell discusses some painters that where active in the city. Next to the painters Michiel van Miervelt and Hubert Grimani he sees Elias Verhulst as one of Delft’s painters worth noting. He describes how he visited Verhulst’s workshop: ‘I saw in the marketplace at the shop of a goldsmith various types of shells and a rather large petrified sea-mushroom. From there we went on to the house of Elias, whose wife showed us pictures painted by him from life of almost all types of flowers. He is also given expressing the forms of shells and animals by the same technique, in very vivid color’. The description suits perfectly with the composition of the etching after Verhulst’s work and the paintings of his ‘followers’.
90 Briels (1987). 91 Liedtke (2001) 40. 92 Liedtke also mentions Harmen Arentsz van Bolgersteyn (ca. 1584-1641) who is recorded as flower painter in the guild list of 1613. ‘His flower pictures must have borne some resemblance to Vosmaer’s, considering that the two artists started out in the genre at about the same time’. Unfortunately none of his paintings survived. Liedtke (2001) 91. 93 Liedtke (2001) 89-91.
43 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
But this account is not the only contemporary document describing Verhulst and his work. The other one is a letter from Anselmus de Boodt (1550-1632) who lived in Prague, to Carolus Clusius (1526-1609) a botanists living in Leiden.94 At the court of Rudolf II in Prague, Anselmus de Boodt collected 728 illustrations of animals, reptiles, birds, fish, insects and plants. His aim was to depict all the creatures of the natural world. In a letter dated Oktober 12, 1602, de Boodt says as following: ‘Toen ik enige jaren gelden te Delft was, was de schilder Craus, die de bloemen had geschilderd, bereid er ook voor mij te schilderen en per stuk vroeg hij niet meer dan zes stuivers. Ik kwam met hem tot een vergelijk en deed een beroep op zijn eerlijkheid door, tijdens mijn afwezigheid, tweehonderd afbeeldingen te bestellen. Toen ik ze in Praag ontving, ontdekte ik dat ze niet alle naar een levend exemplaar waren gemaakt en dat vele door leerlingen waren geschilderd. Daarom liet ik er verder geen meer schilderen. Want het is een zeldzaamheid dat kunstenaars zich eerlijk gedragen en men vindt er geen die nauwgezet werk willen leveren.’95
De albums vanBy doing Anselmus more de research Boodt: geschilderdeon the collection natuurobservatie of Anselmus aande Boodt het Hof I came van Rudolfupon the II tebook Praag (1989) , wherein a complete chapter is dedicated to Elias Verhulst.96 This revealed that there is actually more work from Verhulst preserved. One of the drawings in de Boodt’s collection, depicting a ‘Nachtrave’Figure 20). Looking at the style characteristics, painting techniques and watermarks the (Night Heron), is even provided with Elias Verhulst name: ‘Elias Verhulst fecit’authors of the book assign numerous other drawings to Elias Verhulst or his workshop. These ( drawings are not only depicting birds, but also plants, flowers, fish, animals and combinations (see appendix II).97
94 Marie-Christiane Maselis, Arnout Balis & Roger H. Marijnissen, De albums van Anselmus de Boodt. Geschilderde natuurobservatie aan het Hof van Rudolf II te Praag (Tielt 1989) 50-55. The book also contains intersting analysis of the techniques and materials used for the drawings. 95 Maselis (1989) 205. 96 Maselis (1989) 50-55. 97 Maselis (1989) 51.
44 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 16 Flower piece with birds after a work by Elias Figure 17 Still life with flowers in Wan-li vase, Verhulst, Hendrik Hondius 1591, Etching 620x450mm Ambrosius Bosschaert 1619, oil on copper 31x22,5 cm (Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna). (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam).
Figure 19 Still life with flowers, Balthasar van der Ast Figure 18 Flower vase in niche, Jacob Vosmaer ca. 1615, c.1625, oil on panel 59x43cm (Rijksmuseum oil on panel 77x55cm (private collection). Amsterdam).
45 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
These naturalistic drawings stood in line with miniature painters Hans Bol and Hans Verhagen ‘the mute’. Hans Bol (1534-1593) was born in Mechelen and migrated to Amsterdam during the turmoil.98 During his migration he made stops in Bergen-op-Zoom, Dordrecht and Delft. One of his pupils was Joris Hoefnagel (1542-1601) who also worked at the court of Rudolf II in Prague in the same naturalistic style. Hans Verhagen (1540/45-1554/1600) was born in Mechelen, but mostly active in Antwerp.99 The Grove Encyclopedia of Northern renaissance art suggests that he is the same Hans Verhagen who was active in Rotterdam and Delft around 1600, ’Probably painting cartoons for the tapestry works’. Unfortunately I could not find literature or archival documentation to prove or disprove. His drawing can also be found in the collection of Rudolf II (Figure 21).It is not surprising that exactly these naturalistic painters where perfect for making the cartoons for the tapestries. A lot of the decors contain animals and flowers depicted in a natural way.
Elias Verhulst died in 1601 and was buried on 21 January.100 Elias was not the only Verhulst painter active in Delft. Francois Verhulst, his son, also born in Mechelen, married on July 4, 1602 in Delft with Lijsbeth Arents.101 Just as his father he was living ‘int Rietveld’. In 1612 Francois became ‘poorter’ of Delft and in 1613 he was recording into the St. Lucas guild as a watercolor painter.
98Gordon Campbell, The Grove encyclopedia of Northern Reanissance Art (Oxford 2009). 99Campbell (2009). 100 Briels (1987): Helias Lucasz, schilder int Ryetveldt 101 Maybe family of Adriaen Arentz, a painter from Mechelen?
46 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 20 Night Heron, signed by Elias Verhulst ca. 1600, Gouache (The albums of Anselmus de Boodt volume 5 folio 36).
Figure 21 Drawing of a peacock, Hans Verhagen (the Mute) after 1555, from the codex of natural history drawings from the collection of Emperor Rudolf II (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Wien)
47 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Chapter 5. - The tapestry production of the Northern Netherlands with a focus on Delft
Whereas the tapestry industry was already flourishing in Brussels and the Flemish towns in the 15th century, there are almost no traces of this industry in the northern part of the country. The first, for us known, example of tapestry business is from the Brussels weaver Willem Andriesz. De Raedt in Leiden, who had a workshop as early as 1543.102 But some decennia later, in the period between 1570 and 1620, the industry truly started expanding by the major influx of weavers who settled in the cities of Leiden, Middelburg, Gouda, Schoonhoven, Haarlem, Utrecht, Dordrecht and Delft. Information about these industries is not only handed down by archival documents, but also tapestries that stood the test of time. In this chapter I will discuss how the tapestry industry developed in Delft and also the characteristics of the tapestries from the Northern Netherlands. But first I will start with the historiography and the techniques of the tapestry medium.
Tapestry historiography For a long time scholars neglected the tapestry medium, this despite the important role it played in the art of courts and churches over the centuries.103 In the nineteenth century it was ranked among, the lesser, decorative arts by art historians. The tapestry scholarship began to arise in 1970s and 1980s mainly led by the work by Guy Delmarcel (1941), but it really get of the ground after 1990. Especially with the highly praised exhibitions Art and Magnificence: Tapestry in the Renaissance (2002) and Threads of Splendor: Tapestry in the Baroque (2007) both held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.104 According to Delmarcel and Pascal-Francois Bertrand the scholarship since 1970 can be classified into four groups.105 The first group contains the catalogues of American and European tapestry collections. These publications are descriptive and provide overviews of art historical research. The second and third group include patronage studies and artist-centered approaches. They focus on star artists, patrons and the high-end productions in Brussels and Paris. The fourth and smallest group holds work that contributes to ‘L’histoire de la culture materielle’. According to Koenraad Brosens this survey of the existing literature ‘reveals that the discipline’s ideological agenda was, and still is, very much geared towards challenging the traditional notion that tapestry is a mere
102 Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis & Hillie Smit, European Tapestries in the Rijksmuseum () 175. 103 Koenraad Brosens, ‘Tapestry: luxurious art, collaborative industry’ in: Babette Bohn & James M. Saslow, A Companion to Renaissance and Baroque Art (Sussex 2013) 295-315, 296. 104 Publications: T.P. Campbell (ed.), Art and Magnificence: Tapestry in the Renaissance (New York 2002); T.P. Campbell (ed.), Threads of Splendor: Tapestry in the Baroque (New York 2007). 105 P.F. Bertrand and G. Delmarcel, ‘L’histoire de la tapisserie 1500-1700. Trente-cinq ans de recherche’ in: Perspective. La revue de l’INHA 2(2008) 227-250.
48 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
decorative art of lesser art-historical importance’.106 Next to this, Social economic research of the tapestry industry ‘tend to be sidelined’, states Brosens. He also indicates that another lacunae in the tapestry scholarship is the peripheral centers with a medium-quality production.107
Whereas the extent of the literature on the tapestry industry of the Southern Netherlands is immense, the contrary is true for the scholarly attention for the equivalent in the northern part of the country. The most comprehensive work is by Gerdina van Ysselsteyn: Geschiedenis der tapijtweverijen in de Noordelijke Nederlanden (1936).108 In these two volumes she discusses the development of the tapestry industries in the various cities accompanied by a rich collection of archival documents concerning the industry. Next to this work the industry is only discussed in catalogues discussing tapestries produced in Holland. Examples of such discussions can be found in the work by Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis.109
The techniques of making a tapestry ‘Tapestry is very different from painting. If a painter has twenty guilders, he can execute ten thousand paintings and more. By contrast, to produce one single tapestry, a workshop manager constantly needs a lot of money for the silk threads, the gilt-metal-wrapped threads, and the wages of the weavers.’110 With these words the Brussels tapestry producer Francois van den Hecke (1595/96-1675) tried to convince his client to pay his debts. Indeed one of the characteristics of the tapestry industry its costliness. One of the reasons for this was the great amount of time that was involved in its production. ‘Skilled weavers could produce about half a square meter of tapestry per month’.111 Next to this the materials where costly especially when silk, silver, or gilt-metal-wrapped threads where used. But the most expensive was the labor cost. This was not only the weaver, but also the producer of the cartoons. Finally the producers also faced risk. ‘The recovery of the invested capital was usually slow and often uncertain, creating a heavy burden on future activities’.112
106 Koenraad Brosens, ‘Can tapestry research benefit from economic sociology and social network analysis?’ in: Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans & Katlijne van der Stighelen, Family ties. Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries (?) 43-51. 107 Brosens (2013) 296. 108 G.T. Van Ysselsteyn, Geschiedenis der tapijtweverijen in de Noordelijke Nederlanden. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der kunstnijverheid (Leiden 1936). 109 Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis & Hillie Smit, European Tapestries in the Rijksmuseum (?); Ebeltje Hartkamp- Jonix, ‘Flemish tapestry weavers and designers in the Northern Netherlands: questions of identity’ in: Guy Delmarcel (ed.), Flemish Tapestry Weavers Abroad. Emigration and the founding of manufactories in Europe (Leuven 2002). 110 Jarmila Blazkova & Erik Duverger, Les Tapissiers d’Octavio Piccolomini et le marchand anversois Louis Malo (St.-Amandsberg 1970) 61. 111 Brosens (2013) 297. 112 Brosens (2013) 297-298.
49 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
We can make a distinction between to types of weaving: the low-warp and the high-warp looms.113 The Low-warp loom ‘consisted of two rollers, between which uncolored threads, know as warp threads, were stretched horizontally. The weavers passed handheld shuttles with colored threads, know as weft threads, through the small spaces between the warps, creating a woven version of the full-scale, colored design, know as the cartoon, that was cut into strips which were placed underneath the warp threads’. The cartoons had to be produced in the reversed orientation because the weaver copied the front of the cartoon from the back of the tapestry. This type of production was applied in Brussels, but probably also in the Northern Netherlands. In Paris and Bruges the other method, with high-warp looms, was used. Here the warp threads were not stretched horizontally but vertically. The weaver made an outline of the pattern on the bare warp and the cartoon was hung behind him.
The production of the cartoons The pictorial quality of a tapestry is determined by multiple factors: the quality of the materials, the number of warps per centimeter and the quality of the cartoon.114 According to Campbell, especially in the industrialized Netherlandish tapestry production the cartoon played an important role, because here ‘the weavers had to translate the designs specified by patrons or merchant-entrepreneurs into woven form as quickly, accurately and economically as possible’.115
Before making the cartoons, the overall design of the tapestry could be worked out in the modelli. These modelli where often made by an artist in the patron’s circle. They functioned as a guideline for the merchant and were enlarged to full-scale for the production of the cartoons, mostly by a local artist. ‘There was in principle no reason why the artist responsible for the model could not execute the cartoon. Yet the sheer scale of tapestry cartoons must have ensured that even where a single artist was paid for both designs and cartoons, it would have been the exception that he should actually paint all the cartoons himself.’ In general the amount paid for the cartoons was much more than what was received for the modelli, especially because there was more time involved. 116 Campbell notes that ‘the appearance of the final tapestry owes more to the intervention of the cartoonist than to the designer of the modello’.
