Connoisseurship

Essays in Honour of Fred G. Meijer

Edited by Charles Dumas Rudi Ekkart Carla van de Puttelaar

Primavera Pers, – 2020 Contents

Preface 9 Patrons, Benefactors, Donors, Supporters & Contributors 11

Essays 13 Ann Jensen Adams Connoisseurship and the archive: A version of Thomas de Keyser’s Portrait of Dirck van Wissel and his Son Jacob 15 Junko Aono Louis de Moni: Feinmalerei collected by Caroline Louise of Baden 22 Ronni Baer Image of Repentance: Dou’s Magdalen in Princeton 28 Marianne Berardi Missing Mates: Rediscovering a pair of companion paintings by 34 Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones and Eddy Schavemaker The Holy Family: The attribution of Frans van Mieris’s last master-piece 41 Till-Holger Borchert A new hypothesis about the Portrait of Margareta van Eyck 46 Peter van den Brink The miraculous Odyssey of Balthasar van der Ast’s Flowers in a Wanli-Vase 51 Christopher Brown An oil sketch by Anthony van Dyck 57 Martina Brunner-Bulst Zeugnis einer Künstlerfreundschaft: Die Zusammenarbeit von Pieter Claesz. und Roelof Koets 60 Edwin Buijsen Een jeugdwerk van de stillevenschilder Pieter van de Venne? 68 5 Quentin Buvelot Een bloemstilleven van Ludger tom Ring voor het 74 Ellis Dullaart De ‘Meester van de geleende motieven’. Hans Rottenhammer, Jan Brueghel de Oude en Gerard Dou in de mix 81 Charles Dumas Aan Abraham Rademaker toe te schrijven tekeningen in een voor de kunstenaar nogal ongebruikelijke stijl 89 Frederik J. Duparc Een vroege blijk van bewondering voor Ambrosius Bosschaert 116 Rudi Ekkart en Claire van den Donk Abraham Carré in de schijnwerpers 120 Ildikó Ember A recently acquired painting by Theodoor Rombouts in Budapest 128 Wayne Franits A Bravo Examining Cheese: A ‘new’ painting by Gerrit van Honthorst 135 Robert E. Gerhardt High-resolution imagery in the re-evaluation of a Self-Portrait by Michiel van Musscher 140 Jeroen Giltaij Weer nieuwe tekeningen van 148 Emilie Gordenker A bouquet of flowers to celebrate 65 years and counting 156 Karen Hearn ‘Curiously painted, drawn, & understood’: Adriaen Hanneman’s Portrait of Cornelius Johnson and his Wife and Son 163 Frima Fox Hofrichter A fresh look at an old case: The discovery of 171 Holger Jacob-Friesen Concordia. Zur Ikonographie des Handschlags bei Rubens 175 Hanna Klarenbeek Over sinaasappels en prinsenbloemen. Op zoek naar Oranjesymboliek in het werk van Jan Davidsz. de Heem en Elias van den Broeck 182 Wouter Kloek Waarom was geen stillevenschilder? 189 Magdalena Kraemer-Noble Are the still lifes in the Wilanów Palace near Warsaw really by Abraham Mignon? Remarks on their eventful history 198 Susan Donahue Kuretsky Time and Again: Reflections on the flower piece, then and now 205 Suzanne Laemers Het geheugensteuntje van de connaisseur. De zakboekjes van Max Friedländer 214 Norbert Middelkoop Van wijn- tot huidenkopers. De opmerkelijke geschiedenis van een verdwenen groepsportret 221 Uta Neidhardt Eine Distel zum Geburtstag. Ein ungewöhnliches ‘Stillleben’ in der Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister in Dresden 227 Sander Paarlberg ‘eenige liggende en staande Koeijen … als door A. Cuip’. De opleving van het veestuk in Dordrecht rond Jacob van Strij 234 Teresa Posada Kubissa Networking in European painting. Il Pordenone – Salomon de Bray 250 Carla van de Puttelaar in collaboration with Kate Anderson Pendant portraits by Isaack Luttichuys to commemorate a new family, power and loyalty 255 Laurens Schoemaker Jacob van Ruisdael tekent de Kamperbuitenpoort in Amersfoort 269 Christian Tico Seifert A ‘Burgomaster and his wife’ indeed: Two portraits by Identified 275 Eric Jan Sluijter and Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert ’s pupils? The attribution of early drawings to Gerbrand van den Eeckhout and Jan Victors 281 Irina Sokolova Op je gezondheid! De levensgenieter van Isaac Koedijck in de Hermitage, Sint-Petersburg 300 Katlijne Van der Stighelen Het stille leven van fleurige vrouwen: Twee bloemenguirlandes van Michaelina Wautier in context 305 Paul Taylor Four flower photographers 316 Emilie den Tonkelaar Jachttaferelen en wildstillevens uit de zeventiende eeuw opnieuw bekeken 323 Maureen Warren Singular Multiples: Early modern print media and connoisseurship in a digital age 334 Gregor J.M. Weber Ikonographische Korrekturen im Fall zweier politischer Allegorien Jacob de Wits 339 Robert Wenley Salomon van Ruysdael’s A Cavalry Travelling through a Wooded Landscape, 1658 345 Lisanne Wepler One duck doesn’t make an Uiterlimmige – or does it? Motifs as identifying features 351 Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. Clara Peeters’ with Flowers Surrounded by Insects and a Snail: A recent acquisition at the National Gallery of Art 355 7 David de Witt Jacobus Leveck and Rembrandt’s studio: An Old Woman Plucking Fowl 361 Margreet Wolters Liever bloemen dan pap. De ondertekening in twee voorstellingen van Maria met Kind door de Meester van Frankfurt en atelier 367

