Portraits As Objects Within Seventeenth-Century Dutch Vanitas Still Life

Home , Battle of Portland, Bob Haak (art expert), Boy with Thorn, David Bailly, Museum Bredius, Sic transit gloria mundi

University of Amsterdam Graduate school of Humanities – Faculty of Humanities Arts and Culture – Dutch Art (Masters)

Author: Rukshana Edwards Supervisor: Dr. E.E. P. Kolfin Second reader: Dr. A.A. Witte

Language: English

Date: December 1, 2015

Portraits as Objects within Seventeenth-Century Dutch Vanitas Still Life

Abstract This paper is mainly concerned with the seventeenth-century Dutch vanitas still life with special attention given to its later years in 1650 – 1700. In the early period, there was significant innovation: It shaped the characteristic Dutch art of the Golden Age. The research focuses on the sub-genre of the vanitas still life, particularly the type which includes as part of its composition a human face, a physiognomic likeness by way of a print, painted portrait, painted tronie, or a sculpture. This thesis attempts to utilize this artistic tradition as a vehicle to delve into the aspects of realism and iconography in Dutch seventeenth-century art. To provide context the introduction deals with the Dutch Republic and the conditions that made this art feasible. A brief historiography of still life and vanitas still life follows. The research then delves into the still life paintings with a portrait, print or sculpture, with examples from twelve artists, and attempts to understand the relationships that exist between the objects rendered. The trends within this subject matter revolve around a master artist, other times around a city such as Haarlem, Leiden or country, England. The research looks closely at specific paintings of different artists, with a thematic focus of artist portraits, historical figures, painted tronies, and sculpture within the vanitas still life sub-genre.

Contents Abstract ...... 2

Introduction ...... 4

Chapter 1 – Vanitas portraits to vanitas still life ...... 8

Chapter 2 – The skull as motif and the conventional vanitas objects ...... 13

Chapter 3 – Methodologies and interpretations ...... 17

Chapter 4 – Still life source media ...... 26

Chapter 5 Observations on the selection of seventeenth-century vanitas still life ...... 31

Historical figures ...... 31

Self-portraits and self-representation ...... 48

Tronies and Sculpture ...... 51

Chapter 6 – Themes and relationships examined – “Spirit of the times” ...... 56

Conclusion ...... 65

Appendix ...... 68

Bibliography ...... 69

Introduction

The Golden Age of Dutch history and subsequently its art gave rise to an unique era. The Dutch Republic, constituted in 1588, produced great wealth, and the prolific creation and sale of Dutch art. At that time the Dutch Republic was one of the most forward thinking and prosperous nations in Europe. It was made up of the seven Northern Dutch states with a large influx of immigrants from Flanders, which after 1588 had continued to be occupied by the Spaniards. The tension between the Catholic tradition of the south and the emerging Calvinistic religious movement in the north, along with the upheavals of the wars, resulted in a constant migration of people and ideas throughout this time. The immigrants from the south contributed a great deal to the art and culture of the Republic. The Dutch art of this time frame was classified into many genre and a couple of elements made them stand out. The Dutch paintings of this era can be categorised as history, landscape, portraits, genre paintings and still life, in roughly the order of popularity. Landscape, genre, portrait and still life were based on life or emulating life and hence the term, natuelyk (from nature), is used to describe seventeenth-century Dutch art, even at the time. Remarkable for its time, the creation of paintings in seventeenth-century Netherlands was based on a free and open market. Unshackled from religious or church based patronage, it came into a distinct style of its own, and one that to this day is considered unique. This Dutch art tradition from 1600s to the early 1670’s is classified as the Golden Age of Dutch painting. It reflected the growing commercial wealth, the development of a new wealthy middle class, the learning, the need for possessions to decorate a home, the time and luxury to enjoy these possessions, and it reflected the growing commerce in art. In short, it was the new urbanisation of the Republic, rooted in the success of its international trade.1 Still life painting was a significant branch of oil painting in the Netherlands in the first half of the seventeenth century, at its height from about 1610 – 1640, it waned in the latter half of the century.2 It was usually a portrayal of an arrangement of objects artfully, seemingly casually or deliberately displayed on a table.3 Still life was not unique to the

1 Kahr 1993, p. xii-xiv; pp. 1-7 2 Bacthelor 2012, p. 17; With the decline in the commerce of art in the Netherlands, many artists moved to more productive regions, and the ebb and flow of artists and the public continued. 3 Kahr 1993, pp. 199 - 200; The collection of objects are said to be realistic, meaning they are rendered as objects appear, with not even a scant hint of the brush stokes which created them. But, there are numerous examples of how the collection, which is usually placed on a table would not clearly exist for physical reasons; it would all topple over. Still life compositions with objects, would if painted as seen, require an effort to create

Netherlands, but within the Dutch canon still life painting took a firm and new direction, and established itself as an independent genre. Still life is a collection of objects usually displayed on a table or pedestal. In recent cross discipline discussions, it has been termed material culture, designating objects that cultures create and use in the course of common life. Objects referencing music, visual arts, architecture, drama, dance and writing, can come under this designation.4 From the southern cities such as Antwerp, to the northern cities such as Amsterdam, Leiden and Haarlem, artists were creating a variety of still life paintings which we now know became a singularly Netherlandish art tradition. The artfully composed objects illustrated the contemporary interests in nature, science, the idea of transience, humanist teaching and philosophy, and it also played with illusionistic practices or trompe l’oeil.5 Material objects were incorporated and placed together to aid with this communication. While there was no specific terminology associated with the genre in the seventeenth century, contemporary writers allude to “painters of inanimate objects” by using a Latin term “inanimatus.” Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) provides enough evidence in his writings to indicate that still life was an accepted genre in the seventeenth century.6 In seventeenth-century Holland, the term “stilleven” was coined to mean a “quiet life” or “inanimate model.”7 Samuel Van Hoogstraten (1672 – 1678) in his 1678 treatise on the art of painting refers to “stilleven’’ in his work. The authors of iconic Dutch art treatises, Karel van Mander (1548 – 1606) and Gerard de Lairesse (1641 – 1711), do refer to paintings with objects as its central motif, albeit grudgingly, as they both do not consider still life the highest form of painting. Yet there is every indication, notably the quantity that survives to this day, that still life was an established genre within the Dutch canon. Still life in general illustrates a deep interest by the artists in positioning motif, lighting, and to some extent, repetition of the motif as seen among several works of contemporary artists. A still life, given its intrinsic nature, simply creates a world that is unchanging, where everything is preserved. It requires interpretation to regain its potency, to bring it back to life. Alan Chong describes still life as an “independent world, carefully

in the physical space. Thus, it is probably a composition created from imagination, based on prints and studies, with attention given to individual objects as they appear in reality. 4 Frantz 1998, p. 791 5 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, pp. 11 - 14 6 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 11 7 Sonnema 1980, p. 1; Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 12

5 selected, composed and lit.”8 While there is an abundance of categories within the still life genre, the importance of still life in general to the Dutch art canon is irrefutable. The still life tradition in the seventeenth century is categorized into several distinct types. They are flower paintings, the ontbijtjes or breakfast pieces, luxury or pronkstilleven, and vanitas still life.9 Still life works were in contemporary times named after the objects they represented: breakfast piece, little banquet, little tobacco painting, death head or vanitas, little kitchen, flower pot, fruit, fruitage, and so on, thus differentiated by the objects they represented. Bob Haak, in his survey of seventeenth-century Dutch art, states that these objects were not assembled for pleasure, as art for art’s sake was not yet born. However, each artist drew on their aesthetic sensibilities, and created a particular combination which they felt were logically associated, a didactic purpose rather than an aesthetic one.10 Haak alludes here to an iconographic view point. The depiction of the visible world is a noted pillar in the description of the above Dutch canon. Arthur Wheelock describing the Dutch still life states: “The artists who created these works wanted to convey the delicacy of a rose petal, the sheen of a silver urn, the rich textual surface of a lemon, and the shimmer of a satin drapery because they felt that the essence of a still-life painting is found in its illusion of reality.”11 The art historian Théophile Thoré-Bürger (1807 – 1869) was instrumental in creating a greater awareness of the Dutch canon via his writings; his ideological views led him to claim that Dutch art was unique in its naturalism, and he called it the photography of its day.12 He also proclaimed the Dutch art to be egalitarian, and for the people, as opposed to an elite few. His writings and fervent beliefs propelled the Dutch canon, as he saw it, into the forefront. Iconography has been until recent years the most prevalent methodology to contextualize and attempt to give meaning to Dutch art. Initially put forth by Erwin Panofsky (1892 – 1968) and further elaborated by Eddy de Jongh, it placed the meaning of paintings beneath the surface and motif, beyond the realistic composition with hidden or “veiled” meanings that usually were educational or moralistic in nature.13 In an article detailing the methodologies available for art historians, Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann elucidates, “Realism is not incompatible with symbolism; the “descriptive” and “narrative mode” are not