113 Campbell (2002) 3-6. 114 Campbell (2002) 2-6. 115 Campbell (2002) 41-49. 116 Examples of this can be found in Campbell (2002) 45.
50 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Cartoons could be executed on paper, but in the Netherlands they frequently used cheap linen instead.117 The last option was especially preferred for more lavish commissions, because these cartoons were more durable and could be used more than once. But the materials and the labor that was necessary also made these linen cartoons more expensive. For the use on a low-warp loom the cartoons were cut into strips and attached to the warp threads. When the weaver finished the section this was wound onto the lower roller of the loom.118 The corresponding cartoon was also wound onto the loom against the face of the tapestry. ‘The paper or other support could be wrinkled or torn, while if the paint surface was too thick it could crack or peel.’ For this reason the watercolor-technique was ideal for the painting of cartoons, instead of the thicker oil paint.119
Southern versus Northern characteristics One of the scholarly debates of Golden Age painting is the degree of influence of the migrated artists from the South on the Northern Netherlandish painting industry. But in the case of the tapestry production it is a completely different situation. Whereas painting was already a common occupation before the influx from the South, this was not the case for the tapestry production. Also the fact that many weavers married with girls from their homeland and stayed in touch with the family they left behind could have led to a closed system of the production. The question is: did the tapestry industry in the Northern Netherlands have his own character?
According to Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis there are some differences that can be observed between Northern and Southern Netherlandish tapestries. This is especially noticeable in the representation of national history and contemporary events.120 For these genres, the glass- painters, cartographer, marine painters and engravers from Holland were very influential. An example of this is the Battle of Bergen op Zoom (1595) by Francois Spiering working in Delft (his workshop will be discussed in following section).121 This tapestry (Figure 22), probably after a design by Hendrick Cornelisz, Vroom, is currently part of the collection of the Zeeuws Museum in Middelburg and was commissioned by the States of Zeeland.122
117 ‘This is hardly surprising, since the Netherlands were the center of the European linen trade’ Campbell (2002) 42. 118 Campbell (2002) 43. 119 ‘In 1462 Tommaso Portinari, the Medici agent in Bruges, wrote to advise Giovanni de’ Medici that if he sent more cartoons from Florence the paint layer should not be too thick. One of the previous cartoons that Giovanni had sent required repainting before it could be used again, because the paint had flaked off.’ Campbell (2002) 43. 120 Hartkamp (2004) 190-191. 121 Hartkamp (2004) 183-185. 122 Katie Heyning, De tapijten van Zeeland (Middelburg 2007).
51 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The difference between the Southern and Northern influence is, according to Hartkamp, also visible in another tapestry from Spierings atelier.123 This work from the Diana series (Figure 23), depicting the death of Niobe’s children, was woven between 1615 and 1625 and was possibly designed by David Vinckboons. Vinckboons was born in Mechelen, but received his training in the North and spent most of his life in Amsterdam. The cartouche in the lower part of the tapestry is inspired by Antwerp prints, next to this some of the grotesques and tendrils are going back to examples from the Southern Netherlands. But the overall organization of the work is, according to Hartkamp, typical of cartouche tapestries that where all made in the Northern Netherlands. Next to this, she discusses that the impact of Dutch landscape painting is evident in Vinckboons design.
By comparing this tapestry with an earlier Diana series from Spierings workshop, Hartkamp shows how the balance shifted between the Flemish artistic tradition and a new Northern Netherlandish identity.124 This series was probably designed by Karel van Mander I in the early 1590s. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam possesses three pieces belonging to a later edition of this series, one of them dated 1610 (Figure 24). These older designs are made in a late Mannerist style that was common in Southern Netherlandish weavings. Next to this the composition of the two series is very different. In the earlier one there are multiple scenes depicted on one tapestry according to the late medieval concept, while in the later tapestry we see a landscape with one scene and a limited number of figures.
Figure 22 The Battle of Bergen op Zoom, Francois Spiering, Delft 1595, probably after the design by Hendrick Cornelisz. Vroom (Zeeuws Museum, Middelburg).
123 This tapestry could be both by Francois or Aert Spierings. Hartkamp (2004) 176-177. 124 Hartkamp (2004) 177-178.
52 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 23 The Death of Niobe’s Childeren, Francois Spiering, Delft, c. 1613-1620, possibly designed by David Vinckboons (Private collection).
Figure 24 Cephalus and Procris, workshop of Francois Spiering, design by Karel van Mander I, c. 1593-1610 Delft, 354x546cm (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam).
53 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Next to this there is a tapestry genre that can only be found in the northern part of the Netherlands: florally patterned tapestries. Although there are also examples of Southern Netherlandish tapestries with small flowers, the so-called millefleurs tapestries, the equivalent in the northern region is fundamentally different.125 Whereas the flowering plants on the millefleurs are shown upright, the flowers on the North Netherlandish tapestries are on stalks and sometimes even with their bulbs. One of the ateliers that was specialized in this genre was that of Maximiliaan de Gucht in Delft (also discussed in later section).126 An example of this genre is a table carpet now exhibited in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (Figure 25). The design of this piece is by Christiaen Gillisz. Van Couwenberg was born in Delft, but his father Gilles van Couwenberg was an art-dealer and silversmith from Mechelen. In the center of the piece the goddess Flora is depicted in a medallion surrounded by different species of flowers and some snails and dragonflies. Examples of these florally patterned tapestries, can also be traced back in four paintings by Vermeer, for example in The Astronomer (1668) (Figure 26).
Figure 25 Table Cover, Maximiliaan van der Gucht c. 1650-1675 Delft, designer Christiaen Gillesz. Van Couwenberg, tapestry 191,5x268cm (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam).
125 Hartkamp (2004) 273-274. 126 Hartkamp (2004); Vibeke Woldbye & C.A. Burgers, Geweven boeket (Amsterdam 1971).
54 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 26 The Astronomer, Johannes Vermeer c.1668 in Delft, oil on canvas 50x45cm (Musée du Louvre, Paris).
Another specialization by Van der Gucht’s workshop was a new kind of landscape tapestry, which he implemented from the mid-1630s on.127 The landscape is no longer structured by architecture or terraced, but composed of trees and prospects along woodland paths and ponds (Figure 27). This type of tapestry is similar to the work from Hendrik van Cammen’s (1603- 1676) workshop in Eghien (near Brussels) (Figure 28). However, Hartcamp thinks there is something unmistakably Dutch about these tapestry landscapes. The massive trees in their almost somber presence resemble the work of Simon de Vlieger, Jacob van Ruisdael and Allard van Everdingen.
127 Hartkamp (2004) 188-189.
55 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Figure 27 Wooded Landscape with the Arms of Bishop Andrzej, Van der Gucht workshop, ca. 1670 Delft (Wawel Cathedral, Cracow).
Figure 28 Wooded Landscape, Hendrik van der Cammen c. 1625-1650, Enghien (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).
56 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Next to this, the organization of the weaving industry in the north was different than in the southern part of the Netherlands.128 In the South they worked with the ‘putting out’ system, which meant that the work was contracted by one central agent to subcontractors who worked off-site in their own homes or in workshops. In the Northern Netherlands this system was abandoned, and workshops were established in larger buildings such as the empty convents and cloisters. ‘They were private enterprises, often supported by subsidies from Dutch town councils but never officially controlled by them, let alone made into state institutions.’129 Another difference within the organization was the distribution of the tapestries. Whereas this was centralized in the Antwerp ‘Tapestry pand’ in the South, there was no central point for selling and/or buying the tapestries in the North.
In the course of the 17th century the influence from the South grew stronger and stronger, especially in the case of wall tapestries with landscapes. 130 Because of this, Holland’s competiveness weakened with regard to Flanders. By the beginning of the 18th century many workshops closed down. The only production that took place was that of smaller items for the interior. At the end of the century even these items where ordered in the South (if there was still demand for them). With this the Northern Netherlandish tapestry industry had come to an end.
The tapestry-industry in Delft
One of the other differences between the tapestries produced in the South with those from the North is the target group for whom the tapestries were intended.131 Whereas the tapestries made in the Southern Netherlands were mostly made for court-life, the clientele for the Northern Netherlandish weaver was the middle class. These enriched burghers in the Dutch towns where not interested in the expensive series but demanded smaller tapestries, cushions and table cloths to decorate their rooms. We see that most of the studios in Holland are of a slighter size, suited for these smaller productions. Exceptions for larger productions were orders by the cities and states which mostly asked for armorial tapestries or representations of glorious events. It is this clientele where the production in Delft (by Francois Spiering and Karel van Mander II) stands out among the rest of the production in Holland. As far as we know, they mostly worked on large tapestry series at the request of foreign courts or important commissions by the states. In this chapter we will take a better look at the tapestry industry in Delft and its main players.
128 Guy Delmarcel, Flemish Tapestry Weavers Abroad (Leuven 2002) 16. 129 Idem. 130 Hartkamp (2004) 191. 131 Heinrich Göbel, Tapestries of the Lowlands (New York 1974) 89-97.
57 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Joost Jansz. Lanckaert The first known name in the tapestry industry in Delft is Joost Jansz. Lanckaert. Basconter. His origin is not known, but the literature discusses possible descent from Flanders. One thing we do know is the fact that in 1598 he married a girl from the South.132 His name first appears in Delft in 1557 as a bass vocalist (Basconter) in church, which ends in 1572 after the prohibition of the catholic service. But a couple of years later he receives 12 schellingen “voor syne moeyten ende tot eene gratuiteyt (verering) dat hy burgemeesteren verthoende seecker tapeserye inhoudende ‘t beleg ende ontset van Leyden ..”. We do not have more records of this order and we cannot be sure if it was ever finalized. Ten years later, Lancakaert and his atelier wove a tapestry, which also shows the siege by Leiden, for the magistrate of Leiden. This tapestry survived the centuries and can still be admired in museum De Lakenhal in Leiden (Figure 29).
Figure 29 The Relief of Leiden, Joost Lanckaert, Delft 1587, after a design by Hans Liefrinck (central field) & Isaac Claesz. Van Swanenburg (the border) (Stedelijk museum De Lakenhal, Leiden).
132 Van Zijl, ‘De Delftse Wandtapijten’ in: De stad Delft; cultuur en maatschappij van 1572 tot 1667 (Delft 1981) 202-209.
58 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The middle part of the tapestry shows a map in bird’s eye view with cities, villages, the Spanish troops and the Beggars. The border of the tapestry is decorated with eight oval cartouches, connected with flower vases and scrollwork. In the right corner the tapestry, it is signed ‘Mr. Jodocus fecit’ with an emblem of the city of Delft. The design of the map is by the cartographer Hans Liefrinck and the decoration of the border is attributed to Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburch. The fact that the magistrate of Leiden chose Lanckaert as the producer of this order can tell us something about Lanckearts reputation. With the execution and design of this tapestry, it perfectly suits in the Southern Netherlandish tapestry tradition.
Francois Spiering The best known tapestry maker of the northern part of the Netherlands was Francois Spiering, who settled in Delft at the end of the 16th century. He was born in 1551, as a son of the Antwerp’s burgomaster Aert Spiering. In this city he started a career in the production and trade of tapestries. During the siege of Antwerp and with that the sack of the tapestry ‘pand’ in 1576, he was one of the biggest victims.133 According to the documents he was missing 22 or 23 pieces of tapestry (all of them ‘Brusselsch werk’) and next to that, separately mentioned, an expensive set depicting the history of Troy.134 Spiering lived and worked in Antwerp until 1579 for sure, but left the city to search for a better life elsewhere.
In his description of the tapestry production in Delft, Ysselstyn discusses a couple of circumstances that could be the reason for Spierings settlement in Delft. Since the influx of the southerners, the processing of wool had become more important. In comparison with Delft, the tapestry production in Gouda was more crowed and was under a different influence by people from Oudenaerde. Another import reason, why Delft was the perfect place to settle was its position close to The Hague, where the States General settled in 1585. Already before Spiering was completely settled in Delft, the first orders from The Hague were already placed. Also the presence of the artists from Mechelen, who are central in this research, can be a reason for Spiering’s choice for Delft. These artists, mostly occupied in the water painting-industry, were perfect for the production of cartoons. The presence of good cartoon-painters was very important for the tapestry production because the quality of the cartoons is very closely linked with the quality of the final tapestry.