Biographies of the authors 377 Publications by Fred G. Meijer 387 Tabula Gratulatoria 403 Index 407 Credits 429 Published on the occasion of the 65th birthday of Fred G. Meijer. Details

isbn 978-90-5997-318-3 All details are taken from paintings by Jan Davidsz de Heem (1606-1684). For more information on those paintings, see Edition limited to 650 copies Fred G. Meijer’s forthcoming monograph on the artist based on his doctoral dissertation from 2016. © The authors, 2020 cover: A Still Life upon a Wooden Table Partly Covered with a Green Tablecloth with a Pewter Plate and a Bowl of Wanli Porcelain All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, (c. 1652), oil on panel, 33.3 x 48.5 cm, signed at bottom left: stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by ‘JhDe heem’, Luxembourg, private collection (on long-term any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording loan to mnha, Musée national d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg) or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher and the authors. p. 4: Flowers in a Blue, Ribbed Glass Bottle on a Marble Pedestal (c. 1674), oil on canvas, 94.6 x 73 cm, not signed, Europe, private Authors: Ann Jensen Adams, Kate Anderson, Junko Aono, collection Ronni Baer, Marianne Berardi, Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones, p. 8: Flowers in a Glass Bottle on a Stone Ledge with a Blue Porcelain Till-Holger Borchert, Peter van den Brink, Christopher Brown, Bowl, oil on canvas, 72.8 x 67.8 cm, signed at bottom right: ‘J.D De Martina Brunner-Bulst, Edwin Buijsen, Quentin Buvelot, Heem.R’, Stockholm, National Museum, inv. no. nm6958 Claire van den Donk, Ellis Dullaart, Charles Dumas, Frederik J. Duparc, Rudi Ekkart, Ildikó Ember, Wayne Franits, p. 13: A View of a Pond or Stream, with a Dead Tree Adorned with Robert E. Gerhardt, Jeroen Giltaij, Emilie Gordenker, Flowers to the Right (c. 1665-1670), oil on canvas, 113 x 131 cm, Karen Hearn, Frima Fox Hofrichter, Holger Jacob-Friesen, signed at bottom right (on the stone): ‘J D.De Heem. R’, Vaduz, Hanna Klarenbeek, Wouter Kloek, Magdalena Kraemer-Noble, Prince of Liechtenstein Collection, inv. no. 926 Susan Donahue Kuretsky, Suzanne Laemers, Norbert Middelkoop, Uta Neidhardt, Sander Paarlberg, Teresa Posada Kubissa, p. 375: A Cartouche Still Life of Flowers and Fruit around a Large Carla van de Puttelaar, Eddy Schavemaker, Laurens Schoemaker, Rummer of White Wine in a Niche in a Sculpted Relief (c. 1672), oil Christian Tico Seifert, Eric Jan Sluijter, Nicolette Sluijter-Seijffert, on canvas, 98.5 x 77 cm, signed at bottom right: ‘J.D.De.Heem R’, Irina Sokolova, Katlijne Van der Stighelen, Paul Taylor, United Kingdom, private collection Emilie den Tonkelaar, Maureen Warren, Gregor J.M. Weber, p. 386: A Festoon of Fruit, Hanging from a Nail, Attached by a Blue Robert Wenley, Lisanne Wepler, Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Ribbon (1653), oil on canvas, 85 x 65 cm, signed and dated at David de Witt, and Margreet Wolters bottom centre: ‘J- De heem. ƒ. A° 1653’, Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland, inv. no. 11 Editors: Charles Dumas, Rudi Ekkart, and Carla van de Puttelaar p. 402: Flowers in an Globular Glass Bottle upon a Round Marble Editor in chief/production editor: Charles Dumas Pedestal (c. 1674), oil on canvas, 50 x 40.9 cm, signed at bottom right: ‘J.D D Heem P’, England, private collection English translation Preface: Michael Hoyle p. 406: A Still Life upon a Table Partly Covered with a Blue Tablecloth with a Silver Beaker, a Venetian-Style Wine Glass and a Pewter Plate Portrait photo of Fred Meijer on p. 2: Carla van de Puttelaar, (1652), oil on copper, 38.7 x 56.5 cm, signed and dated at bottom right: ‘J. De heem ƒ Ao 1652’, Knutsford, Cheshire, Tatton Park, inv. no. nt 1298189 Design: Antoinette Hanekuyk (TopicA), Leiden p. 428: A Festoon of Fruit and some Flowers, Hung from a Brass Ring Printing and Binding: Wilco Printing & Binding, Amersfoort and Attached with a Blue Ribbon, in Front of a Nice (c. 1673), oil on canvas, 74 x 60 cm, signed at bottom centre: ‘J.D.De Heem R’, Publisher: Primavera Pers, Leiden; www.primaverapers.nl Amsterdam, , inv. no. sk-a-138