8 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 11 9 Sonnema 1980, p.1; Wheelock 1989, p. 9 10 Haak 1984, p. 115 11 Wheelock 1989, p. 9 12 Blankert 2004, p. 103; Cornelis 1998, p. 145 13 De Jongh 2000, p. 131

6 mutually exclusive, at least not in art.”14 It is this germane idea interconnected to the Dutch seventeenth century paintings that this thesis hopes to explore via the vehicle of vanitas still life with portraits. Vanitas still life with the insertion of conventional portraits as objects goes beyond the boundaries of traditional temporal, moralising still life by bringing together several pictorial genres, namely still life genre, graphic prints, portraiture and sculpture. What is the symbolic and visual function of the portrait within a vanitas still life? How does vanitas still life from the seventeenth century, displaying conventional portraiture, interrelate with or document the period? Could the two methodologies named by Haverkamp-Begemann when applied as a hybrid form help revive the meaning of still life vanitas? This thesis is not meant to provide yet another interpretative model, but simply to see if at the intersection of symbolism and realism there is a means to provide better vitality and understanding to still life vanitas. The first chapter will provide some context for the vanitas paintings and will discuss the vanitas still life, briefly outlining its place within the Dutch art canon. It will delve into the introduction of the portrait as an object in the vanitas motif. The use of the skull, a ubiquitous and traditional vanitas object, will be addressed next. It will be followed by the historiography of interpretation in chapter three. The next two chapters will consider a selection of vanitas still life from the seventeenth century, when physiognomy is introduced into the Dutch still life motif. It will look at the media used, the placement and identification when possible of the person represented in the vanitas still life. Themes and observations of this will be drawn in chapter six. Lastly, I will provide some conclusions to the overall research.

14 Haverkamp-Begemann 1987, p. 511

Chapter 1 – Vanitas portraits to vanitas still life

In 1603 Jacob de Gheyn II (1565 - 1629, fig. 1) created a painting, now at The Metropolitan Museum in New York, which has as its motif independent vanitas objects devoid of any human presence, except a reference to classical sculpture embedded into the front piece of a niche. A front facing skull is in the niche with a reflective bubble overhead. At the top are two classical sculptures, one of a laughing Democritus on the left and on the right Heraclitus bemoaning the world. Coins are placed on the sill of the niche, together with a vase of flowers with a prominent and expensive tulip on the left and a smoking urn on the right. Illusionism is prominent with the use of the niche. It is De Gheyn who is credited with placing for the first time only conventional vanitas elements together, devoid of a person.15 Hanneke Grootenboer makes an interesting observation about the beginning of this new sub- genre reflecting the antiquarian painting convention: the composition is symmetrical with the positive reflection of earthly pleasures on the left and on the right, the negative effects of that pleasure.16 Bob Haak, in the Golden Age, makes a reference to Abraham Bloemaert (1564 – 1651) whose early vanitas painting no longer exists, except for a copy in an engraving made by Jan Saenredam (1565 – 1607), which also illustrates this departure.17 Either way, the important deviation here is the use of vanitas objects and associated symbolism, independent of a person. This chapter will focus on a proposed origin and its connection to religious symbolism, often associated with vanitas still life. It will provide as a point of departure for the vanitas with portraits, which is the focus of this thesis. Still life painting is fascinating because it freezes a moment in time, yet it mimics a world that we know is in constant movement. It captures transience, but momentarily also memorializes life. This is a paradox. Life is memorialized with observations of actual objects within a still life, which also have symbolic and allegorical contents that express a message of vanitas. The combinations of objects within vanitas paintings are eccentric, textures defy the eye, creating an elusive and illusionist environment within the painting (figs. 2, 3). Vanitas pieces are described in more than one instance as a critique on life and life’s fleeting nature. Ultimately, the traditional view and still life’s common feature is that they all in some way remind us that life on earth is fleeting, and death is close.

15 Haak 1984, p. 128 16 Grootenboer 2005, p. 141 17 Haak 1984, pp. 126 - 128

Vanitas paintings are “characterized as unambiguous, meaning they are instantly recognizable because the objects depicted are specific and distinctive to this sub-genre.”18 Vanitas, a term more commonly used in the north, alluded to an overall meaning seen in certain types of still life paintings, rather than it referring to an exact collection of objects within the painting.19 The term was often used to describe the works of Edward Collier, Pieter Claesz, Jan Davidsz De Heem, Simon Luttichuys, the Steenwyck brothers of Haarlem, Vincent Laurensz Van der Vinne, and even Rembrandt.20 Typically containing a skull, hourglass or timepiece, burnt-out candle, aged manuscripts and documents, bubbles or globes and musical instruments to varying degrees, vanitas is the least understood compared to history paintings of the same era, as its origins remain under discussion and its content is deemed complex.21 Vanitas still life, as are still life in general, was considered the second tier in painting by many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century scholars, and was thus deemed unworthy of study.22 Yet the enigma they portray, the array of objects juxtaposed, the associations and references within the motif, and the sheer quantity of paintings that have survived the ravages of time, suggest otherwise. Where might the roots of the sub-genre of vanitas be located? The vanitas derives its fundamental iconography from the Bible. Book of Ecclesiastes, where the saying onmia vanitas (Vanity; all is Vanity; Ecclesiastes 1:2),23 and notions of ars moriendi, memento mori, vanitas are all part and parcel of the same package within the Christian traditions. As illustrated by Barthel Bruyn the Elder (1493–1555, fig. 4), it was commonplace to conjure the transience of life in a portrait painting by depicting the vanitas pictorial messages on the reverse of the portrait (fig. 4a) or as noted below, sometimes even within the painting (figs. 1, 5). Vanitas still life in general was associated with morality, religious issues and the transitory nature of life.24 While there are many different examples of how vanitas elements

18 De Jongh 2000, p. 131 19 Chong: Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 13: It is the collection of objects in this setting, rather than each individual object, that made the vanitas motif. 20 Chong: Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 13; Attached image list gives dates for artists mentioned. 21 Sonnema 1980, p. 1 22 Wheelock; Goedde 1989, pg. 35: De Jongh 2000, p. 142; Samuel van Hoogstraten is noted to have said, “still life is the foot soldier in the army of art.” It should be noted that this is not a widely held belief currently, as there is variety of research into Dutch still life, and notable works are housed in many collections. 23 The In Latin, vanity loosely translates and corresponds to the transient nature of life on earth, and the meaninglessness of life, Ecclesiastes1:2:12:8 from the Bible is often related to this term. The Vulgate, or the Latin translation of the Bible, has the verse as: Vanitas, vanitatum onmia vanitas; and translates into Vanity of Vanities; all is vanity, in the King James version of the Bible. In this context it can be further interpreted as futility, and in the medieval to the seventeenth century, the term had these connotations. 24 Wheelock 1989, pp. 11 - 15