133 He was missing: een ‘historie van Hannibal’ van 8 stuks, 2 kamers groenwerk, waarvan er één met een voorstelling van ‘de twaalf maanden’ en één met een voorstelling van de ‘historie van Cyrus’, 3 à 4 losse stukken groenwerk, 4 stuks van de ‘historie van den Verloren Zoon’, te zamen 22 à 23 stuks, allemaal Brusselsch werk. De ‘historie van Troye’ werd als kostbaarste serie apart vermeld. 134 Ysselsteyn 67-68. Together with one of the other robbed victims he traveled to Maastricht and Paris to get his property back but most of them where already vanished.
59 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
In 1582 Spiering married the daughter of a regent in Delft, Maria Menninck Duyst van Voorhout. Only one year later, Maria dies during the birth of her son Frans. A couple of years later, Spiering marries her younger sister Oncommera.135 The next ten years we do not know anything about Spierings activities but in all likelihood he was engaged in the tapestry production on a small scale, as bigger commissions asked for a new approach. On December 24 1592, Spiering signs a contract with the city of Delft for a new space to start his tapestry production, the St. Agnietenconvent. This convent at the east side of the city has not been in use since the reformation and was in dilapidated condition. The city promised to renovated the buildings and finish it before May 1593. But already before Spiering was settled in his new headquarter, he signed several important contracts for tapestry orders (for instance with the Staten of Zeeland and Charles Howard). Because some of the contracts, between Spiering and his clients, are preserved we have more information about his way of doing business and his merchandise.
During his visit to Delft, Arend van Buchell also describes his visit to Spierings atelier. ‘Dezelfde dag hebben wij een bezoek gebracht aan Froncois Spiering, die aan de tering lijdt, naar ik vrees to schande voor de kunst. Hij heeft ons allerlei tapijten laten zien, met voortreffelijke vakkennis vervaardigd, een vorst waardig, waarop men exotische wezens kan zien, voortreffelijk weergegeven met ongekende kunstvaardigheid; ook waren vormen en afbeeldigen van dieren en verschillende figuren te zien zó nauwkeurig geweven dat he tniet ver van voortreffelijke schilderkunst af stond en in levendige kleur alle schilderkunst verre overtrof. Hij pleegt een vierkante el voor 26 gulden of meer te verkopen, overeenkomstig de voortreffelijkheid van het werk (..) Deze Spiering gebruikte zeer veel aantekeningen en voorbeelden van Karel van Mander, woonachtig in Haarlem, een voortreffelijk schilder, (..)’ Two years after van Karel van Manders death in 1606 Spiering hired his son, Karel van Mander the younger, to work for him as a tapestry-designer. Van Mander even moves into Spierings house and lends him money for his wedding. Despite this, Van Mander does not feel appreciated and only a wage slave of Spiering. In 1620 Spierings tapestry production with all the merchandise, cartoons, tools and materials came into possession of Francois Spierings sons: Aert and Pieter Spiering. At that moment there were 38 to 40 servants employed, but the business was not as flourishing as in the beginning.
135 Douwe Wijbenga, Delft: een verhaal van de stad en haar bewoners II (Rijswijk 1986) 169-170.
60 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Karel van Mander the Younger & Aert Spierings One of the problems was the arrival of a new competitor on the tapestry market in Delft. On September 8 1615, Karel van Mander the younger officially started his own tapestry company with the help of Nicolaas Snouckaert and the painter Huybert Jacobsz. Grimani. They bought the abandoned St. Anna cloister on the west side of the city and remodeled it into their own tapestry workshop. Spiering tried to prevent this by going to court and demand van Mander to finish the works he started under his employment.136 On his part, Van Mander tried to hire Spierings employees by offering higher wages. A witness described that it was hard for Van Mander to get ‘fraeij ende constige werkgasten’ (fine and artful workers). He had to pay them seventy to eighty gulden on top of their future wage before they settled down in Delft.137 However, Van Mander the younger succeeded in capturing an important order, consisting of 26 pieces, for the decoration of the big hall in Frederiksborg palace commissioned by the king of Denmark. For this, van Mander traveled to Denmark in 1616 to sign the contracts and make sketches. Within three years, the first 18 big tapestries where delivered still owing 8 smaller pieces.
But already very soon after the start, the collaboration between van Mander, Grimani and Snouckaert ran aground. After the first year, Grimani did not agree with the way of doing business, whereupon Snouckaert bought him out. In 1621, the relation between Van Mander and Snouckaert also went sour. Financially Van Mander’s tapestry business was a mess. Among other things, because he had to compete with Spiering’s quality and prices at all times. Snouckaert demanded his invested money back, but Van Mander was not in the position to do so. On 2 april 1622 Van Mander had to resign his management, which went to Snouckaert’s brother in law Maarten van Bocholt, who’s profession was silk weaving. Van Mander remained in service and was obliged to finish one large and three small patterns every month. Next to this, only one other painter of cartoons was employed.138 Still not content with Van Manders behavior, on 26 september 1622 Snouckaert entered into a tapestry trading company with Aert Spiering. This resulted in more pressure on the relationship between Snouckaert and Van Mander. The tensions came to a climax when Van Mander tried to stab Snouckeart with a knife. A coupe of months later Van Mander died in 1623. The complete inventory of his tapestry workshop, including his employees, moved to Aerts Spierings atelier.139
136 Ysselteyn (1936). 137 Montias (1982) 290. 138 Montias (1982) 290. 139 But the collaboration between the family Spiering and Snouckaert was also not a bed of roses. Snouckaert expected a return from all the money he invested in Spierings Company. This struggle, that led to a court case, ended with Snouckaert’s dead in 1635.
61 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Documents show that the Spierings workshop had a shortage of cartoon painters in 1624. On request of Aert Spiering the painters Jonas van der Burch (28 years old), Pieter Mathijs [van Pastenaken] (56 years old) and Jan Augustijnsz. [van Pastenaken] (31 years old) testified: ‘dat zy inden jaere 1623 ten huyse vande requirant neffens Jaques de Grave hebben continuelycken geheschildert tot 3 April daeraan volgende (..) dat zij geduijrende den voorigen tyt noyt heele stucke aen malcanderen hebben geschildert, maer dat zoo haest alle reysen enich patroon van een stuck gereet was, dat dat selffde hun datelyck es affgehaelt om voor de tapytzyers ondert werck te ghebruycken’ In this document we recognize the names of one first generation and two second generation Mechelaren. According to Montias this shortage of cartoon painters explains why cartoons where used multiple times and many of the tapestries where ‘repeats’. The shortage could be a result from the migration stop from the southern provinces, but also from the plague that raged in Delft the same year. In 1635, Aert Spiering conveys his management to a headman.140 In 1650 he Aert dies blind, weak and childless.
Maximiliaan van der Gucht The end of the tapestry production by Spiering and Van Mander was not the end for the tapestry production in Delft. Some years later the Maximiliaan van der Gucht has his atelier in the former atelier of Spiering, the Agnietencloister.141 Some of his specializations where already discussed in the previous section. According to M.I.E. Van Zijl the type of production of Maximiliaan is very different from Spierings work.142 He states that Van der Gucht’s work is more suitable for the Northern Netherlandish tapestries instead of the Southern Low Countries tradition in which Spiering worked.
Tapestry and the St. Lucas Guild When the St. Lucas Guild was reorganized in 1613 the tapestry makers where included. However, on 19 October 1620 the tapestry makers where excluded from the guild, but were still required to pay the regular death dues. Striking is that from that moment on there is no distinction made between the oil and watercolor painters.143 As we saw before, most watercolor painters where from Mechelen and worked in the tapestry industry. The reason why the tapestry makers left the guild is unknown and is interesting for further research.
140 Ysselsteyn (1936). 141 Maximaliaan could be the headmen who took the management from Aert Spiering but this cannot be said certainly. 142 Van Zijl (1981) 202-209. 143 With the excetption of Claes Engelen who registerd as a watercolor painter in 1625. Montias (1988).
62 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The Mechelen painters in the Delft tapestry industry In 1985 Briels stated the following in an article for the Koninklijke kring voor oudheidkunde, letteren en kunst van Mechelen: ‘Van uitermate groot belang is de influx vanuit Mechelen verder geweest voor de ontwikkeling van de tapijtnijverheid te Delft, die hier vanaf 1592, mogelijk reeds op een eerder tijdstip, door de Antwerpenaar François Spierincx werd gevestigd. De voor deze industrie benodige patroonschilders kwamen voor een groot deel uit Mechelen, wat niet verwondert als men zich realiseert, dat Mechelen rond het midden van de 16de eeuw één van de belangrijkste centra voor kunstnijverheid was.’144 In this paragraph I will discuss the connection between the watercolor painting technique and the tapestry industry. Further I will examine the role of the Mechelen painters in Delft’s tapestry industry
In his essay ‘Why painting?’ James J. Bloom discusses the role of painters in the production industry and the rise of canvas painting.145 As shown before painters played an important part in the production of tapestries, especially in the design. Bloom states: ‘The demand for tapestry cartoons likely encouraged the development of a specialized industry for painters. [..] Linen paintings used as cartoons were frequently purchased by the patrons and used as cartoons were frequently purchased by the patrons and used as substituted for the very tapestries reproduced from their designs.’ This resulted in a secondary market for tapestry cartoons on linen as an inexpensive substitutes for tapestries. In the biography of Rogier van der Weyden (ca. 1400- 1465) Karel van Mander also mentions this practice: ‘At the time it was customary to paint large canvases with large figures, which were used to span rooms like tapestries and they were painted with egg tempera or glue-paint.’146 In his article on the watercolor painters in Mechelen, Korneel Goosens explains the popularity of this phenomenon with an ordinance by Karel V in 1547.147 In this attempt to arrange the tapestry industry on a national scale, the monitoring around the quality of tapestries became stricter. As a way to bypass these stipulations they started to paint tapestries instead of weaving them.
From the 31 painters that are central in this research (both first and second generation painters from Mechelen) at least eleven of them can be directly connected to the design of tapestries.148
144 Briels (1985) 256. 145 James J. Bloom, ‘Why Painting?’ in: Neil De Marchi & Hans J. Van Miegroet (red.), Mapping Markets For Painings In Europe 1450-1750 (Turnhout 2006) 17-34, 23-24. 146 Karel van Mander (1604) Fol. 203r. 147 Goosens (1943) 32-33. 148 1st generation: Jan van der Burch, Hans Claesz. Hondecoeter, Niclaes Jansz. Hondecoeter, August van Pastenaken, Mathijs van Pastenaken, Pieter Mathhijs van Pastenaken, Hans Verlinden & Francois
63 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
The painters must have been ideal for the production of cartoons because they where very familiar with the technique of watercolor painting which was also applied in the production of the cartoons (as discussed before). Next to this, the subject matters that were familiar for these migrants, based on the work of Elias Verhulst and other painters from Mechelen, suited the depictions on the tapestries. There was a rich tradition of naturalistic drawings of animals, birds and plants and vast landscapes. Another reason why the painters from Mechelen were ideal for the work in the tapestry business was there familiarity with painting in series and specialization. ‘There [Mechelen] they employed the method whereby their canvases passed through various hands, one making the faces and hands, the costumes or the landscape.’149 Because of this process innovation, time was saved and with that also money. Most of the cost in the tapestry production process lay in the labor involved. The fact that time could be spared with the production of the cartoons was ideal to keep a good position versus competitors.
Despite the fact that we know that these painters where active in the tapestry industry we do not know a lot about there exact activities. Were they, for example, mostly concerned with the production of cartoons, or were they also allowed to make the modelli? Next to this, one can question if their tapestry work was their full-time job or if they still maintained their painting workshop and must be seen as a kind of ‘freelancer’. The final question is how these Mechelen painters influenced the stylistic developments in the North Netherlandish tapestries. More in- depth research to these individuals (for instances their activities) and the tapestry productions in Delft can possibly give answers to these questions.
Verhulst. 2th generation: Jonas van der Burch, Christiaen van Couwenberg & Jan Augustijn van Pastenaken. 149 Karel van Mander (2004) Fol. 250r.
64 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Conclusion
In this paper we followed a group of 24 painters that moved from Mechelen to Delft between 1566 and 1613. The aim of this paper was to get a better understanding of this artistic migration and the painters settlement in Delft. Next to this, we tried to get an understanding why Delft was such a popular destination for the Mechelen painters. In this concluding chapter I will discuss the findings from the previous chapters and try to answer these questions.