432 A fresh look at an old case The discovery of Judith Leyster

Frima Fox Hofrichter

In the last decade of the nineteenth century, two London Old in The Times as that was the main defense for Hals as the artist – Master art dealers went to court – Queen’s Bench Division (Civ- that it was always thought to be by him. They even claimed the il Court) – in a dispute about a painting sold as a Frans Hals provenance went back to 1630 (the date on the painting) and (fig. 1).1 Indeed, it was argued that the pedigree of the Hals had suggested that Sir Luke Schaub (1690-1758), the first known been impeccable having come from the collection of Lord Bray- owner, may have bought it directly from Hals himself.13 This brooke.2 Further it was claimed that it had been sold as ‘the fin- is not possible as Hals died before Schaub was born, but it in- est work of Hals he [the seller] had ever seen’.3 It also bore a ‘cu- dicates the extent to which those who believed the painting to rious monogram’ at the lower left near the violinist’s shoe (fig. be by Hals were willing to grasp for authenticity. Other dates 2) which was thought to represent ‘all the letters of the name of owners listed in the cited provenance were also false: they F. Hals’.4 However, it was not by Frans Hals (c. 1585-1666), but are indicated as from the seventeenth century when they were by Judith Leyster (1609-1660), and the monogram was hers – a actually from the eighteenth century.14 conjoined J, L and a star. This was the first painting discovered From Schaub it went to William Byron, 5th Baron Byron by Cornelis Hofstede de Groot to be by her.5 Ultimately, the (1722-1798) who, in 1769, sold it to John Griffin Griffin, 4th Bar- case was settled out of court.6 But new information makes pos- on Howard de Walden, 1st Baron Braybrooke (1719-1797), who sible a reassessment of the case. This article intends to adjust housed the painting at the family estate Audley End, outside that limited record. Saffron Walden in . It then went by descent in his family One correction is that the dispute recorded as Lawrie & Co. to Charles Neville, 5th Baron Braybrooke (1823-1902) who sold v. Wertheimer took place in 1893, not 1892 as sometimes previ- it in July 1892 to Charles Wertheimer, who then almost immedi- ously published.7 It was in July 1892 that the painting had been ately sold it to Lawrie still as a Hals.15 purchased by Charles Wertheimer, who then sold it to Thomas Thomas Lawrie’s gallery had only just moved to 15 Old Bond Lawrie († 1904) the following year.8 Street late in 1892 and hosted its inaugural exhibition in March Wertheimer was the name of a family of art dealers with 1893 with a catalogue which included works by Velázquez, two brothers Asher (1843-1918) and Charles (1842-1911), who Romney, Gainsborough, Millet and Corot.16 So it seems that followed in their father, Samson’s (1811-1892) enormously suc- both Charles Wertheimer and Thomas Lawrie had just estab- cessful business. It was only after their father died, in 1892, that lished their new businesses in 1892/93, and although both were each of the sons formed his own separate business.9 Asher’s experienced dealers, Lawrie may have brought the suit, and shop continued at his father’s place, which was a grand gallery Wertheimer challenged it, to better assert themselves and their 171 at 158 New Bond Street; Charles’s business was out of his own reputations in the growing and newly competitive London art home.10 Both dealt in Old Masters and the extent to which they market.17 In any case, the ‘Hals’ is not listed in the Lawrie exhi- may have bought or sold paintings together is not known. bition catalogue, but the painting may have been in the gallery Asher was more prominent in the art community than when Cornelis Hofstede de Groot stopped by, and that is when Charles. He had a wide reputation, held many exhibitions, sold Judith Leyster’s name began to re-emerge in the history of art. paintings to the very rich in Europe and America and is mostly The case came before the court, Queen’s Bench Division, known today as an avid patron of his friend John Singer Sargent with Lord Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice as Judge with a ‘special (1856-1925), who executed twelve large paintings of him and jury’, on May 30, 1893, just two months after Lawrie’s opening family members which were later donated to the National Gal- and only a few more after Charles Wertheimer’s.18 And then lery in London.11 But it is Charles, of whom we know much less, one month after the court case, on July 1st, a lengthy letter by who is mentioned as the defendant in a summary of the case in Hofstede do Groot appeared in The Athenaeum with other small The Times.12 items under the heading ‘Fine-Art Gossip’.19 This never since The subject of the case, the painting now at the Louvre in published letter refers to his forthcoming article ’Judith Ley- Paris, had a rather long provenance for a seventeenth-centu- ster’ – the very article that would disclose her monogram, set ry work. Each known owner bought it and sold it as a work by out a core of her works and note contemporary sources.20 The Frans Hals and the entire provenance up until 1893 was detailed article had been credited as the first time since the seventeenth frima fox hofrichter