9 came into use in the Dutch still life tradition, there is a commonly held belief that vanitas was a migration from early European Christian traditions, prolific within the Dutch canon between 1620 and 1650,25 and further explored in the second part of the century. Vanitas paintings have recognizable characteristics, which has lead scholars to embrace the notion that the objects within the painting are subject to interpretations and have a varying degree of symbolic messages.26 The notion of memento mori and related symbolic objects were important elements within the still life vanitas paintings.27 Vanitas still life took many components from early sixteenth-century Netherlandish religious paintings, and elements formerly seen in a larger context, for example of a history or religious painting, were now isolated or singled out and became the subject of the vanitas painting. In Albrecht Dürer’s Saint Jerome in his study (1471 – 1528, fig. 6) the skull and manuscripts were considered to be characteristic vanitas elements, which in the vanitas sub- genre became the focus of the painting (figs. 2, 3, 7). This type of vanitas motif was also included on the back frame of the portrait in portraiture. Bruyn’s Portrait of Gertraude von Leutz further illustrates the characteristic and early memento mori objects as seen on the reverse side of the painting (figs. 4, 4a).28 Life on one side, and life’s irony, death metaphorically illustrated on the reverse side.29 Musical instruments, manuscripts, and hourglasses were readily available everyday objects and recurrent motifs in vanitas that have led to varying interpretations (figs. 2, 3, 7).30 In this traditional view, objects are imbued with symbolic meaning, beyond its realistic depiction. In still life a violin is rendered scrupulously as a violin, thus retaining its inane identity, but it may also represent the pleasures of life, an allegory for hearing or the transient nature of music as notes fade away (fig. 2). The skull is recognizable as a skull, but historically it is given to mean death, transience of life and resurrection as it pertains to

25 Sonnema 1980, p. 2 26 Sonnema 1980, p. 3 27 Koozin 1990, p. 20; Koozin defines memento mori in her introduction as a metaphor for both death and life. Objects associated with memento mori, often are seen within images of St. Jerome in his study and typically encompass a skull, candlestick, text and manuscripts. See fig. 1. 28 Haak 1984, p. 125. : Koozin 1990, pp 7 – 9, pp. 10 – 13; The German painter Barthel Bruyn the Elder, Portrait of a Women, the reverse of the portrait is a candlestick, with a blown candle, skull and fly, and Latin phrase suggesting the transience of life. Koozin explains that these elements formerly used for the back of the painting now have taken center stage. 29 Koozin 1990, p. vi, p. 21; Abstract ideas such as death was metaphorically represented by the skull, and explained by objects that held a pre -known meaning. Time an abstract concept is represented by a sand glass. Koozin, details Ingvar Bergström’s categorization of objects used within still life, that are imbued with a clear metaphoric understanding . 30 Sonnema 1980, pp. 47 – 56, pp 92 – 95; De Jong 2000 pp. 143 – 148; Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, pp.11 - 37

Christian faith.31 The use of wreaths while discernable also might mean victory, loyalty or royalty.32 Fallen grains, especially in relation to skulls can mean resurrection.33 There would of course be no point if the still life objects were not discernible or represented unclearly. It would defeat the purpose and interpretation attributed thus far to still life vanitas. Many vanitas paintings use the standard still life items representing the arts and sciences, wealth and opulence, earthly pleasures such as smoking, symbols of the transient nature of life or the elements of resurrections and the life hereafter, all rendered with elegant precision.34 Madlyn Millner Kahr in her book Dutch Painting, refers to Ingvar Bergström’s definition: “The term ‘still life’ strictly speaking refers to the depiction of objects that lack the capacity for self-governed motion.”35 Objects that are inanimate. However, as the still life genre developed from De Gheyn’s 1603 version sans person, in some instances a facsimile of a person was set against the vanitas motif and within the painting (figs. 7, 8, 9), introducing a replica of an animate object into its motif. They took varying forms: a portrait rendered as a print, a medallion, a painted miniature portrait or even free-standing sculpture, placed in visible areas of the composition and along with the conventional vanitas objects.36 David Baily’s (1584–1657) Self portrait with Vanitas symbols made in 1651(fig. 3) and Simon Luttichuys’s (1610 – 1661) Allegory of the arts painted in 1646 (fig. 8) illustrates the diversity of portraiture that this thesis will attempt to research and discuss.37 Within the trajectory of the development of vanitas still life painting in the Dutch canon, the print, painted and sculptured portraiture enter at a significant moment in time and make a lively addition to an otherwise inanimate motif of objects. This evolution raises new questions with regard to symbolism and realism. The introduction of a person, usually in miniature, was an addition repeated by artists in divergent geographies, from Leiden to Haarlem to Copenhagen (figs. 7, 8, 9, 10). By focusing on this specific sub-genre and using it as an illustrative vehicle, can we further understand how the prevailing aspects of

31 Sonnema 1980, p. 4; A detailed description of the variety within vanitas paintings is listed within three categories. Please refer here for details on the symbolic meaning of each of the more prevalent objects. 32 Anđelković-Grašar, Nikolić, Rogić 2012, pp. 341-342 33 Koozin 1990, p. 28 34 Sonnema 1980, p. 4: A detailed description of the variety within vanitas paintings is listed within three categories. 35 Kahr, 1993, p. 189 36 Sculpture has been used within the vanitas genre as noted in the niche settings in the De Gheyn II piece, and here it means the introduction of a free standing, usually classical figure as on object within the motif, as opposed to a sculptured niche or architectural element in the painting. 37 Haak 1984, p. 266: Bailly is considered the father of vanitas paintings in Leiden.

11 symbolism and representation as interpretive models play out within this sub-genre of vanitas still life?

Chapter 2 – The skull as motif and the conventional vanitas objects

The ubiquitous skull in still life represents a consistent and often shared element. It puts the focus on memento mori and the transience of life, amidst the pleasures life can offer. The Dutch went further and used material culture objects, such as violins, flags, books, military armor and coins to set the tone for this message, but also included within the composition the skull as a shared element. Below follows a brief analysis of the use of the skull within the vanitas symbolism. Dirck Jacobsz (1497 – 1567) placed a skull within his Portrait of Pompeius Occo (1483 -1537, fig. 11). Bruyn’s Portrait of Gertraude von Leutz (fig. 4) the skull and vanitas elements are on the reverse side of the panel. Both paintings firmly associate the skull with the portrait. There is a development visible in Dutch paintings where the skull has both a secular and a religious significance, as it now expands its symbolic significance to sit within a portrait. The appearance of the skull in portraits creates two avenues: vanitas portraits and the move to create vanitas still life with portrait. As early as 1603 and at its height in 1650, the skull takes center stage, the sitter is removed and the Dutch vanitas still life is produced (fig. 1). Van Mander notes that in the seventeenth-century, vanitas paintings became popular among collectors such as Jacques Rozet and Reynier Antonissen. Emperors and kings were enamored with sill life, as well erudite, educated scholars.38 What they were buying were works where the central theme was vanitas, the skull surrounded by material and other culturally specific objects, together said to be conveying a moral message, along with text affixed to the painting’s composition.39 The text typically reinforced the memento mori message (figs. 1, 3, 4a, 5). It is a commonly held belief that the plague and the atrocious scenes of death brought on by the epidemic, provoked the use of the skull as an ars moriendi symbol.40 The idea that all are equal in death is an important aspect and element within the vanitas tradition. The artist Hans Holbein (1497 – 1543) has recorded many scenes within the Christian cloisters in Italy, showing processions of people at funeral marches during the fourteenth and fifteenth century. They include the Pope, church dignitaries, common people and a skeleton. From this representation of the whole skeleton as a symbol of death, we see in sixteenth-century Holland, the skeleton in artistic works reduced to a skull, enough to direct the viewer to

38 Koozin 1996, p. 149; Koester 1999, p. 17 39 Roberts 1998, p.886; There is evidence to prove that vanitas paintings were highly popular, fetching six guilders and almost the same price as a coveted history painting. 40 Roberts 1998, p. 883