We tried to explain the motives and destination of the migration with the help of migration theory. This framework showed that the religious turmoil at the end of the 16th century was probably not the only motive for the Mechelaren to leave the city. Most of the time religious, political, social and economical reasons are intertwined. The first artist from Mechelen arrived in Delft in 1566, but the main flow occurred in the 1580’s and 1590’s. The migration to Delft stopped abruptly in 1613, which was probably caused by the new, stricter guild regulations in Delft. Next to this the Twelve-year Truce in resulted in more peaceful climate in the South.
We saw that the Mechelen painters that migrated to Delft fled from a city with an interesting creative industry. There was a massive production of (watercolor) paintings, which were mostly intended for export. The paintings were of low quality and produced quickly with the help of process innovation: such as specialization. The fact that the Mechelen migrants derived from this working method made them perfect for the tapestry industry in which labor cost played an important part in the final expenditure. More important was the fact that the watercolor technique, in which the Mechelaren where specialized, was the most suitable for the production of the cartoons. Further, by looking at the work of Hans Bol and Elias Verhulst we also noticed that the subjects from the Mechelen painting industry (landscapes, animals, birds and plants) are similar to those of tapestries. We also observed that many of the Mechelen Painters settled near Francois Spierings cloister at the northeast side of Delft. More in-depth study into the tapestry industry in Delft can tell us which part the Mechelen painters played in the development of this medium in the Northern Netherlands.
By looking at the master list composed in 1613 we saw that most of the watercolor painters in this list were of Mechelen origin or from Mechelen parents. These painters must have had an influence on this discipline in Delft. However, we also conclude that this master list is not that suitable to look at the role of the Mechelen painters because most of them where active before 1613. Ecartico and RKDarists& helped us to get a first idea about the painters population before
65 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
the guild list. This showed that especially between 1590 and 1610, almost half of the painters population in Delft derived from Mechelen. A closer look at the work of Elias Verhulst and its comparison with the work derived from Delft, suggest that this Mechelen painter was influential for the development of the flower still lives in 17th century Delft. Further research could maybe also shed a light on the work of the other artists from Mechelen that moved to Delft and the impact they had on the painting industry in the city.
Not only the painters themselves are of importance in this research, but also their social connections. In many cases the painters from Mechelen did not settle in their new hometown alone. They were joined by family, apprentices, journeyman etc. By mapping the social network of the painters we can get a better view on how southern migrants became a part of the new society they settled in and the circulation of knowledge that goes along with this.
Why Delft? We saw that after Amsterdam, Delft was the most popular destination in the Northern Netherlands. Next to this almost no painter moved to Haarlem, normally seen as the most popular destination for artists from the South. Why was Delft such a popular destination among the migrating Mechelen artists?
We saw that a lot of the Mechelen migrants were working in the tapestry industry, was it this that lured them to Delft? This is hard to confirm because a lot is unknown about the tapestry industry in Delft at the end of the 16th century. The tapestry of Lanckaert is a sole witness that there was production, but we do not know much more about the size or commissions of his workshop. Also in the case of Spiering there are many uncertainties, he probably married a girl from Delft in 1582, but the first signs of his production in Delft, is his contract with the city for the settlement in the Agnietenklooster. The flow of migration from Mechelen was at this moment already ongoing. Here it comes down to the chicken or the egg dilemma: who was first, and who attracted who? More research to early tapestry industry in Delft could give an answer to these questions.
In chapter three we saw that the St. Lucas guild in the 16th century, for the most part, was represented by glass-workers instead of painters. There is a possibility that this ‘underdevelopment’ of the painting industry attracted the Mechelen painters with the opportunity for a new market for paintings. Next to this we see that there are some early movers, for instance Pieter Vlam (1566), which where followed by a larger group of painters. It
66 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
would be interesting to look into the flow of information between Mechelen en Delft and possible migrant networks between the two cities, but for this we need more archival research into the 24 painters and their connections.
Looking at the need for material for the watercolor painters, the linen, Delft was not the best option for the Mechelaren. At the end of the 16th century the textile industry was in decline, which the city of Delft tried to compensate with the recruitment of southern textile workers. However, this industry was not focused on linen, which was the case in Haarlem.150
One of the similarities between Mechelen and Delft was the presence of a court with in the city walls. Next to this, in 1585 the court moved to The Hague, which is close to Delft. However, I think this had no influence the choice of destination for the Mechelen painters. They were used to produce low quality paintings in a short amount of time. This production was not meant for a court, but rather for ‘normal’ households. In the case of the tapestry industry this was a different case. The Spiering’s clientele was mostly fixated on foreign courts or the States General. It is in this way Spiering benefited of Delft’s location close to the Dutch Court.
The question why Mechelen painters where drawn to Delft is hard to answer because there is a lot of information missing. More in-depth archival research could give us a better insight in the motivations to choose Delft as a new hometown.
This first analysis gives us a view on the artistic migration from Mechelen to Delft and how these painters became a part of the urban fabric. However there is still a lot unknown about their activities in the cultural industries. More in-depth research into this interesting group of painters could give us a better inside in their lives and their impact on the developments in Delfts cultural life of the 17th century.
150 K. van Berkel, ‘Delft als industriestad in de 17e eeuw’ in: I. V. T. Spaander & R.A. Leeuw (red.), De stad Delft. Cultuur en maatschappij tot 1572 (Delft 1979) 79-90, 80.
67 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Bibliography • Asaert, Gustaaf, 1585. De val van Antwerpen en de uittocht van Vlamingen en Brabanders (Tielt 2004). • Bertrand, P.F. and G. Delmarcel, ‘L’histoire de la tapisserie 1500-1700. Trente- cinq ans de recherche’ in: Perspective. La revue de l’INHA 2(2008) 227-250. • Blazkova, Jarmila & Erik Duverger, Les Tapissiers d’Octavio Piccolomini et le marchand anversois Louis Malo (St.-Amandsberg 1970). • Blockmans, W.P., The formation of a political union, 1300-1600. History of the Low Countries (New York 1999). • Bloom, James J., ‘Why Painting?’ in: Neil De Marchi & Hans J. Van Miegroet (red.), Mapping Markets For Painings In Europe 1450-1750 (Turnhout 2006) 17-34. • Bredius, A., Künstler-Inventare, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländische Kunst des 16 bis 18ten JH vol. 7 (Den Haag 1922). • Briels, J.G.C.A., Vlaamse schilders in de noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw (Haarlem 1987). • Briels, Jan, ‘De emigratie uit de Zuidelijke Nederlanden omstreeks 1540-1621- 1630’ in: Opstand en Pacificatie in de Lage Landen. Bijdrage tot de studie van de Pacificatie van Gent (Gent 1976). • Briels, Jan, ‘De emigratie uit Mechelen naar de Noordelijke Nederlanden omstreeks 1572-1630’ in: Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 89 (Mechelen 1986) 243-257. • Brosens, Koenraad, ‘Can tapestry research benefit from economic sociology and social network analysis?’ in: Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans & Katlijne van der Stighelen, Family ties. Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries (2012) 43-51. • Brosens, Koenraad, ‘Tapestry: luxurious art, collaborative industry’ in: Babette Bohn & James M. Saslow, A Companion to Renaissance and Baroque Art (Sussex 2013) 295-315. • Campbell, Gordon, The Grove encyclopedia of Northern Reanissance Art (Oxford 2009). • Campbell, T.P. (ed.), Art and Magnificence: Tapestry in the Renaissance (New York 2002) • Campbell, T.P. (ed.), Threads of Splendor: Tapestry in the Baroque (New York 2007). • Cipolla, Carlo M., ‘The diffusion of innovations in Early Modern Europe’ in: Comparative studies in society and history 14.1 (1972) 46-52. • Cosaert Koen, “De gietindustrie in Mechelen: een economische en culturele situering tot de 18e eeuw’ (2011)
68 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
• De Marchi, Neil & Hans J. van Miegroet, ‘The Antwerp-Mechelen Production and Export Complex’ in: Amy Golahny, Mia Mochizaki & Lisa Vergara (red.), In his Milieu. Essays on Netherlandish art in memory of John Michael Montias (Amsterdam 2006) 133- 147. • Eichberger, Dagmar, ‘A cultural center in the southern Netherlands. The court of Archduchess Margaret of Austria (1480-1530) in Mechelen’ in: Martin Gosman, Alasdair Macdonald & Arjo Vanderjagt (ed.), Princes and princely culture, 1450- 1650 (Leiden 2003) 239-258. • Goossens, Korneel, Een aspect der Beeldende Kunsten: De Waterverfschilderingen te Mechelen in de 16e en de 17e eeuw (Mechelen 1943). • Hartkamp-Jonix, Ebeltje, ‘Flemish tapestry weavers and designers in the Northern Netherlands: questions of identity’ in: Guy Delmarcel (ed.), Flemish Tapestry Weavers Abroad. Emigration and the founding of manufactories in Europe (Leuven 2002) 15-41. • Hartkamp-Jonxis, Ebeltje & Hillie Smit, European Tapestries in the Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam 2004). • Heyning, Katie, De tapijten van Zeeland (Middelburg 2007). • Hilkhuijsen, Jos (red.), ‘750 jaar Delft, de Delftenaren en hun ambachten’ in: Ach lieve tijd, 750 jaar Delftenaren (Zwolle 1995) 247-248. • https://artisticexchangeproject.wordpress.com/ • Kruimink, B. & K. Schuur, ‘Het St. Agathaklooster’ in: I. V. T. Spaander & R.A. Leeuw (red.), De stad Delft. Cultuur en maatschappij tot 1572 (Delft 1979) 40-51. • Lesger, C., ‘Migrantenstomen en economische ontwikkeling in vroegmoderne steden. Nieuwe burgers in Antwerpen en Amsterdam, 1541-1655’ in: Stadsgeschiedenis 1 (2006), 97-121. • Lesger, Clé, Leo Lucassen & Marlou Schrover, ‘Is there a life outside the migrant network? German immigrants in XIXth century Netherlands and the need for a more balanced migration typology’ in: Annales de demographie historique 2 (2002) 29-50. • Liedtke, Walter, A View of Delft: Vermeer and his Contemporaries (Yale 2001). • Lipińska, Aleksandra, Moving Sculptures. Southern Netherlandish alabasters from the 16th to 17th centuries in Central and Northern Europe (Leiden 2015). • Lucassen, J. & L. Lucassen (eds.), Migration, migration history, history: old paradigms and new perspectives (Bern 2005). • Maselis, Marie-Christiane, Arnout Balis & Roger H. Marijnissen, De albums van Anselmus de Boodt. Geschilderde natuurobservatie aan het Hof van Rudolf II te Praag (Tielt 1989). • Massey, D.S. et al, ‘Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal’, Population and development review 19 (1993). • Montias, John Michael, ‘Painters in Delft, 1613-1680’ in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 10.2 (1978-1979) 84-114.
69 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
• Montias, John Michael, ‘The Guild of St. Luke in 17th-century Delft and the Economic Status of Artists and Artisans’ in: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 9.2 (1977) 93-105. • Montias, John Michael, Artists and artisans in Delft. A socio-economic study of the Seventeenth century (1982). • Montias, John Michael, Vermeer and his milieu. A web of social history (Princeton 1988). • Neeffs, Emmanuel, histoire de la peinture et la sculpture à Malines, 3 vols. (Ghent 1876). • Prevenier, Walter, ‘Mechelen rond 1500. Een kosmopolitische biotoop voor elites en non-conformisten’ in: Dagmar Eichberger, Dames met Klasse. Margareta van York & Margareta van Oostenrijk (Leuven 2005) 31-41. • Rau, Hugo, ‘Een beknopt overzicht: emigratie uit Mechelen rond 1585, voornamelijk naar Amsterdam’ in: Tentoonstelling luister en rampspoed van Mechelen ten tijde van Rembert Dodoens 1585-1985 published as part II from: Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 88 (Mechelen 1985). • Rau, Hugo, ‘Mechelse (goud)leermakers in Amsterdam’ in: Tentoonstelling luister en rampspoed van Mechelen ten tijde van Rembert Dodoens 1585-1985 published as part II from: Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 88 (Mechelen 1985). • Sluijter, E.J., ‘De Schilderkunst van ca. 1570 tot ca. 1650’ in: De stad Delft; cultuur en maatschappij van 1572 tot 1667 (Delft 1981) 172-173. • Tilly, Charles, ‘Migration in Modern Europe history’ in: William H. McNeill (ed.), Human Migration. Patterns and Policies (Bloomington 1978). • Van Berkel K., ‘Delft als industriestad in de 17e eeuw’ in: I. V. T. Spaander & R.A. Leeuw (red.), De stad Delft. Cultuur en maatschappij tot 1572 (Delft 1979) 79-90. • van den Branden, F.J., Geschiedenis van de Antwerpse Schilderschool (Antwerpen 1883). • van Dillen, J.G., Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam I (‘s gravehagen 1929). • Van Doorslaer, G., ‘La fabrication de tapisseries artistiques à Malines’ in: Annales de l’Académie de Belgique LXXIII serie 7 (Anvers 1925) 18-109. • Van Mander, Karel, Het schilder-boeck (1604). • Van Miegroet, Hans, ‘New Data Visualizations on the Mechelen Export Industry and Artists Migration patterns’ (Duke University 2014). • Van Zijl, ‘De Delftse Wandtapijten’ in: De stad Delft; cultuur en maatschappij van 1572 tot 1667 (Delft 1981) 202-209. • Vermeylen, Filip, ‘Greener Pastures? Capturing artists’ migrations during the Dutch Revolt’ in: Frits Scholten, Joanna Woodall & Dulcia Meijers, Art and Migration. Netherlandish artists on the move 1400-1750 (Leiden 2014) 40-57.