172

1. Judith Leyster, Carousing Couple (1630), oil on panel, 68 x 55 cm, monogrammed and dated at bottom left (on the tablecloth):

‘jl [in ligature] —* / 1630’, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. r.f. 2131 frima fox hofrichter a fresh look at an old case: the discovery of judith leyster

century that Leyster’s name is mentioned in connection with any of her paintings. But in his letter to The Athenaeum, Hof­ stede de Groot set out her name, marriage to Jan Miense Mole- naer (1609/10-1668) and the contemporary sources. Of course, the letter is without the scholarly footnotes or facsimiles of her monogram, which did appear in the article, but it seems the name Judith Leyster was set before the public before it ap- peared before scholars. The transcription of Hofstede de Groot’s letter, as it appeared in The Athenaeum:

Dr. C Hofstede de Groot, Assistant Keeper of the Royal Picture Gallery and , writes to us: — Your readers will recol- lect the lawsuit Messrs. Lawrie & Co. v. Wertheimer, which came before the Queens’s Bench Division in the last week of May, re- garding a fine picture ascribed to Frans Hals, which bears in the left-hand corner a perfectly genuine, but unknown monogram, consisting of the letters J, L and a little star. One of the experts tried to demonstrate that, by looking at the monogram from dif- ferent points of view, it could be seen to contain all the letters of the name ‘F. Hals’. This rather ridiculous assertion has been 2. Detail of the painting of fig. 1: the monogram and date upset by the recent discovery of the owner of the monogram, Judith Leyster, a female artist of the school of Frans Hals, and afterwards the wife of the well-known painter of social life Jan and the case not gone to court at all. With a settlement made so Miense Molenaer. She was already celebrated at the date of the disputed picture (1630), and her praises were sung by her coun- quickly (the same day), Wertheimer had probably, by that time, tryman Samuel Ampzing (1628) as well as in the description of been given the same information as Lawrie (even if indirectly) her native town, , by Schrevelius (1647). As her name from Hofstede de Groot, so why challenge the suit? We cannot signifies literally ‘load-star,’ the latter author, making a pun on suggest that this entire case was created just for the publicity for her name, calls her ‘Judith Leyster, a real load-star in art, from the dealers, but it does give one pause. which she takes her name’, and also in the Latin edition of the In any case, it was only after the negotiations, that the jury book, ‘Juditha Leyster, in arte vero Cynosura aut Helice, á qua and Lord Coleridge got a chance to see a photograph of the et nomen gerit’. This circumstance explains the presence of the painting, hear its history and had the monogram pointed out to star accompanying the initial letters of her name. By this disco- them.23 very the hitherto quite unknown artist is placed at once in the The defendant’s representative, Sir Edward Clark, said that first rank amongst the pupils of Frans Hals. Six pictures, all sig- if the case were to have ‘gone on’ (presumably to the jury), they ned except one, are to be ascribed to her. An elaborate article on had been ready to call experts: an ‘artist of celebrity, such as the matter will appear shortly in one of the continental art peri- odicals.21 painter John Millais’, and the painting restorer from the Na- tional Gallery to confirm the Hals name and the painting’s high 173 That he cites Leyster’s name in this letter is important because quality.24 It seems the name Millais was not used randomly by her name was never heard in court. This then is the first time the defense, as the artist had already in 1891, painted a large her name is mentioned in modern times. In court, it wasn’t a portrait of Charles Wertheimer’s wife. question of whether the painting was by Hals or Leyster – just The assertion that even more professionals might have en- whether or not it was by Hals. Presumably Hofstede De Groot tered the case and, indeed, the entire case itself, was mocked in had seen the painting, recognized that he had seen that same other contemporary journals as proof that ‘experts seem to be monogram before and alerted Lawrie that the painting was dangerous advisors’.25 The author cynically, although to some not by Hals. In the end, with the case settled out of court, Law- degree, truthfully, concluded: ‘Internal evidence may show that rie kept the painting, but with an adjusted price. Lawrie had the picture is worth more buying to keep, but it wants more than purchased it for £4500 (Wertheimer had acquired it months this to prove that it is worth buying to sell again’.26 before for £3000), so they compromised at a reduced price; The new and more complete information here concerning Lawrie would pay £3500 plus £500 for court costs.22 As it was Lawrie & Co. v. Wertheimer fills in some questions about this indicated that Lawrie had already paid the £4500, he was get- strange case. Although her name was not mentioned in court, ting £1000 returned and £500 of that was owed to court. This the new attribution to Judith Leyster through the discovery of means that after all, the settlement only netted Lawrie £500. It her monogram, brought notice to her name and her paintings, would seem that this could have been easily negotiated earlier and the ripples of that discovery continue today. frima fox hofrichter