13 thoughts about the end of life and to refrain from worldly vanities.41 In time the skull became associated with the hermetic, aesthetic traditions of meditation, as we see in Dürer’s St. Jerome (fig. 6), and the pointing gesture claims Helen Roberts in the Encyclopedia of Iconography refers to the transience of life, homo bulla (man is like a bubble) and these are also reflected in the emblem tradition.42 In this context, the skull becomes a symbol for religious learning, contemplation of death and the afterlife. Thus, we see it appearing with books and manuscripts on several selected paintings within this thesis. As the theme developed the stylistic considerations within vanitas still life was varied, and non-conclusive. Generally speaking, there are triangular or pyramid compositions or more horizontal compositions.43 The early works were often more restrained, with just a handful of objects. However, in 1640 – 50, at the height of the tradition, the objects within a vanitas usually numbered 10-15, and a clear beam of light lit the scene (figs. 3, 8, 9). Both in early and later paintings the objects were usually placed on a table in a non-descript room. Objects are set against a dark non-discernable background or they seem to come out at us from a dark background (figs. 2, 5, 8, 10). Overtime more objects and more personal objects were added. This corresponds to items portrayed becoming more secular in nature, rather than having only the religious overtones. Taking the 1621 Yale University Art Museum work by De Gheyn (fig. 12) and William Claesz Heda (1594 -1682, fig. 10) as a starting point, the traditional vanitas elements are now examined. In Heda’s Vanitas still life at the Museum Bredius (fig. 10), the objects seem randomly placed, and they appear to come out at us from the darker space behind. The traditional roemer, the skull, the extinguished oil lamp, a crumpled paper, the knife on a dish, and around these central elements there are pipes, pipe-lighters, a tobacco box, a bowl of glowing embers, all rendered in the early monochromatic style associated with the still life vanitas.44 The common element with the De Gheyn’s 1621 painting is the skull and the overall vanitas reading, but beyond that the other objects are different. 45 Heda’s painting refers to earthly pleasures such as smoking and drinking – with the fire and smoke being vanitas motifs in and of themselves. De Gheyn’s painting is possibly about learning,

41 Roberts 1998, p. 883 42 Roberts 1998, p. 884 43 Sonnema 1980, pp. 106 - 112 44 Sonnema 1980, pp. 42 - 44 45 Sonnema 1980, pp. 43 – 44: Sonnema makes these observations about Heda and De Gheyn. He notes that the objects within Heda’s composition reflects tobacco smoking, and this might be the first time this type of contemporary subject is introduced. Heda’s 1628 vanitas focuses on representing these objects in its associated iconography. De Gheyn’s 1621 vanitas is different in the sense that he utilizes more traditional objects, such as books, documents etc., which have more traditional iconography or lexicon of meaning.

14 similar to Dürer’s (fig. 6), another motif that belonged to the vanitas tradition. The rendering of the still life is also different. De Gheyn has used a pyramid composition to organize the rather large number of objects. Heda’s minimal composition is more horizontal. The skulls, thus death, is prominent. From the 1650’s onwards, the vanitas tradition was popular all over the Netherlands following a more basic format formulated by De Gheyn (fig. 1), who was from Antwerp, and later settled in Haarlem, and Leiden, where he created his vanitas from 1603.46 From that inception and through an additive process, objects were added, as they became more popular within the contemporary culture, such as smoking or tobacco, exotic items such as shells and objects with increasing value. Sonnema concludes they became more general, collectively referring to various earthly vanities, and not any specific vanity.47 The vanitas painting became diverse and complex, intertwined, and no longer focused or emphasizing any one vanity or earthly pleasure or vice, but referring to them as a whole. However, in the later period the tradition moved to include very specific objects and specific individuals. Herman Steenwyck (1612 – 1656) of Haarlem is credited with a large oeuvre of vanitas paintings, and his later vanitas from circa 1640 utilized the more pyramidal arrangement. He introduced a significant characteristic: the depiction of personal artifacts among the memento mori objects, such as a personally owned Japanese sword.48 His brother Pieter Steenwyck (1615 -1666), under the tuition of David Baily, provides an example of a vanitas painting that symbolically refers to a specific individual (fig. 7). Around 1654 there was sub-genre of vanitas paintings extolling the virtues of individuals, and Pieter Steenwyck, who was from Delft, as was his subject, chose to create a vanitas painting that celebrated the great Admiral Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp (1598 – 1653), introducing his subject with an engraved print portrait, along with the funeral oration for Tromp by Antonius Thysius (fig. 7).49 With this addition, the vanitas paintings came to a full circle, as it once again included a human or animated representation. In these later vanitas by the Steenwyck brothers and their teacher Bailly (figs. 3, 7), and in other varying geographies (figs. 8, 9) specific individuals are introduced within the

46 Sonnema 1980, pp. 17 - 21 47 Sonnema 1980, p. 95; For example Sonnema notes that Heda’s 1621 Vanitas (fig 10) condemns the practice of smoking. But later works by Herman Steenwyck and Bailly provide an array of vanitas iconography, and does not particularly emphasise one type of earthly vice or vanity. Thus concluding that the themes were getting more general. 48 Sonnema 1980, p. 91 49 Sonnema 1980, pp. 94 – 95; A brief history of Tromp’s accomplishments and importance in Dutch naval history is detailed for further reading. De Jongh 1995, pp. 143-148

15 vanitas motif, and it is this specific introduction of a subject, the replica of a person to vanitas paintings that will be the focus of the next chapters. However, before I give my own reading of vanitas paintings with portraits, tronies and sculpture, a brief overview of interpretative methods of other authors provide a backdrop for my own argumentation.

Chapter 3 – Methodologies and interpretations

This chapter will focus on the prevalent art history methodology used to decipher the vanitas paintings. Art creation in the seventeenth century was not purely based on aesthetic reasons, a view point noted by Haak earlier. Art served a purpose, and was not created for “art sake;” a very different climate from today.50 It was, according to Eddy de Jongh, created in an environment that understood and accepted that the arts, from visual to written, have hidden meanings that awaited discovery.51 Objects within the paintings conveyed and expressed not only the recognizable visual aspects of objects, but also implied hidden meanings. A vanitas still life was not assembled for pure pleasure in the objects depicted, nor for the enjoyment of its artistic mastery or the use of light. When examined, it was an intellectual endeavor, created to convey a set of ideas and meanings. In his essay titled “A Little World Made Cunningly: Dutch still Life and Ekphrasis,” Lawrence Goedde paid homage to the depth within the still life: “still life…as evocative and compelling repositories of meaning, whose detailed naturalism and artifice of structure move the beholder. They are objects for emotional and intellectual engagement.”52 It was De Jongh, one of the main proponents of the iconographic interpretation of Dutch art who emphasized that many seventeenth-century Dutch genre paintings were intended to have a symbolic or emblematic meaning. Over the course of its evolution, artists became more adept at using these meanings and at hiding them, thus in De Jongh’s eyes giving rise to a complex system of what he called “veiling”.53 This term will be discussed below. The vanitas still life tradition within art history has largely been studied from an iconographic perspective, and symbolism and meanings attributed often take from the prevailing visual culture. In the Netherlands, the famed emblem books such as the one by the Italian Cesare Ripa (c1560 – c1645) Iconologia, the Dutchman Roemer Visscher (1547 - 1620), Sinnepoppen, and the poetic writings of Jacob Cats (1577 1660), were employed to create an understanding of vanitas based on symbols and symbolism. Iconography has been at the forefront of still life interpretation focusing on the questions of meaning, postulating

50 Haak 1984, p. 115 51 De Jongh; Hoyle 1995, p. 130 52 Wheelock; Goedde 1989, p. 43 53 De Jongh; Hoyle 1995, p. 130

17 that there is more within a still life than the visual offering alone,54 thus departing from the notion of realism within the Dutch art canon of the seventeenth-century, and solely focusing on the objects and their meanings. In the 1970s, De Jongh advanced iconography methodically within art history scholarship to include Dutch still life.55 In his book, Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting, he alludes to the fact that there are no seventeenth- century writings on the still life genre.56 Instead, he utilizes the seventeenth-century emblem art, prints, poetry and literature for his analysis of this genre. Commonly understood symbolic language was often found in these illustrated writings, literature and in resulting emblem art in Holland. Illustrations or emblems are explained by language, linking images to concepts. These are moralistic, meditative or reflective and this reading can be confirmed by the juxtaposition of image and language seen on the emblem print.57 Thus, the interpretation is fed by one form of visual communication, the emblem books, and links this art form into another art form, a painting. The emblem art and the thinking it advocated was not new to the seventeenth- century audience, instead it was passed on from previous eras, notes De Jongh. While new thoughts and scientific discoveries where fueling the intellect of the contemporary audience, some of the more established ideas, as illustrated in the emblem art, were still in place. Emblem art is said to be an example of visual metaphors, which have stood the test of time, and was an accepted manner of communication. Since Panofsky’s initial theories, emblems have been considered as an apt vehicle to apply within art history. De Jongh also introduced the idea of “veiling,” where, as noted before, the concealment of the message within the art form, and creating an element of surprise for the audience was accepted.58 Important thinkers and writers of the day, such as Cats, proposed that it is indeed better to discover rather than comprehend completely at first glance. Therefore, indirect communication was favored. With this link to contemporary society established via the printed visual materials, it is not hard to imagine that artists were also