70 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
• Wijbenga, Douwe, Delft: een verhaal van de stad en haar bewoners II (Rijswijk 1986). • Winter, Anne, Migrants and Urban Change: Newcomers to Antwerp, 1760-1860 (London 2009). • Woldbye, Vibeke & C.A. Burgers, Geweven boeket (Amsterdam 1971). • Ysselsteyn, G.T. Van, Geschiedenis der tapijtweverijen in de Noordelijke Nederlanden. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der kunstnijverheid (Leiden 1936).
71 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
List of figures
Chapter 1 • Figure 30 Court of Savoye, Rombout Keldermans, 1507-1530 (Mechelen). Source: Wordpress
• Figure 31 The Sack of Mechelen by Alva, Frans Hoogenberg, 1572, Etching on paper (prentenkabinet Museum Boijmans van Beuningen). Source:Het Geheugen van Nederland
• Figure 32 The fall of Icarus, Hans Bol, 16th century, watercolor on paper 133x206 mm (Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Antwerp). Source: Web Gallery of Art < http://www.wga.hu/art/b/bol_h/icarus.jpg>
Chapter 2 • Figure 33 Destination for Mechelen artists between 1540 and 1680 Source: DALMI relational database of Mechelen painters and apprentices for the period 1540-1680 in: Hans van Miegroet, ‘New Data Visualizations on Mechelen Export Industry’ Duke University (2014) 7.
• Figure 34 First-stop destination for Mechelen artists between 1540 and 1680. Source: DALMI relational database of Mechelen painters and apprentices for the period 1540-1680 in: Hans van Miegroet, ‘New Data Visualizations on Mechelen Export Industry’ Duke University (2014) 9.
• Figure 35Migration of Mechelen artists by final city of destination (1540-1621). Source: DALMI relational database of Mechelen painters and apprentices for the period 1540-1680
• Figure 36 Composition of the marriages of Mechelen and Antwerp migrants in Delft. Source: Database Mechelen and Antwerp marriages in Delft 1580-1625 (2015).
• Figure 37 Number of marriages per year of migrants from Mechelen and Antwerp in Delft. Source: Database Mechelen and Antwerp marriages in Delft 1580-1625 (2015).
Chapter 3 • Figure 38 Map of Delft after the fire of 1536, Anonymous, after 1536, Oil on paper 92x165 cm (Museum het Prinsenhof, Delft). Source Wikicommons:
• Figure 39 detail showing Mechelen from View on the Delft Market Place with stadhuis, Oude and Nieuwe Kerk, Leonard Schenk after a drawing by Abraham Rademaker c. 1730, Engraving 57x98cm (Gemeentearchief, Delft). Source: website Essential Vermeer < http://www.essentialvermeer.com/delft/delft_today/delft-today- images/mechelen_old.jpg>
Chapter 4 • Figure 40 Migration Pattern of the Mechelen artists in Delft. Source: Database Mechelen and Antwerp marriages in Delft 1580-1625 (2015) & Ecartico.
• Figure 41 Origin guild members according to Montias (N=32). Source: John Michael Montias, ‘Painters in Delft, 1613-1680’ in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 10.2 (1978-1979) 84-114, 86.
72 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
• Figure 42 Origin guild members according to Montias but Flanders split into different cities (N=32). Source: John Michael Montias, ‘Painters in Delft, 1613-1680’ in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 10.2 (1978-1979) 84-114, 86 + 106-107.
• Figure 43 Artists in Delft with their origin (1550-1679) source: Ecartico, RKDArtists& and master list Obeeen.
• Figure 44 detail Map of Delft, J. Blaeu (Amsterdam 1649) source:
• Figure 45 Flower piece with birds after a work by Elias Verhulst, Hendrik Hondius 1591, Etching 620x450mm (Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna). Source: Web Gallery of art < http://www.wga.hu/art/h/hondius1/flowbird.jpg>
• Figure 46 Still life with flowers in Wan-li vase, Ambrosius Bosschaert 1619, oil on copper 31x22,5 cm (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Source website Rijksmuseum:
• Figure 47 Flower vase in niche, Jacob Vosmaer ca. 1615, oil on panel 77x55cm (private collection). Source: Web Gallery of art:
• Figure 48 Still life with flowers, Balthasar van der Ast c.1625, oil on panel 59x43cm (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Source: Website Rijksmuseum
• Figure 49 Night Heron, signed by Elias Verhulst ca. 1600, Gouache (The albums of Anselmus de Boodt volume 5 folio 36). Source: Marie-Christiane Maselis, Arnout Balis & Roger H. Marijnissen, De albums van Anselmus de Boodt (1550-1632). Geschilderde natuurobservaties aan het hof van Rudolf II te Praag (Tielt 1989) 117.
• Figure 50 Drawing of a peacock, Hans Verhagen (the Mute) after 1555, from the codex of natural history drawings from the collection of Emperor Rudolf II (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Wien). Source: website Österreichische Nationalbibliothek < http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/AL00158929>.
Chapter 5 • Figure 51 The Battle of Bergen op Zoom, Francois Spiering, Delft 1595, probably after the design by Hendrick Cornelisz. Vroom (Zeeuws Museum, Middelburg). Source: Wikicommons
• Figure 52 The Death of Niobe’s Childeren, Francois Spiering, Delft, c. 1613-1620, possibly designed by David Vinckboons (Private collection). Source: Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis & Hillie Smit, European Tapestries in the Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam 2004) 179.
• Figure 53 Cephalus and Procris, workshop of Francois Spiering, design by Karel van Mander I, c. 1593-1610 Delft, 354x546cm (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Source: website Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
• Figure 54 Table Cover, Maximiliaan van der Gucht c. 1650-1675 Delft, designer Christiaen Gillesz. Van Couwenberg, tapestry 191,5x268cm (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). Source: website Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
73 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
• Figure 55 Wooded Landscape with the Arms of Bishop Andrzej, Van der Gucht workshop, ca. 1670 Delft (Wawel Cathedral, Cracow). Source: Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis & Hillie Smit, European Tapestries in the Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam 2004) 189.
• Figure 56 Wooded Landscape, Hendrik van der Cammen c. 1625-1650, Enghien (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston). Source: Ebeltje Hartkamp-Jonxis & Hillie Smit, European Tapestries in the Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam 2004) 190.
• Figure 57 The Astronomer, Johannes Vermeer c.1668 in Delft, oil on canvas 50x45cm (Musée du Louvre, Paris). Source: Web Gallery of Art < http://www.wga.hu/art/v/vermeer/03d/28astro0.jpg>
• Figure 58 The Relief of Leiden, Joost Lanckaert, Delft 1587, after a design by Hans Liefrinck (central field) & Isaac Claesz. Van Swanenburg (the border) (Stedelijk museum De Lakenhal, Leiden). Source: website De Lakenhal
74 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Appendix I - Biographical information with references Arentsz, Adriaen * Mechelen ? - + ? ? schilder - 1594 Delft (2 november) Poortersboek: Borge Rombout Andriesz Decker int Oosteynde151 Lit: BRS-97 SAU-05-92 THB-02-08, GD-08 Burcht, Jan Jansz. van der * Mechelen ? - + Delft 1608 Kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper Zoon van: Jan van der Burcht Broer van: Janneke van der Burcht Vader van: Jonas van der Burcht (GD) Schoonbroer van: Niclaes Jans d’Hondecoeter (GD) 1590 Delft (8 april) huwelijk: Jan vanden Burch Philipsz van Mechelen, schilder, woont int Oosteynde ende Maritge Dalhes Pietersdr van Dermonde, mede int Oosteynde.152 1608 Delft (Juni) begrafenis calv. Gemeente: Hans vander Borcht, schilder int Oosteynde (Obiit in Junio 1608)153 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Burcht, Jan van der * Mechelen? ? - + ? ? Schilder Vader van: Jan Jansz. van der Burcht en Janneken van der Burcht Schoonvader van: Niclaes Jans. d’Hondecoeter
Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Burcht, Janneken van der * ? ? - + ? ? - dochter van: Jan van der Burcht zus van: Jan Jansz. van der Burcht echtgenoot van: Niclaes Jansz. d’Hondecoeter - Lit: GD-08 Burcht, Jonas van der * Delft 1594/1595 - + Delft B30-06-1660
151 GA Delft nr. 404 f.75 152 GA Delft DTB 1. 153 GA Delft Lidm. Reg. Herv. Gemeente 203/204
75 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Faienceschilder, plateelbaker, tapijtwever Zoon van: Jan Jansz. van der Burcht Ca. 1624 Delft, gildelid in Delft 1624 Delft (26 maart) verklaring van Jonas van der Burcht, Pieter Pastenax en Jan Augustijnsz Pastenax op verzoek van Aert Spierincx: dat zy inden jaere 1623 ten huyse vande requirant neffens Jaques de Grave hebben continuelycken gheschildert tot 3 April daeraan volgende …, dat zij geduijerende den voorigen tyt noyt heele stucken aen malcanderen hebben gheschildert, maer dat zoo haest alle reysen enich patroon van een stuck gereet was, dat dat selffde hun datelyck es affgehaelt om voor de tapytzyers ondert werck te ghebruycken.154 1625 Delft (September) treedt in het huwelijk vanaf 1680 Delft, plateelbackersknecht in dienst van Abram Durven Inde Porceleynen Schotel.155 Lit: BRS-97 Mon-82 GD-08 Couwenbergh, Christiaen van * Delft 18-09-1605 - + Keulen 04-07-1667 Kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper? Zoon van: Gillis van Couwenbergh Leerling van: Jan van Nes (Delft ca. 1618) 1627 Delft (25 oktober) lid van het gilde 1630 Delft (6 juli) huwelijk met Elisabeth van der Dussen (dochter van de Delftse Burgemeester) 1643 Delft betaald door de stad Delft voor een cartoon.156 Lit: BRS-87, BRS-97, BUI-98, GLD-49, HAA-84, MON-82, SAU-22-99, THB-08-13, WUR-1-06, GD-08 Couwenbergh, Gillis van * Mechelen? 1572 - + Delft B16-10-1633 Edelsmid, kopergraveur, kunsthandelaar Vader van Christeaen van Couwenbergh 1600 Delft huwelijk met Adriana Wouters Vosmaer (dochter van goudsmid Wouter Vosmaer). 1606 poorterschap Delft Lit: BRS-97, SAU-22-99, THB-08-13, GD-08
154 GA Delft Not. 1639. 155 MON-82 308-309 156 W.C. Maier-Preusker, Christiaen van Couwenbergh (1604-1667), Oevre und wandlungen eines Hollandischen Caravaggisten (1991) Wallraf-Richartz jahrbuch 52, pp 163-236. Van Ysselteyn 1936 II no 555