* I would like to thank Kelly Davies, Metadata described in The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3, as for and selling to the American collectors, Specialist at The Getty Research Institute, a ‘connoisseur, in the reign of William iii’. John Pierpont Morgan, Henry Clay Frick and for her help with the research for this article. William iii (1650-1702) reigned 1689-1702, Andrew Carnegie, who would each begin so Schaub could not have been a member of purchasing for their important collections at 1 The case was first recorded in:The Times, his court. William iii was however still king this time. London (31 May 1893), p. 3. It was listed as when Schaub was born. The chronology 18 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. Lawrie and others v. Wertheimer. The body cited is not possible. 19 [Anonymous], ‘Fine-Art Gossip,’ The of material in The Times was also present- 15 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. The Defense Athenaeum. Journal of Literature, Science, ed nearly verbatim in: The British Architect also indicated the painting was bought by The Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama (July- (3 June 1893), p. 379. For the painting, see: Lord Byron in 1678 (and this too is impos- December 1893), p. 39. There is no further F. F. Hofrichter, Judith Leyster. A Woman sible). The (actual) full provenance is as introduction for this note. The previous para- Painter in ’s Golden Age, Doornspijk follows: coll. Sir Luke Schaub (1690-1758); graph deals with Arab coins. 1989 (Aetas Aurea, vol. ix), pp. 46-47, no. 15; his sale London (Langford), 20-28 April 1758 20 Hofstede de Groot 1893 (note 5). J. Foucart, Musée du Louvre. Département des (Lugt 1004), no. 34 (to Byron for £43.1); coll. 21 Of the six paintings Hofstede de Groot refers Peintures. Catalogue des peintures flamandes et William Byron, 5th Baron Byron (1722-1798) to, the five monogrammed pictures are:1 . hollan­daises du musée du Louvre, Paris 2009, (sold to Braybrooke, 1769); coll. John Griffin Carousing Couple (Paris, Louvre) – the disput- p. 173. Griffin, 4th , 1st ed painting under discussion; 2. A copy of 2 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. Baron Braybrooke (1719-1797); by descent no. 1 that seems to be monogrammed with 3 Ibid. coll. his cousin Richard Griffin, 2nd Baron a jh, suggesting her monogram may have 4 Ibid. Braybrooke (1750-1825); by descent coll. his been altered. I have never seen this painting, 5 C. Hofstede de Groot, ‘Judith Leyster’, son Richard Griffin, 3rd Baron Braybrooke but (based on a poor photograph) have con- Jahr­buch der Königlich Preussischen Kunst­ (1783–1858); by descent coll. his son Richard sidered it a workshop copy (Hofrichter 1989 sammlungen 14 (1893) pp. 190-198 and Cornwallis Neville, 4th Baron Braybrooke [note 1], p. 47, no. 15a); 3. The Young Fluteplayer 232. (1820–1861); by descent coll. his brother (Stockholm, Nationalmuseum; ibid., pp. 60- 6 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. Charles