54 Svetlana Alpers and other modern historians are more in favour of looking at Dutch still life via stylistic or representation lenses, while De Jongh, building on Erwin Panofsky focuses on the iconography methodology. This is also counter to the notion that Dutch art of the seventeenth century was purely one of “realism” where by artists only painted what they saw in front of their eyes. 55 De Jongh, 2000, p. 19 56 De Jongh, 2000, pp. 130 – 131; the audience for still life has varied through the ages, and so has the manner in which they are interpreted. De Jongh is right that there are no contemporary historical writings, which give us clues, and so he has resorted to using the emblem books from the sixteenth and seventeenth century. 57 De Jongh, 2000, pp. 130 - 131 58 De Jongh 2000, p. 131

18 using “veiling,” secretly embedding meaning in increasingly cleverer ways, or so the iconographic method postulates. De Jongh’s methodology focused on an integral explanation of the still life painting, and within its historical context. By taking the collective arts of the period such as the illustrations, prints, literature and emblems as a starting point, and linking language to the image and the image to a concept, he created an iconographic language to apply to paintings. It however results in degrees of interpretations. Ivan Gaskell in his review of the book Questions of Meaning, states that De Jongh was instrumental in establishing Dutch art as an “art of ideas.”59 De Jongh had crafted the iconographic methodology to a subtle, yet high- level of sophistication. He was able to demonstrate that Dutch paintings were simply not an explicit depiction of ordinary life but an intellectual representation of ideas. While we can indeed argue about the degree to which this theory can work, the fundamental viewpoint is irrefutable, according to Gaskell. Until recently iconography was the mainstay of how still life paintings were interpreted. In vanitas, paintings focused on the theme of man’s existence on earth and the fleeting quality of life, artists are said to have used specific iconography, a symbolic “linguistic” structure based on objects with metaphoric meaning, and these are used as iconographic cues within the painting. Objects such as skulls, mirrors, bubbles are sometimes juxtaposed with words, they collectively allude to the fleeting nature and the pleasures life has to offer.60 Vanitas in its early, mediaeval days functioned as a warning against opulence and riches. It also was related to philosophical elements, the order of the universe, planets, and the humours, which were very much the topics of discussion at that time. The elements within the emblem arts were appropriated into paintings, to create a fusion of symbols with varying interpretations. This is also the reason why the use of iconography alone to decipher vanitas paintings has come under attack.61 The question is whether with the passage of time and possible multi-level meanings attached to objects and their context, if symbolic references and metaphoric manifestations in objects are still relevant? Since 1970s corresponding arguments and new ways of seeing have been put forth by other art historians. They focus on many aspects of the Dutch paintings, but germane to this thesis are the methodologies or theories regarding realism,

59 Gaskell 2000, p. 707 60 Roberts, 1998, p. 883 61 Sonnema 1980, p. 4; Koozin 1990, p. vi; An overview and a list is provided by Sonnema on the objects that constitute vanitas, their symbolism and context of use. It is a list first detailed by Ingmar Bergström in 1956. Koozin uses a similar list.

19 symbolism and perspective. More recently, art historians are focused on dealing with methodological concerns that result in pragmatic interpretations representative of postmodernist points of view. Thus consensus on the De Jongh’s point of view has weakened, opening the way for other explanations. Furthermore there is scepticism about ever being able to decipher the original intentions of the artist. Jan Baptist Bedaux, The reality of symbols: The question of disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini portrait, provides an interpretation that is based on documented evidence that the realism within the Arnolfini portrait by Jan van Eyck (1391-1441) is not disguised, but it is in fact a factual representation of a marriage room in the fifteenth century. According to Bedaux, to attribute contrived symbolism was a wasted process. He concludes that what is more inherent in the Arnolfini portrait are viable and innate symbols of a marriage, rather than hidden allegories or symbols, which thus do not need extensive interpretation.62 Bedaux further refutes interpretations based on emblem art or literature. He cautions against the direct use of emblems, which might have had entirely different origins and purpose, and warns against the use of those emblems as connections with similar representation in a paintings.63 Several emblems that have been used to interpret seventeenth-century Dutch art, for example by De Jongh, are shown by Bedaux to have either started life in a very different nuance or were really only represented in part in the painting. Therefore, the accuracy of the application of the emblem in the painting comes into question, and the symbolism employed may be corrupted. This presents our contemporary interpretations with “levels of meaning” or the possibility of multiple meanings.64 The veiled or disguised symbols currently within the iconographic methodology also assume that the painter or the painter and the patron or his audience where involved in a very complex system of communications.65 In the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century literature, there is no mention of this type of symbolism nor interpretive tools for looking at or appreciating seventeenth-century art. The thought that this symbolism was lost in a mere 35 – 40 years also seems improbable. Bedaux maintains that the seventeenth-century Dutch art probably did not have a complex set of hidden values.66 Bedaux, further makes a large investment in his essay on the use of text in the Arnolfini painting (namely the signature above the convex mirror). There is a prevalent use

62 Bedaux 1990, p. 53 63 Bedaux 1990, p. 73 64 Bedaux 1990, p. 100 65 Bedaux 1990, p. 103 66 Bedaux 1990, p. 172

20 of text in the vanitas tradition. According to Bedaux the use of text does not add to the narrative but it is in essence a part of the pictorial depiction. However, the prevalent use of text within the vanitas tradition means that it must have a larger relevance. In this particular sub-genre, more than in still life in general, there is evidence of creating specific text within the painting’s motif. As with Van Eyck’s wedding portrait, in vanitas, the use of text becomes a way in which to leave a signature, date or a message. These can be common moralistic inscriptions, which were not limited to Vanitas Vanitatum (Vanity, vanity all is vanity), Memento mori, sic transit Gloria mundi (So passes away the glory of the world).67 The works of Bruyn in the early vanitas traditions (fig. 4), Adriaen van Nieulandt (1586 – 1658, fig. 5), and Bailly, Steenwyjck, De Gheyn in the early seventeenth century (fig. 3. 7, 12) and later by Collier and others, attest to this use. Svetlana Alpers also provides an alternative analysis to De Jongh’s interpretative emblem system. In her view the visual analysis is at the heart of Dutch paintings, and they create a “world of meaning” on the surface of the painting, though vision. 68 One of Alpers main arguments centres around her insight that interpretive methodologies were developed in response to Italian narrative images. Dutch art, she opininnates is vastly different from the biblical or narrative images of the Italian Renaissance and so should not be explored via prevalent methods.69 Summarised by Walter Gibson, “Italian art is narrative; Dutch art is descriptive.”70 Focusing on the surface of the painting only and its detailed representation, Alpers asserts that the didactic meanings in Dutch art is non-existent, hence there is no need for an interpretive stance. Dutch pictures exemplify the craft of representation, and use pictorial strategies on the surface to convey meaning, and in this art of visual description she focuses on the way paintings look. How they choreography viewing, might be likened to the use of a Kepler camera obscura. Ivan Gaskell states, in Dutch art, this visual viewing and realism has an epistemological significance.71 More recent contributions to the questions of meaning have been made to these opposing views, which Peter Hecht quoting Hessel Miedema, terms as “neo-sensitive” views. Hecht’s viewpoint is that denying all aspect of meaning in some paintings, as Alpers demands, and acquiescing to a complete emblematic interpretation in others is heresy.72 For