76 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Hac(k)(xs), Michiel * Mechelen ? - + Delft 1594 schilder - 1580 Mechelen, ingeschreven als meester in het St.-Lucasgilde157 1587 Delft (27 september) huwelijk: Michiel Hacxs, gheboren van Mechelen, wewenaer, schilder wonende ande Turfmarct en Lintge Bonits Jonghedochter mede van Mechelen. 1594 Delft (15-18 augustus) overlijden: De huysvrou van Michiel Hack, schylder Inde Vlamingstraet – Michiel Hack, schilder Inde Vlamingstraet158 Lit: BRS-97, THB-15-22, GD-08 Hondecoeter, Adriaen d’ * Mechelen ? - + ? ? waterverfschilder zoon van: Jacob Jansz d’Hondecoeter broer van: Guilliam d’Hondecoeter vader van: Aryen Ariensz. d’Hondecoeter echtgenoot van: Kathelijn Bates 1574 Mechelen, als leerjongen in het gilde van Mechelen opgenomen159 1590 Delft (18 februari) huwelijk: Adriaen Hondekout, jonckgheselle, schilder van Mechelen, woonende aende Oostpoorte ende Katelyn Bates, jongedochter van Boulaer in Vlaenderen, mede int Oosteijnde. 160 1613 Delft opgenomen in meesterlijst Lit: BRS-97, MON-82, THB-17-24, GD-08 Hondecoeter, Annetge Claesdr d’ * - + - Dochter van Nicolaes Jansz. d’Hondecoeter en Janneken van der Burcht Zus van: Hans Claesz. d’Hondecoeter, Gilles d’Hondecoeter en Jannetgen Claesdr d’Hondecoeter 1597 Delft (21 december) ondertrouw: Hendrick Danielsz, schilder, jonckgesel, woonende int Oosteynde ende Annetge Claesdr [de Hondecoeter] van Mechelen woonende int Oosteynde161 1609 Delft (18 mei) passeert testament: Compareerde … Niclaes Jansz de Hondecoutre, schilder, wonende int Oostende binnen der stede Delff, sieckelicken van lichame te bedde leggende … verclaerde voorts hy comparant gequiteert te hebben … tgeene Annetgen Claesdr, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam … schuldich is … Ende belanghende alle zijn coparants vordere goederen daerinne heeft hy testateur tot syne erffgenamen genomineert .. Hans Claesz ende Gilles Claesz ende
157 E. Neeffs (1876) 287-288. 158 Weeskamer voor 1618 inv. 62 nr. 8 f.104 159 H. Coninckx, BCAM XIII (1903), 182. 160 GA Delft DTB 1. 161 GA Delft DTB 2
77 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Annetgen Claes, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam, voorts ende Lijtgen Claesdr, alle vyer syn testateurs kinderen.162 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Hondecoeter, Aryen Ariensz. d’ * Delft? Ca. 1602 - + ? ? Plateelbackersknecht Zoon van: Adriaen d’Hondecoeter - Lit: MON-82 BRS-97 GD-08 Hondecoeter, Gillis d’ * Antwerpen ca. 1575 - + Amsterdam B17-10-1638 Etser, kunstschilder, taxateur Zoon van: Nicolaes Jansz. d’Hondecoeter en Janneken van der Burcht Broer van: Hans Claesz d’Hondecoeter, Jannetgen Claesdr. d’Hondecoeter en Annetge Claesdr d’Hondecoeter 1602 Delft (22 september) huwelijk: Gillis de Hondecouter, schilder, jonckgesel, woonende tot Utrecht, met Maritgen Ghysbrechts (van Rhenen), jongedochter, wonende mede tot Utrecht.163 1609 Delft (18 mei) passeert testament vader: Compareerde … Niclaes Jansz de Hondecoutre, schilder, wonende int Oostende binnen der stede Delff, sieckelicken van lichame te bedde leggende … verclaerde voorts hy comparant gequiteert te hebben … tgeene Annetgen Claesdr, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam … schuldich is … Ende belanghende alle zijn coparants vordere goederen daerinne heeft hy testateur tot syne erffgenamen genomineert .. Hans Claesz ende Gilles Claesz ende Annetgen Claes, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam, voorts ende Lijtgen Claesdr, alle vyer syn testateurs kinderen.164 1628 Amsterdam (2 maart) huwelijk: Gillis de Hondecoutere van Antwerpen, schilder, weduwnaer van Mayke Ghysbrechts, wonende omde hoeck vande Oude Gasthuysbrugh ende Anna Spieringh van Amsterdam, out 20 jaer, geass. met Jacques Spieringhs ende Margriet Hendrix haer ouders, woonende opde Keysersgracht.165 1638 Amsterdam (17 oktober) begraven: Jelis de Hondecouter, Calverstraet by de Kistemakerspant.166 Lit: BRS-87, HAA-84, MAWA-94, THB-17-24, TUR-96, WUR-1-06, GD-08
162 GA Delft Not. 1761 akte 77. 163 GA Delft, DTB 3. GA Delft DTB 90. 164 GA Delft Not. 1761 akte 77. 165 GA Amsterdam, DTB 432 f. 587. 166 GA Amsterdam, weeskamer 1100A f. 31.
78 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Hondecoeter, Guillam d’ * ? ? - + ? ? Schoolmeester Zoon van: Jacob Jansz. d’ Hondecoeter Broer van: Adriaen d’ Hondecoeter 1593 Delft (10 april) ondertrouw: Guillam de Hondecouter van Mechelen, schoolmeester tot Loosduijnen ende Maecken Batens wt Vlaenderen inden Lande van Aelst, woonende int Oosteijnde.167 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Hondecoeter, Hans Claesz. d’ * Mechelen ? - + Delft B06-06-1620 Schilder, tapijtontwerper Zoon van: Nicolaes Jansz. d’Hondecoeter en Janneken van der Burcht Broer van: Gilles d’Hondecoeter, Jannetgen Claesdr. d’Hondecoeter en Annetge Claesdr d’Hondecoeter 1601 Delft (18 november) huwelijk: Hans Claesz de Hondecouter, schilder, jonggesel, wonende int Oosteynde [ende] Sara Rymen, jongedochter, woonende aende Nieuwe Langendijck.168 1609 Delft (18 mei) passeert testament: Compareerde … Niclaes Jansz de Hondecoutre, schilder, wonende int Oostende binnen der stede Delff, sieckelicken van lichame te bedde leggende … verclaerde voorts hy comparant gequiteert te hebben … tgeene Annetgen Claesdr, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam … schuldich is … Ende belanghende alle zijn coparants vordere goederen daerinne heeft hy testateur tot syne erffgenamen genomineert .. Hans Claesz ende Gilles Claesz ende Annetgen Claes, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam, voorts ende Lijtgen Claesdr, alle vyer syn testateurs kinderen.169 1612 Delft (9 juli) poortersboek: Pieter Jansz Vromans van Antwerpen, Hans Claesz de Hondecotere van Mechelen en Jan Jansz vander Schoor, mede van Antwerpen ende alle drye schilders en zyn d’een des anders borghen. Het recht … 9 gulden ontfangen.170 1613 Delft opgenomen in meesterlijst van het St.-Lucasgilde als waterverfschilder171 1615 Delft opgenomen in testament van zijn tante Catharina vander Burcht, overleden in Vlaanderen.172 1620 Delft overleden173 Lit: BRS-97, MON-82, THB-17-24, GD-08
167 GA Delft DTB 2. 168 GA Delft, DTB 3 f.30. 169 GA Delft Not. 1761 akte 77. 170 KInv. 115n. 171 F. Obreen, in ANK I (1877/78), 7, 9. 172 BRS-97 KInv. 1218. 173 J. Soutendam, in: ANK 6 (1884/87), 19.
79 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Hondecoeter, Jacob Jansz. d’ * ? ? - + ? ? - vader van: Adriaen d’Hondecoeter; Guilliam d’Hondecoeter 1606 Delft (29 oktober) huwelijk: Jacob Jansz. de Hondecoutere, weduwnaer, woonende int Cromstraetsteech inde Snouck ende Annetgen Michielsdr vande Water, weduwe.174 Lit: BRS-97 Hondecoeter, Jannetgen Claesdr d’ * - + - Dochter van Nicolaes Jansz. d’Hondecoeter en Janneken van der Burcht Zus van: Hans Claesz. d’Hondecoeter, Gilles d’Hondecoeter en Annetge Claesdr d’Hondecoeter 1605 Delft (29 mei) ondertrouw: Cornelis Hillebrantsen, schilder, jongesel woonende int Oostende ende Jannetgen Claesdr Hondecouter, woonende mede aldaer.175 Lit: BRS-97 Hondecoeter, Nicolaes Jansz. d’ * Mechelen ? - + Delft B22-05-1609 Faienceschilder, kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper Echtgenoot van: Janneken van der Burcht Vader van: Hans Clasesz. d’Hondecoeter, Gilles d’Hondecoeter, Annetge Claesdr d’Hondecoeter en Jannetgen Claesdr d’Hondecoeter 1559 Mechelen, als schilder opgenomen in het St. Lucsasgilde.176 1573 Mechelen, leerling bij hem in de leer. 177 1586 Antwerpen, aanwezig in Antwerpen en verhuist kort daarna naar Delft.178 1600 Delft, woont in oosteinde volgens haertstedengelt.179 1605 Delft, staat borg voor een Hans Jocobsz, wonende te Amsterdam, die een ruimte in het Delftse stadhuis had gehuurd ‘omme daer voor te staen met caerte’.180 1609 Delft (18 mei) passeert testament: Compareerde … Niclaes Jansz de Hondecoutre, schilder, wonende int Oostende binnen der stede Delff, sieckelicken van lichame te bedde leggende … verclaerde voorts hy comparant gequiteert te hebben … tgeene Annetgen Claesdr, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam … schuldich is … Ende belanghende alle zijn coparants vordere goederen daerinne heeft hy testateur tot syne erffgenamen genomineert .. Hans Claesz ende Gilles Claesz ende Annetgen Claes, huysvrouw van Heyndrick Danielsz tot Rotterdam, voorts ende Lijtgen Claesdr, alle vyer syn testateurs kinderen.181 1609 Delft (22 mei) begraven in de Nieuwe kerk.
174 GA Delft DTB 117. 175 GA Delft, DTB 4 176 H. Coninckx, in: BCAM XIII (1903), 182. 177 H. Coninckx, in: BCAM XIII (1903), 182. 178 Liggeren 1 (1872), 304. 179 GA Delft, Haerstedengelt 1600 f.230. 180 BRS-97, MON-82 181 GA Delft Not. 1761 akte 77.
80 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Lit: BRS-97, THB-17-24, GD-08 Matthys, Pyter182 * Mechelen 1568 - + Delft B14-01-1641 Behangschilder - 1612 Delft, Poorter van de stad Delft183 Lit: THB-24-30 Pastenaken, Augustijn van * Mechelen ? - + Delft 1604 Kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper Zoon van: Mathys van Pastenaken Broer van: Cornelis van Pastenaken en Pieter van Pastenaken Echtgenoot van Tryntgen Dysenier (hertrouwt in 1605 met Hans Verlinden) Vader van: Jan Augustynsz Pastenax 1590 Delft (9 Juni) huwelijk: Augustyn Pastynax, jonckgheselle van Mechelen, scilder, wonende aende Haechpoort ende Tryntgen Dysenier mede van Mechelen184 1600 Delft (juni) registratie hervormde gemeente: Stijntghe Jans huijsvrouw van Augustijn Pastinax aende Haechpoort naest het Wapen van Cleeff. Augustijn Pastinax, schilder, woonende naest het Wapen van Cleef bij de Haechpoort.185 1604 Delft overleden Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Pastenaken, Cornelis van * Mechelen? ? - + Delft? Ca. 1630 Bakker, watervefschilder Zoon van: Mathys Pastenax Broer van: Augustyn Pastenax en Pieter Pastenax 1604 Delft (1 Mei) huwelijkse voorwaarden: Huw. Voorwaarden 1 mei 1604 van Cornelis Mathysz, schilder, toecomende bruydegom, in desen geassisteert wesende met Mathys Pastenx mede schilder synen vader ter eenre, ende Styntgen Pietersdr186 1604 Delft (16 mei) ondertrouw: Corneilis Matthysz Pasternaix, schildersgesel, wonende int Noortende end Styntgen Pietersdr.187 1608 Delft (Juni) registratie hervormde gemeente: Cornelis Pastenax, weduwnaer, schilder int Noorteynde naest t’Wapen van Cleve.188 1613 Delft opgenomen in meesterlijst gilde als waterverfschilder189 1621 Delft genoemd als ‘schilder ende backer’190
182 Mogelijk identiek met Pieter Mathysz Pastenakel182 183 GD-08 184 GA Delft, DTB 123 f. 124. 185 GA Delft Lidm. Reg. nr. 203. 186 GA Delft Not. 1530 f. 86 187 GA Delft DTB 4 188 Dec 1604: Stijnge Pieters, huijsvrouw van Corn. Matthijsz, schilder. GA Delft Lidm. Reg. nr. 203. Weeskamer voor 1618, inv. 57 f. 76. 189 F. Obreen, in ANK(1877/78), 7, 11. 190 GA Delft, Not. 1813.