Corn­wallis Neville, 5th Baron 61, no. 38); 4. The Proposition (The Hague, 7 As in my article, ‘Eclipse of a Leading Star’, Braybrooke (1823-1902) (sold to Werthei­ Mauritshuis; ibid., pp. 47-48, no. 16); and 5. in: P. Biesboer & J.A. Welu (eds.), exh. cat. mer, 1892); art dealer Charles Wertheimer The Serenade (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum; Judith Leyster. A Dutch Master and her World, (1842-1911) (sold to Lawrie, 1893); art dealer ibid., pp. 38-39, no. 3). The sixth painting, the Haarlem (Frans Halsmuseum) / Worcester, Thomas Lawrie († 1904). For the provenance unsigned one he refers to, which he had not ma (Worcester Art Museum) 1993, p. 117. after 1893, see: Hofrichter 1989 (note 1), seen, is a copy of The Serenade. I also had not 8 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. p. 46. seen it before 1989 and thought this to be by 9 M. Lapine, ‘Asher Wertheimer as art dealer 16 P. Fletcher & D. Israel, London Gallery Project, Leyster (ibid., p. 39, no. 4), but I saw it several and patron: Mixing business with pleasure’, 2007 (revised 2012); http://learn.bowdoin. years ago and now believe it is a copy not in: N. Kleeblatt (ed.), exh. cat. John Singer edu/fletcher/london-gallery/. Lawrie & Co. by her hand. An addendum in Hofstede de Sargent. Portraits of the Wertheimer Family, was instrumental in the purchase of several Groot 1893 (note 5), p. 232, is adding a seventh New York (The Jewish Museum) 1999, paintings, including Vermeer’s Mistress and painting, the monogrammed The Portrait of a p. 48. Maid to Henry Clay Frick. Sulley & Co. would Woman (Haarlem, ; ibid., 10 Ibid., p. 47. take over (or merge with) Lawrie & Co. at the p. 61, no. 39). 11 Kleeblatt 1999 (note 9). He sold them to the turn of the century and later be taken over by 22 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. The British Rothschild Family and the Wideners, among Knoedler. The inaugural catalogue included Architect 1893 (note 1), noted the difference others. They are now at the Tate Britain, Spanish, Dutch and English artists despite its in price from £43 in the eighteenth century London. title: Catalogue of a Loan Collection of Pictures to £3500, 150 years later, writing ‘Good 12 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. Principally of the French School of 1830, London Pictures, like good port, evidently improve 13 Ibid. (Lawrie & Co.) 1893. with keeping’. 14 Sir Luke Schaub was a British diplomat at 17 The London art market for Old Masters at 23 The Times 1893 (note 1), p. 3. several courts in Europe from 1715-1743, the end of the nineteenth century was ex- 24 Ibid. under George i and ii. He was knighted in tremely competitive and included Joseph 25 [Anonymous], ‘The Picture Case’, in: The 174 1720 and could not have met Hals in 1630 as Duveen, Thomas Agnew and Colnaghi. Spectator (3 June 1893), p. 9. Schaub was not yet born in 1630. Yet he was They were especially interested in buying 26 Ibid.