67 Roberts 1998, p. 885 68 Gibson 1983, p. 210 69 Gaskell 1984, p. 57 70 Gibson 1983, p. 210 71 Gaskell 1984, p. 58 72 Hecht 1992, p. 85

Hecht, Dutch genre paintings can no longer be thought to be the photographic ideal nor to have the iconographic appeal it once had. In his questioning of the realism attached to the Dutch genre paintings he claims they are pseudo-photographic. Hecht explores via a variety of examples why it is improbable to assume that hidden or veiled meanings were prevalent in the genre paintings of the seventeenth century. In his exploration of the listings/catalogues of Dutch art within the collection of King Charles II of England, the art is simply described as it is depicted, and the title associated with the image was simply a reflection of its motif and content. If more didactic relevance would have been adjudicated, the title or description would have noted such nuances. There is no symbolism associated in any of the contemporary writings because writers such as Houbraken would not have omitted any such information, if it was indeed important to the reading of a painting. Therefore the lack of these iconographic and veiled references speaks volumes. It is hard to imagine that such a well versed cultural set of symbols and associations, if it did exist, would have disappeared in this short time frame from the cultural memory. Citing Gerard Dou’s (1613 – 1675) work as an example and the writings of Philips Angel (1618 – 1664) on the paragone of art, where Angel profusely claims Dou as an epitome, Hecht expounds on Dou’s finely painted and high-priced images, the details within the motif, the use of light, and states “there was indeed very nearly nothing on God’s earth that Dou’s virtuoso brush could not successfully imitate.”73 Dou’s clever use of perspective to create depth and illusion of space along with his signature stone niche, and finely painted objects were the pinnacle of naturalism, rather than realism. Subsequently Dou’s student Frans van Mieris (1635 – 1681) took the ideals of naturalism, according to Hecht even further and created an even more exquisite picture, in an effort to push the boundaries of presentation. Both Dou and van Mieris played with perspective and presentation of the painted surface, and both excelled in presenting images that were incredibly plausible in their naturalness. Hecht concludes that the subject is simply a vehicle for the picture’s form and the display of talent suggests that form would have been the overriding factor over subject matter and meaning. Perspective was a near obsession in the Netherlands, and its importance was further compounded by the fact that perspective provided a very convincing illusion of reality.74 Art is itself is an abstract idea, and artists prevailing on their imagination and intuition gives life to a painting, and this is through the demonstration of the mathematics of art, which is

73 Hecht 1992, p. 87 74 Fuchs 1978, p. 124

22 perspective.75 It being a brand of mathematics and painters wanting to rise above their status as craftsmen, painters became perspective experts, which resulted in the highly illusionistic Dutch art. It probably did not go unnoticed by Dutch painters that Leonardo da Vinci claimed that painting was more important than poetry, eluding to the paragone debate, because painting appealed to the eye, which according to Aristotle was the first means by which humans acquired knowledge.76 Grootenboer brings a more complex set of notions to the painterly perspective. In her book The Rhetoric of Perspective: Realism and Illusionism in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Still-Life Painting, she argues perspective as being a form of language, while establishing that still life paintings are a form of thinking. She combines the painterly aspect of allegories, which is to show something from history over and over again within a visual concept - the skull as an allegory for passing of time for instance within vanitas, which if not used regularly as a metaphor, would disappear. Taking the painting Anamorphosis of Charles I at the Gripsholm Castle, where the skull and the portrait of the king can only be viewed via a cylindrical mirror, she maintains that the image of the king would disappear, if it were not utilised or seen. And in that same manner allegory is considered to be a form of expression whereby the elements as in the spoken word, express an idea.77 Grootenboer highlights the tromp l’oeil by Cornelius Gijsbrechts (fig. 9) which features a contradiction of space, illusion and perspective. In this representation of a painting the vanitas allegorical elements are placed within multiple illusionistic perspectives, challenging the viewer and challenging the visual space. Here Grootenboer states that the perspective acts as an allegory where the point of view directs one way, which in turn points to something else; the multiple perspectives within this image confuse the viewer. A picture within a picture, an illusion within an illusion. There is no definite demarcation of the actual painting, what is outside the painting, what is real. Her definitions and explanations of allegory and perspective lead her to conclude that perspective is a form of ideas, similar to the philosophical ideas that represent the elusive truth. In that manner perspective is a form of thinking and functions as the language of the image. Within this exploration, perspective is seen moving away from a mathematical concept to a more philosophical realm. In her essay, Natural artifice and Material Values in Dutch Still-Life, Celeste Brusati states that the vanitas motifs and elements, such as the skull and bound books and their

75 Wheeler 1989, pp.12-13 76 Fuchs 1978, p. 124 77 Grootenboer 2005, p. 143

“implied” symbolic meaning, are not central to understanding the paintings. She suggests that still life was a display of the ability of the painter. The heightened, illusionistic representation so characteristic of still life was a strategic means to illicit a response from the viewer and to marvel at the ability of the artist. This was not conducted under false pretext, but was instead an intentional means for maximum effect.78 Still life was an accurate imitation of realism. The key focus in still life was the visual representation and the realism exhibited. Therefore, Brusati holds a similar viewpoint to Hecht’s. Brusati focuses on “natuurlijkheid,” and how still life clarifies our understanding of the seventeenth-century aesthetic. She also examines how specific configurations and compositions provide meaning to the viewer. Brusati highlights Simon Luttichuys’ Still life with Attributes of the Pictorial Arts, (title listed in her article, fig. 8) where there is further evidence, according to Brusati, of such relationships not only in the literal, structural form of the objects as seen with the sphere, globe and the other rounded shapes, but also in the interplay between the objects and their perceived physical associations. The character of objects as painted by Luttichuys in fine detail goes as far as to accentuate the minutia of each object.79 Because they are a set of unfeasible arrangements not found in the real world, Brusati argues that the still life is an example of artistic capabilities, and it “exploits natural objects, and naturalizes the representation.”80 In essence, Brusati views the entire composition as a whole, looking at the physical relationships between the objects, the effective strategies used to represent the objects and ultimately the entire effect of the painting. Unlike Hecht, she delves a little deeper addressing the forms and the painter’s representational skills, also the objects’ physical shapes or outlines and corresponding relationships they create within the painting. For Brusati and for Hecht, it is the skill in representation that is at the core of still life painting, and this is what stimulates us even today. What we can gain from this above discussion of the varying theories is that the quintessence of representation around Dutch still life is iconography and symbolism, realism and naturalism and perspective. These are important factors within the discussion of still life still under debate today. The opposing views presented provide us with means to evaluate the still life vanitas. But, the failing in each is that it embodies only one view or view point, and

78 Brusati; Frantis 1997, p. 157 79 Brusati; Frantis 1997, p. 150; Brueghel the Younger’s work is explored, and in the realism showcased, one can see the veins of the petals, the details are so acute, the flowers depicted is said to triumph over nature. 80 Brusati; Frantis 1997, p. 139, p.145

24 because it is a singular vantage point, the above authors all come to different conclusions. However, these mutually exclusive conclusions, neither of which are a particularly erroneous, only partially interpret a work of art. The idea of providing a combined analysis is not explored. The notion earlier set forth by Haverkamp-Begemann that realism and symbolism could possibly exist together is not addressed by the current theories of art history explored above. The illusionistic quality of Dutch still life, which as I observed negates any realism per se within these works, is also not a focus in much of the art history methodology discussion above. In Chapter four and five a series of Dutch artist and their still life paintings are explored. It will be viewed from the perspective of combining both realism (in its varying nuances) and symbolism.