81 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
1625 Delft huwelijk waarbij genoemd word als ‘backer’191 1629-1634 overleden Lit: BRS-97, MON-82, TUR-96, GD-08 Pastenaken, Jan Augustynsz. van * Delft 1593 - + Delft >1624 Kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper Zoon van: Augustyn Pastenax en Tryntgen Dysenier Stiefzoon van: Hans Verlinden 1611 Delft (27 november) huwelijk: Jan Augustynsz. Schilder … ende Catharina Claes, jongedochter van Mechelen.192 1613 Delft ingeschreven in meesterlijst van het schilders gilde 1624 Delft (26 maart) verklaring van Jonas van der Burcht, Pieter Pastenax en Jan Augustijnsz Pastenax op verzoek van Aert Spierincx: dat zy inden jaere 1623 ten huyse vande requirant neffens Jaques de Grave hebben continuelycken gheschildert tot 3 April daeraan volgende …, dat zij geduijerende den voorigen tyt noyt heele stucken aen malcanderen hebben gheschildert, maer dat zoo haest alle reysen enich patroon van een stuck gereet was, dat dat selffde hun datelyck es affgehaelt om voor de tapytzyers ondert werck te ghebruycken.193 Lit: BRS-97, GBL-1-23, MON-82, GD-08
Pastenaken, Matthijs van * Mechelen ca. 1545 - + Delft 1606 Kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper Vader van: Augustijn van Pastenaken, Cornelis van Pastenaken, Pieter van Pastenaken Verwant aan de mechelse familie Waelpot194 1556 Mechelen ingeschreven bij St.-Lucasgilde195 1563 Mechelen genoemd als ‘vuyten slants’196 1572 Mechelen, aanvaard voogdij over de kinderen van Jan van Dievoorde (waarschijnlijk een broer van zijn vrouw Maiken van Dievoorde’ 1586 Antwerpen ingeschreven in gilde197 (gaat hierop volgens terug naar Mechelen) 1589 Delft registratie Calvinistische gemeente: Mathijs Pasternax, schilder, comende van Antwerpen, inde Blauw Schuyte by de Haechpoorte198 1602 Mathys Pastenax, schilder, inde Blau Schuit, met Maiken Pastinax zijn huisvrouw (deze is bijgecomen 1604), Augustijn Pastenax zijn soon, schilder (overleden den 26 jun 1604) ende Styntge Jans zijn huijsvrouw, de weduwe van Augustijn Pastinax woont
191 GA Delft, Not. 1813. 192 GA Delft DTB 2. 193 GA Delft Not. 1639. 194 Een Mathys Waelpot, getrouwd met Susanna Pastenax, was vanaf 1593 organist te ‘s Gravenhage. Th. Bos, in: De Brabantse Leeuw 4 (1955), 84, 88-89, 113-115. 195 H. Coninckx, in: BCAM XIII (1903), 186; XIX (1909), 253, 254. 196 SA Mechelen, handschrift DD S1 nr. 32. 197 Liggeren (1872), 327. 198 GA Delft, Lidm reg. nr. 1.
82 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
inde Prins in Brouwer vant Spoor. Syn soon Cornelis ende frou Cryn Pieters gaen te kercke.199 1606 Delft overleden200 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Pastenaken, Pieter van * Mechelen ca. 1588 - + Delft 1641 Kunstschilder, tapijtontwerper Zoon van: Mathys Pastenax Broer van: Augustyn Pastenax en Cornelis Pastenax 1612 Delft (4 augustus) Poortersboek: Pieter Mathyss, schilder van Mechelen.201 1613 Delft (5 mei) ingeschreven in meesterlijst van het schildersgilde als waterverfschilder (?)202 1620 Delft hoofdman van het gilde203 1624 Delft (26 maart) verklaring van Jonas van der Burcht, Pieter Pastenax en Jan Augustijnsz Pastenax op verzoek van Aert Spierincx: dat zy inden jaere 1623 ten huyse vande requirant neffens Jaques de Grave hebben continuelycken gheschildert tot 3 April daeraan volgende …, dat zij geduijerende den voorigen tyt noyt heele stucken aen malcanderen hebben gheschildert, maer dat zoo haest alle reysen enich patroon van een stuck gereet was, dat dat selffde hun datelyck es affgehaelt om voor de tapytzyers ondert werck te ghebruycken.204 1626 Delft (1 februari) huwelijk: Piet Mathysz Pastenax, schilder, jongesel … ende Cathelyntgen Claes Muijshout van der Welij.205 1626 Delft (juli) gevangen vanwege een buitenechtelijk kind206 1641 Delft overleden Lit: BRS-97, GBL-1-23, MON-82 Schooten, Jan (I) van der * Mechelen ? - + Delft >07-1625 kunstschilder Vader van: Jan (II) van der Schooten Echtgenoot van: Annetgen Dyseniers (zuster van de vrouw van Augustyn Pastenax) 1602 Delft registratie hervormde gemeente: Cllebroerssteech. Hans Scouls, schilder, Brabander, met Annetge Jans Diseliers zijn huijsvrou.207 1609 Delft (15 februari) passeert testament: Testament van Jan Pietersz. Vande Schoote, schilder ende Annetge Jansdr. Designiers zyn huysvrouwe, wonende inde Molsteech, erfgenamen zijn hun kinderen ‘als namentlijck Pouwels .., Jan, Peter vande Schoote.208 1613 Delft, gildelijst St. Lucasgilde als olieverf schilder
199 GA Delft Wijkboekje inv. 300. 200 J. Soutendam in ANK 6 (1884/87), 17, 23. 201 GA Delft Poorterboek 1536-1549 f. 119. Not. 1552 f. 42, 46. 202 J. Montias in simiolus 10 (1978/79), 85, 107, 108. 203 J. Montias in simiolus 10 (1978/79), 85, 107, 108. 204 GA Delft Not. 1639. 205 GA Delft, DTB 105. 206 GA Delft crimineelbouck, inv. nr. 48. 207 GA Delft, inv 300 208 GA Delft Not. 1549
83 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
1624 Delft (13 december) passeert testament: Op 13 dec. 1624 compareerde ‘dEerbare Tryntgen Mathysdr van Weena, weduwe van sal. Jan Jansz. Vander Schoot, schilder … ende Pieter Jansz vander Schoot, schilder, wonende tot Leyde, als procuratie hebbende .. van Jan Pieters vander Schoot, syn ende des voorsz. Overledens vader: zij belooft haar schoonouder 12 gld. Uit de nalatenschap te betalen. 26 juli 1625 verklaren de schoonouders, dit geld ontvangen te hebben en armlastig te zijn.209 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Schooten, Jan (II) van der * Antwerpen ? - + Delft 1624 kunstschilder Zoon van: Jan (I) van der Schooten 1612 Delft, poorter van de stad Delft.210 1615 Delft (19 november) passeert testament: Testament van Jansz vander Schooth, schilder, met Tryntgen Thysendr van Wena, echte man ende wyff, wonende aende oostzyde vande Brabantsche Turfmarckt211 1624 Delft (13 december) passeert testament: Op 13 dec. 1624 compareerde ‘dEerbare Tryntgen Mathysdr van Weena, weduwe van sal. Jan Jansz. Vander Schoot, schilder … ende Pieter Jansz vander Schoot, schilder, wonende tot Leyde, als procuratie hebbende .. van Jan Pieters vander Schoot, syn ende des voorsz. Overledens vader: zij belooft haar schoonouder 12 gld. Uit de nalatenschap te betalen. 26 juli 1625 verklaren de schoonouders, dit geld ontvangen te hebben en armlastig te zijn.212 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Servaes * Mechelen? ? - + Delft B10-04-1601 kunstschilder - 1601 Delft (10 april) begraven in Oude Kerk: Servaes uut Brabant, schilder Int Ryetvelt213 1605 Delft (31 mei) begraven: Lyntgen, weduwe van Servaes de schilder, wonend int Reyervelt214 Lit: BRS-97 Thys, Esdras * Mechelen ? - + ? ? schildersgesel, plateelbackerknecht zoon van: Hendrick Thys 1604 Delft, huwelijk: Esdras Thysen, schildersgesel, gebooren van Mechelen, woonende aende Gasthuyslaen ende Lyntgen Willemsdr, mede woonende aende Gasthuyslaen.215
209 GA Delft, Not. 1613 akte 134 210 F. Obreen, in ANK 4 (1881/82), 282. 211 GA Delft, Not. 1570 212 GA Delft, Not. 1613 akte 134 213 214 J. Soutendam in ANK 6 (1884/87), 4. Waarschijnlijk een dochter was Claertgen Servaes van Mechelen, op 3 sept. 1595 getrouwd GA Delft, DTB 2.
84 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
1612 Delft, verklaring: Jan Jorisz, plateelbackersknecht inde Vlamingstraet end Esdras Thysz, mede plateelbackersknecht inde Leenpoort int Oosteynde, out ontrent xxxij jaren, werckende opde winckel van Abraham Davitsz opte houck vande Nyeuwenlangendijck int Oosteynde216 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Thys, Hendrick * Mechelen ? - + Delft B02-01-1600 schilder, Herbergier vader van: Esdras Thysz. 1561 Mechelen, lid van gilde217 1566 Antwerpen: waard Inde dry Craykens te Antwerpen218 1583 Mechelen (23 mei) meester van het St.-Lucasgilde in Mechelen 1587 Delft (Augustus) registratie hervormde kerk: Heyndrick Tijsz, schilder van Mechelen; augustus 1598: Helena, huijsvrouw van Heijndrick Thijssen, schilder inde Witte Papegaeij aende Gasthuijslaan.219 1600 Delft (2 januari) begraven220 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Tielt, Jan van * Mechelen ? - + Delft ?? schilder - 1556 Mechelen (18 augustus) lid van St. Lucasgilde Mechelen221 1559 Mechelen, neemt een leerling aan 1564 Mechelen, neemt een leerling aan >1564/<1585 verblijf in Antwerpen 1585 Delft (13 Juni) poortersboek: Jan van Tylt, geboren van Mechelen, ghewoont hebbende tot Antwerpen, schilder .. Borch Wouter vande Deurne, apothecaris.222 1585 Delft (Juni) registratie hervormde gemeente: Jan van Thielt ende Catheline Hempers zyn huisvrouw, woonende aende Pontemerct.223 1602 Delft (16 september) passeert testament: Testament van ‘dEersame Jan van Thielt, schilder ende Cathalina Impens, geechte peroonen; getuige is de zilversmid Michiel Woutersz Vosmaer224 Lit: BRS-97, THB-33-39, GD-08
215 GA Delft DTB nr. 3. 216 GA Delft Not. 1764 217 NKL II (1910), 711 218 E. Neeffs (1876), 20, 312-313 219 GA Delft, Lidm. Reg I, 203. 220 J. Soutendam, in ANK 6 (1884/87), 16. 221 E. Neeffs (1876) 284. 222 GA Delft, Poorterboek 1536-1649 f. 56 223 GA Delft Lidm. Reg I 224 GA Delft Not. 1527 f. 176.