Chapter 4 – Still life source media

This chapter briefly outlines the variety of the portraits used in vanitas, and the proximity artists might have had to their source material. It will help establish the four types of portraiture looked at within this thesis and how those elements might have been part of the artists’ realm both in Netherlands and in other relevant geographies. The four objects are: Printed or graphic portraits, painted portraits, sculpture busts, and tronies.81 In Het Schilderboek in 1604, Van Mander saw history paintings at the apex of the painting pyramid, but conceded in relation to portrait painting, “…a face being the noblest part of the human body provides a fine opportunity to make manifest and provide the virtue and powers of Art.”82 Portraiture was a significant tradition, and many contemporary artists were involved in the creation of portraits, not only for financial gain, but perhaps also for its popularity, the virtuosity and the skill required to create such a work of art.83 In the Netherlands, the training of an artist took place at an early age. Young men (they were mostly men with only a few women artists recorded in the seventeenth century) were instructed by a master painter in a guild environment on the technical aspects of painting: learning to mix pigments, stretch canvas, and the rudiments of the creation of art. The artistic training began with the copying of drawings and prints, and the next step was to learn to draw from plaster casts such as antique figures or fragments of human figures (fig.13).84 Subsequently came the theoretical studies, such as perspective and anatomy. Kahr states that only when the young man was adept at drawing, he was allowed to graduate to painting; copying first the pictures of his master or other artists provided by his teacher, and then later painting from a live model. Van Hoogstraten, who was under the tutelage of Rembrandt (1606 – 1669), mentions the varied collection of art and artifacts that his master had about him, alluding to the variety of source material for artistic training. Rembrandt, it is noted, purchased a print of Lucas van Leyden (1494 – 1533) for a very large sum, and this led Van Hoogstraten to counsel in his writings that artists should indeed set an example by buying, trading and exchanging prints and drawings. In order to learn from other artists, but also to support and cultivate the arts and encourage others to do the same. He said, “Who will

81 Portrait medals are excluded from this analysis. Namely because the quality of the images at the RKD did not allow for a more detailed visual analysis of the smaller objects represented, such as medals. 82 Haak 1984, p. 128; Depauw 1999, p. 73 83 For example, Anthony van Dyck as employed in England to paint portraits of the monarchy, which subsequently were made into prints, as did much of his portrait work. He was considered a virtuoso in portraiture. 84 Kahr 1993, p. 11

26 develop a desire for art unless painters themselves first show the way?”85 The popular art of portraiture was not only taught to young apprentice painters, but later it was also encouraged that they use the various artistic media to cultivate their own talents. In the seventeenth century, it was fashionable to have one’s portrait engraved in the form of a bust, usually placed within a border or a niche. A school of engravers specialized in promoting the monarchy, as there were numerous prints made with the likeness of European monarchs.86 Engravers and printmakers took artistic license. For example, the borders became stylistic innovations, as engravers used the borders to embellish and also add iconographic elements. Engravers and printmakers also placed iconographic elements within the print portrait, a deviation from the original painting or later added by the painter into the painting, in the prevalent replication system from painting to print, and sometimes back from print to painting. In the case of King James I (fig. 14) he is portrayed with the attributes of Solomon or Caesar, and these embellishments or innovations became imbued into his person, giving him a similar sense of authority or grandeur as Caesar.87 It should be noted that the prints were all identifiable, as they contained a title and an explanation, so the historical figure always had a name to the face. Many of the prints of monarchs were made for distribution and as a collectors’ item. Those of other famous people such as Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466 – ca. 1536) would be used as calling cards or a memento, and in a manner also used for distribution.88 Susan Lambert in her book The Image Multiplied puts forth a historical analysis of what the print as a mechanical reproductive art has meant to the history of art. She claims that in certain genre an image could be adapted in reproduction from a painting into print.89 This suggests that painting and print formed a symbiotic relationship. In short, paintings were created or drawings were made after which the print or print portraits were engraved for publishing and the print makers were free to embellish or change aspects of the print, according to their stylistic considerations or simply to make elements fit within the

85 Brusati 1995, p. 3 86 Lambert 1987, p. 14; Lambert’s focus in on the English monarchy. However, it may be extended to other European leaders, as prints of the various European monarchies appear in the vanitas paintings. 87 Lambert 1987, p. 14; Depauw 1999, p. 81; Depauw states that Van Dyck likely needed source material and he used drawings and oil sketches for his portrait prints for his Iconography. 88 Parshall 2012, pp. 24-25; Parshall does not directly talk about Erasmus, but he notes that there is evidence that important historical figures would commission their likeness, and then distribute their printed image. There is also evidence that receivers and buyers would use them within their album books. 89 Lambert 1987, p. 14

27 constraints of printmaking.90 The term reproductive print is used to in the strict sense of the word, for prints that reproduce independent paintings, whether in a highly faithful or somewhat freer manner, as long as its dependence on the painted model remains clear and definitive. This can be thought of as the first level of transfer within the reproduction process. The success of the reproductive print in art circles is attributed to a number of elements. Growing tastes and other social developments contributed to its popularity. Professional art dealers dealt with prints and paintings. Art dealers liked to own reproductive prints as a means of driving up the price of the original painting, offering a foretaste of a more expensive painted version. Art lovers contributed to the demand, as in this elite group were also collectors.91 Van Hoogstraten and Lairesse noted that artists could achieve greater name recognition through reproductive prints of their originals.92 This led to artists such as Anthony Van Dyck (1599 – 1641) and Peter Paul Rubens (1577 – 1640), to recreate their works in print. The validation that reproductive portrait prints of public figures were popular in the seventeenth century, regardless of whether they were based on a painted prototype, created a larger market for print and led the way for a shift in taste of the print buying public.93 Elizabeth Harvey-Lee states that the print portrait at first was a vehicle to create portraits of scholars and statesmen, preceding the active creation of artists’ likenesses and artists’ self-portraits in print. Printed series of artists’ portraits date from the second half of the sixteenth century. The genre was further extended in the seventeenth century when engraved portraits came into vogue, as artists such as Van Dyck began creating print portraits of his contemporaries for his Iconography. The resulted in portrait copies both in print and in oil being crafted after the portraits present in Iconography.94 Both Van Dyke and Rembrandt established themselves as portraits painters as well as prolific print makers. Rembrandt, the “serial” self-portraitist, inspired other artists to follow suite.95 Harvey-Lee in her essay ascertains that the self- portraits in various media created by Rembrandt might be attributed to artistic statements, as self-promotion, as a record of a significant period in his life or as

90 Lambert 1987, pp. 13 – 14; Reproductive prints were close to their source, but examples are provided where the print maker does take certain licenses to create a variant as needed. 91 Depauw 1999, pp. 9 – 11, p.79 92 Diels 2009, p. 73 93 Diels 2009, p. 73 94 Depauw 1999, p. 88 95 Harvey-Lee 2000, p. 4

28 exercises to practice different expressions.96 This generalization may be extended to other artists who created print self-portraits in this timeframe, and can explain the proliferation of prints of etched or engraved portraits. Further, in the mid-1660s in Italy, Leopold de’Medici (1717 – 1675), started to amass a collection of artist self-portraits at the Uffizi, and such commissions to obtain images of successful artists became an ongoing tradition well into the twentieth century. In the seventeenth century, painted self-portraits can also be attributed to self- awareness, and the fact that the artists were being elevated in society.97 The painted self- portrait also rose in popularity as the depicted artist grew his position in society. Artists from the Renaissance onwards were gaining more social ground, they were distinguished, considered even to be genius, as they converted natural material into works of art.98 Artists were portrayed similarly to scholars, sometimes with identifiable tools of the trade, such as maulstick or brushes, but always dignified, self-assured, and as a virtuoso.99 Tronies, which are individual faces removed from any narrative context, literally translated as “face” or “head” from seventeenth-century Dutch, may be clearly seen in this example by Luttichuys (figs. 15, 16), where he artfully places tronie prints after Jan Lievens (1607 – 1674) and Rembrandt. Tronies were rendered as drawings, engravings or etchings and largely popular in the Rembrandt and Lievens circles in Leiden and Amsterdam. They are busts of older figures without being a portrait, and they had a great market among the wealthy burgers.100 The term tronie differentiates it from a portrait, because the person portrayed is not recognizable or specific; it is generic.101 A portrait for instance would bear an actual, recognizable likeness and would provide context such as social standing, profession and other secondary attributes via clothing or objects (figs. 4, 11). The proliferation of tronies suggests it was a means to practice emotions, poses, and archetypes of faces. The sculptures used within the vanitas paintings were mostly from the classical or antiquarian era or reproductions of those works. No identifiable examples of contemporary busts or sculpture were found in the seventeenth-century paintings explored for this thesis. The sculptures tended towards philosophers and classical themes of gods or goddesses and

96 Harvey-Lee 2000, p. 4 97 Fuchs 1978, p. 83 98 Lambert 1987, p. 7 99 Depauw 1999, p. 76 100 Van Straten 1992, p. 132 101 Rembrandt possibly created tronies of his parents, as noted by Van Straten in examining the painting of Luttichuys (fig. 16), but this was most likely an exception, not the rule, in terms of identity of a tronie.