85 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Verhaegen, Louwereyns * Mechelen ? - + ? ? Schilder - 1587 Delft (16 augustus) huwelijk: Louwereyns Verhaghen, scilder, jonckgeselle van Mechelen, woonende inde Dronckesteege ende Bayken Nootens, weduwe van Stoffel van Huysten, mede van Mechelen.225 Lit: BRS-97 GD-08 Verhulst, Elias * Mechelen ? - + Delft B21-01-1601 Kunstschilder (bloemenstillevens) Vader van: Francois Verhulst 1589 Delft (12 maart) huwelijk: Helias Verhulst, jonckgheselle van Mechelen, schilder, wonende inde Doelstraet ende Katlijne Doudaer, jonghedochter van Antwerpen, wonende tegen de Oude Kercke.226 1598 Delft (mei) verslag bezoek Arnoldus Buchelius227 1599 Hendrick Hondius vervaardigd gravure naar zijn werk 1600 Delft, haerstedengelt van huis in begijnhof228 1601 Delft (21 Jan) begraven: Helias Lucasz. Schilder int Ryetvelt.229 Lit: BRS-87, BRS-97, THB-34-46, WIME-003, GD-08 Verhulst, Francois * Mechelen ? - + Delft B25-11-1624 Tapijtontwerper, patroonschilder, waterverfschilder Zoon van: Elias Verhulst Ondersteunde tapijtontwerper Pieter Pastenax bij gildelidmaatschap in 1613230 1602 Delft (4 Juli) huwelijk: Francois Verhulst, schilder, jonckgeselle van Mechelen, wonende int Rietvelt ende Lijsbeth Arents.231 1606 Delft (Februari) registratie hervormde gemeente: Francois Verhulst, schilder int Agnietenclooster.232 1612 Delft (21 september) poortersboek: Franchois Verhulst, schilder van Mechelen, werdt poorter gratis.233 1613 Delft opgenomen in meesterlijst gilde als waterverfschilder234 1624 Delft (25 november) begraven235 Lit: BRS-76, MON-82, WIME-003, GD-08
225 GA Delft DTB 123 f. 65 226 GA Delft, DTB 1 f.97 227 G Hoogewerff & J. van Regteren Altena, Arnoldus buchelius ‘Res Pictoriae (1928), 43-44. 228 GA Delft, Haerstendgelt 1600 f.147 229 GA Delft DTB 35. 230 GD-08 231 GA Delft, DTB f.42. 232 GA Delft Lidm. reg. nr. 203. 233 GA Delft Poorterboek 404 f. 119. 234 F. Obreen in: ANK 1(1877/78), 7, 11. 235 GA Delft, register van overlijdens
86 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Verlinden, Hans * Mechelen ? - + Delft B07-02-1624 Tapijtontwerper, waterverfschilder - 1568 Mechelen (juli) vermeld als leerling van Jan de Neve 1581 Mechelen (6 maart) voor het laatst vermeld in gilde Mechelen.236 1594 Rotterdam (6 november) huwelijk: Hans Verlinden, weduwnaer, woont agter het Stadhuijs, met Fransintgen de Witte.237 1602 Rotterdam (14 Juli) huwelijk: Hans Verlinden, weduwnaer van Mechelen, schilder, woont opt Roosant ende Grietgen Jans.238 1605 Rotterdam/Delft (5 Juni) huwelijk: Hans Verlinde, weduwnaer van Mechelen, woont inde Oostewagenstraet ende Styntgen Dijseniers, weduwe Augustyn Pastenaken, woont tot Delft.239 1605 Delft (Augustus) registratie hervormde gemeente: Hans Verlinde van Mechelen, schilder, gecomen van Rotterdam ende wonende aende westzyde vant Noorteynde Inde Prince.240 1613 Delft, opgenomen in meesterlijst van het St.-Lucasgilde als waterverfschilder.241 1624 Delft (7 februari) begraven: Hans vander Linden inde Schoolsteech.242 Lit: BRE-5-18, BRS-97, MON-82, THB-34-46, ZEE-94, GD-08 Vlam, Pieter Ghysbrechtsz * ? ? - + ? ? Illuminator - 1543 Mechelen, wordt lid van het St.Lucas-gilde 1566 Delft, geregistreerd als poorter van de stad Delft Lit: THB-34-46 Vromans, Jan * Walem ? - + Amsterdam 1592 kunstschilder Broer van: Pieter (I) Vromans 1582 Antwerpen, lid van St.-Lucasgilde te Antwerpen en woonachtig in de Lange Ridderstraat.243 1586 Delft (december) registratie hervormde gemeente: Jan Vroemans, schilder int Oosteynde. Zyne huysvrouwe.244 1591 Amsterdam (18 mei) ondertrouw dochter: Ondertrouw 18 mei 1591 van Hans Arentssen van Antwerpen ende Neeltgen Froimonts van Mechelen, oudt xxij jaren,
236 H. Coninckx, in BCAM XIII (1903), 187. SA Mechelen, DD Notices S/I nr. 32. 237 GA Rotterdam DTB 56 f. 140. 238 GA Rotterdam DTB 56 f. 272. 239 GA Rotterdam DTB 56 f. 313. 240 GA Delft, Lidm. Reg 203. 241 F. Obreen in: ANK I (1877/78), 7. 242 GA Delft, Begraafboek nr. 37. 243 Liggeren I (1872), 282-283. 244 GA Delft, Lidmatenreg. Nr. 1.
87 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
woonende in St. Agnete Paterhuus, geass. met Jan Fromonts haer vader ende Mayken van Hove hare moeder.245 1592 Amsterdam (23 Mei) passeert testament: Testament van Jan Fromont ende Mayken van Hove, geechte luyden … Soo hebben zy testateurs geinstitueert by desen Neelken Fromondts hare dochter …, mede geinstitueeert wordt Tanneken Fromonts, die voordochter vande voors. Jan Fromont, testateur, geprocreert by Lysbeth Vlamyncx, erfgenaem te sullen wesen … Aldus gedaen .. op een camer bynnen de huysinge eertyts de pateren van St. Agneeten der voorsz. Stede Amsterdamme.246 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Vromans, Pieter (I) * Walem (bij Mechelen) ? - + Delft ca. 1606 Schilder, tapijt- of plateelnijverheid247 Vader van: Pieter (II) Vromans 1584 Antwerpen, wonende op St. Merten Lombaardsvest, getuige: De kofferschilder Willem Vromans, in 1579 poorter van Antwerpen, was de buurman van Franchoys Hals, de vader van de gelijknamige schilder, op 4 jan 1572 was Catelyn Vromans aldaar getuige bij de doop van een halfzuster van Frans Hals. 1588 Delft (februari) registratie calv. Gemeente: Aencomelinghen Pieter Vromans van Walem, inde Vlamingstraet naest de Coevoet poortgen248 1602 Delft wijkboekje: Cruijerssteech Pieter Fromans, schilder van bij Mechelen249 1603 Amsterdam (17 september): Compareerde Pieter Fromans, schilder, woonachtich in Delff en verklaarde, mede namens zijn broer Sander Vromans te Antwerpen, gelden ontvangen te hebben.250 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08 Vromans, Pieter (II) * Antwerpen? 1577/1578 - + Delft B10-01-1654 Schilder, temperaschilder, tapijt- of plateelnijverheid251 Zoon van: Pieter (I) Vromans 1609 Delft (23 augustus) huwelijk: Pieter Pieterz. Fromans, jongesel, schilder … ende Annecken Jacobs vander Heul252 1612 Delft (17 Juli) poorterboek: Is Pyeter Pyetersz Vromans, schilder van Antwerpen, poorter aangenomen. Borge Salomon Jacobsz vander Heul, aen de Oostsyde vande Verwersdyck.253 1613 Delft opgenomen in meesterlijst onder waterverfschilders254 1625 vermeld als hij 6 gulden ontvangt voor het schilderen van een schoorsteenstuk255
245 GA Amsterdam DTB 406 f. 23. 246 GA Amsterdam Not. 43 f.2. 247 volgens Briels 248 GA Delft Lidmatenreg. Nr. 1 249 GA Delft Wijkboekje 1602 250 GA Amsterdam Not. 55 f. 369 251 volgens Briels 252 GA Delft DTB 4. 253 GA Delft Poortersboek 1536-1649. 254 F. Obreen, in ANK I (1877/78), 2. 255 GD-08
88 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
1641 passeert testament, getuige Jochem de Vries, schilder.256 1653 passeert testament Lit: BRS-97, MON-82, THB-34-46, GD-08 Vromans, Pieter (III) * ? ? - + Delft 1624 Waterverfschilder/historiestukken Zoon van Jan Vromans 1607 Delft, vermeld als schilder in de Hoefeysersteech.257 1612 Delft (9 juli) poortersboek: Pieter Jansz Vromans van Antwerpen, Hans Claesz de Hondecotere van Mechelen en Jan Jansz vander Schoor, mede van Antwerpen ende alle drye schilders en zyn d’een des anders borghen. Het recht … 9 gulden ontfangen.258 1613 Delft, opgenomen als lid van het St. Lucasgilde als waterverfschilder.259 Lit: BRS-97, MON-82, THB-34-46, GD-08 Weyer, Jacques van den * Mechelen ? - + Delft? Ca. 1614260 schilder - 1591 Delft (Augustus) registratie hervormde gemeente: Jacques vande Wyer, schilder van Mechelen, jongeselle, woonende aende Gasthuyslaen Int Witte Peert.261 1591 Delft (3 November) huwelijk: Jaecques vander Wijer, jonckgheselle, schilder van Mechelen, woonende aende Gasthuijslaen ende Anna Idiers, Jonghedochter van Burburch (in Vlaanderen), woonende aende Turffmarckt.262 1602 Delft, genoemd in registratie hervormde gemeente echtgenoot: Annetgen Idiers, huijsvrouw van Jaques van Weijer van Mechelen, schilder, tegenover t’Rietvelt. (idem 1603)263 Lit: BRS-97, GD-08
256 GA Delft, Not. 1690; 2067 257 BRS-97 258 KInv. 115n. 259 F. Obreen, in ANK I(1877/78) 7. 260 A. Bredius in: OH 55 (1938), 274. 261 GA Delft, Lidm. Reg. nr. 1. 262 GA Delft DTB 1 f. 48. 263 GA Delft Wijkboekje inv. Nr. 300. Lidm. Reg. nr. 203.
89 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Literature abbreviations:
BRE-5-18 A. Bredius, Künstler-Inventare, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Holländische Kunst des 16 bis 18ten JH vol. 5 (Den Haag 1917). BRS-87 J.G.C.A. Briels, Vlaamse schilders in de noordelijke Nederlanden in het begin van de Gouden Eeuw (Haarlem 1987). BRS-97 J. Briels, Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands Gouden Eeuw 1585-1630 (Antwerpen 1997). BUI-98 E. Buijsen e.a., Illustrated Index of Painters active in The Hague between 1600-1700, Haagse schilders in de Gouden Eeuw Hoogsteder Lexicon (Den Haag-Zwolle 1998) GBL-1-23 H. Göbel, Wandteppiche I: Die Niederlanden (Leipzig 1923). GD-08 Pieter Groenendijk, Beknopt biografisch lexicon van Zuid- en Noord-Nederlandse schilders, graveurs, glasschilders, tapijtwevers etcetera van ca. 1350 tot ca. 1720 (Leiden 2008).
GLD-49 J. V.G. v. Gelder, ‘De opdrachten van de Oranjes aan Thomas Willebroits Bosschaert en Gonzales Coques’, Oud Holland 1949, 40-56. HAA-84 B. Haak, Hollandse schilders in de gouden eeuw (Amsterdam 1984). MAWA-94 J. de Maere & M. Wabbes, Illustrated Dictionary of 17th century Flemish Painters I-III (Brussel 1994). MON-82 John Michael Montias, Artisans in Delft: A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century (Princeton 1982) SAU-05-92 Saur, Algemeines Künstlerlexikon vol. 5 (München-Leipzig 1992). SAU-22-99 Saur, Algemeines Künstlerlexikon vol. 22 (München-Leipzig 1999). THB-02-08 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 2 (Leipzig 1908). THB-08-13 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 8 (Leipzig 1913). THB-15-22 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 15 (Leipzig 1922). THB-17-24 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 17 (Leipzig 1924). THB-24-30 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 24 (Leipzig 1930). THB-33-39 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 33 (Leipzig 1939). THB-34-46 U. Thieme & F. Becker, Alg. Lex. Der bildenden Künstler, .. vol. 34 (Leipzig 1946). TUR-96 J. Turner (red), The dictionary of art 34 vol. (Londen, New York 1974). WIME-003 A.v.d. Willigen, Fred G. Meyer, A dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters working in oils, 1525-1725 (Leiden 2003). WUR-1-06 A. von Würzbach, Niederländisches Künstler-Lexikon vol. 1 (Leipzig 1906). ZEE-94 Liesbeth v.d. Zeeuw, Naamlijst v. 17e eeuwse R’damse schilders: R’damse meesters uit de Gouden Eeuw, cat. (Zwolle/Rotterdam 1994).
90 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
Appendix II
A. Blauwvoorhoofd amazone, Elias Verhulst ca. 1600, Gouache (The albums of Anselmus de Boodt volume 4 folio 47). Source: Marie-Christiane Maselis, Arnout Balis & Roger H. Marijnissen, De albums van Anselmus de Boodt (1550-1632). Geschilderde natuurobservaties aan het hof van Rudolf II te Praag (Tielt 1989) 111.
91 Leunissen May 2015 DALMI Working Paper No. 15231
B. Varia: Vliegend Hert, Kameelhalsvlieg, Lepidoptera, mier, tweevleugelige, geleedpotige, veldsprinkhaan, diefkever and blauwtje, Elias Verhulst ca. 1600, Gouache (The albums of Anselmus de Boodt volume 7 folio 30). Source: Marie---Christiane Maselis, Arnout Balis & Roger H. Marijnissen, De albums van Anselmus de Boodt (1550---1632). Geschilderde natuurobservaties aan het hof van Rudolf II te Praag (Tielt 1989) 137. Leunissen May 2015
92