29 they were statues or busts. Pieter Claesz’s (1596 – 1661) statue of Spinario or the boy with the thorn (figs. 17, 17a) is a ubiquitous Roman statue as copies appear in many museums around the world today. Jan Gossaert (1478 – 1532) was one of the first Dutch artists to capture the likeness, and bring this classical image back to the Netherlands. As noted in the drawings he made on a visit to Italy on behalf of Philip of Burgundy (fig. 17b).102 While it is difficult to chart the chronology, there are many instances of classical imagery being made into plaster statues, as noted by Frits Scholten, in his essay detailing the reproductions made in the seventeenth-century of antiquarian sculpture.103 The Inventory of the estate of Johan Larson comprised of classical replicas and although a Spinario was not part of the inventory, it is not hard to suppose that foundries and studios like Larson’s, would have also turned out a Spinario, as seen in Claesz’s panel. Luttichuys’ use of Seneca within his still life can be traced back to Rubens (fig. 8a). In the current collection of the Rubens House in Antwerp, there is a similar bust, which Rubens presumably brought back from his travels in Italy, identified as Seneca.104 It is not hard to imagine that Luttichuys saw copies of this Seneca or was simply in the Flemish capital. What is unique in the source material of print, sculpture and perhaps even the painted portrait media in the Dutch still life, is the multiple replications and the aspects of reproduction, even prior to these items making its way as objects within the motif of still life. Noteworthy is also the use of these source media in the early education of artists, and the access artists had to these source graphic media, sculpture and paintings within their studios. It is difficult to determine to what level the miniature painted portraits seen within the still life are replicas or originals.

102 Bull 2009/2010, pp. 89 – 94; Among the most popular, frequently copied antique statues in Rome, the Spinario (Ca. 1st century B.C.) was known by the twelfth century at the Lateran Palace, once called the Palace of the Popes. It formed part of Pope Sixtus IV’s gift in 1471 of the Lateran Bronzes to the Palazzo dei Conservatori, where Gossart saw and copied it. 103 Scholten 2004, pp. 54-89 104 Rubens house, website.

Chapter 5 Observations on the selection of seventeenth-century vanitas still life

This chapter will present and examine a series of vanitas paintings with the types of physiognomy discussed in chapter four. It will analyze the possible source materials. It will attempt to address them from an iconographic and representational viewpoint, delving a little further, and providing a visual analysis of works by ten Dutch seventeenth-century painters active from 1620 and through the end of the century. The selection focuses on the placement and use of a human face within the still life, and how source media discussed before bear on the still life paintings examined. It will attempt to provide the source materials if possible and relevant. While the list of artists and paintings is by no means exhaustive, it does provide a cross section of active artists. In this thesis, the following categories in physiognomy are identified and chosen: 1. Historical figures: a famous person or known artist, usually a print or painted miniature portrait; 2. Self-portraits: a print or painted miniature self-portrait, within the still life motif;105 3. Unidentified people: miniature paintings and tronies; 4. Classical figures: usually in the form of a sculpture bust or figures. . Historical figures

Simon Luttichuys’ 1646 Allegory of arts (fig. 8) in the Heinz Collection is an apt place to begin the discussion, because it provides a broad spectrum of the type of portrait objects at the focus of this thesis. Luttichuys was born in England to Dutch parents, and subsequently came to the Netherlands. He was a still life and portrait painter, and six vanitas paintings are attributed to him.106 In the Allegory of arts a table is populated with a wide variety of objects within an architecturally depicted room, which could be a painter’s studio. The objects are lit from the left and the painting displays the characteristic modelled light and shadow. This creates a theatrical mood within the composition. On the far left a tronie of an

105 Within the body of Dutch still life at the RKD, there were no still life paintings with a sculpture of a contemporary figure in the sixteenth or seventeenth-century. There are several images of still life with references to the artists, such as the use of a memento or another recognizable object included within the motif that allude to the artist. When possible they are identifies. The focus is on a facsimile of a person or a classical figure. 106 Wheeler 1989, p. 114

31 old man hangs off the table together with the drawing of a young man, who seems to have been flung off by the waves of the painted seascape above him, which is propped up against some large open books and a celestial globe.107 A map of Africa and Europe, several other drawings, an engraving, three busts, a thigh bone and a painter’s palette are scattered on the table. A crowned Apollo forms part of the architectural background. A glass sphere reflecting the surroundings hangs above the littered table. In her analysis of this painting, Brusati, (noted in chapter 3), pointed out the various physical shapes, such as the reflective sphere, the globe and heads of the bust all of which form a rhythmic round shape; a representational language by which to appreciate the painting.108 She ascertains that this is a pictorial commentary on the power of Luttichuys’ art to capture and possess the world in representation, as the artists is seen mirrored in the glass sphere, and descriptive and even commemorative objects are employed for this purpose. It is indeed one view point. However, it is reckless to ignore the narrative and vanitas elements, such as the sphere, bone, documents and globe, which have symbolic and allegorical subtexts. The objects, besides representing the arts, such as painting, drawing, sculpture, cartography, glass making, etching and engraving, symbolises the fragility of life and reflects on the inner and outer world.109 The bone, the sphere depicting homo bulla, the young man and the older man juxtaposed as they are, mark the passing of time. The conspicuous fly on the seascape may be a symbol of impending decay, but it also allows Luttichuys to prove his trompe l’oeil skills, a fascination among connoisseurs and the art buying public.110 The black-and-white engraving is clearly a focal point. It is a recognizable print of the Portrait of Peter Paul Rubens by Paulus Pontius (fig, 8a). Rubens had passed away six years before the attribution date of this painting. The sculpture bust which anchors the left of the painting is possibly of the classical era philosopher Seneca, often depicted within Netherlandish still life vanitas (fig, 8b). A similar trio of sculpture busts are seen in De Gheyen’s 1621 vanitas on a shelf (fig. 12). This theatre of art presented by Luttichuys is based on traditional vanitas still life. However, he has introduced contemporaneous objects, namely the engraving of Rubens, together with paintings and drawings which do not fit

107 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p.186; Wheeler 1989, p. 114; Chong and Wheeler both identify the book as a Bible and an illustrated herbal or botanical book. The illustrated botanical book, according to Wheeler, alludes to the short span of man’s life. 108 Brusati 1990, p. 177 109 Wheeler; Goedde 1989, pp.37-38 110 Sonnema 1980, p. 110; Koester 1999, pp. 16 – 19; Sonnema suggests that wealthy patrons, collectors and art connoisseurs had an appetite for vanitas still life. Koester elaborates further and gives evidence for the popularity of illusionistic art as well.

32 within the prescriptive vanitas iconography. This work by Luttichuys signals the departure from the old tradition, shows the addition of newer elements to the established vanitas composition, while building on the 1628 vanitas by Claesz and Heda (figs. 2, 10) and the 1621 depiction by De Gheyen (fig. 12). An anonymous work from 1650 – 1659 portrays a print of Jacob Cats (1577 – 1660, fig. 18, 18a), a Dutch poet, humorist, politician, and the author of emblem books and rhymes for moral living. Along with the picture of Cats sits a bust, possibly of Seneca, much like the one within Luttichuys’ work (fig. 8). But this exquisite vanitas composition is more minimalistic with fewer objects displayed, echoing early seventeenth-century examples. The composition is triangular with the glass globe at its apex reflecting the table below, and the objects are set in an ambiguous, dark space. Diagonal lines are evident in the line formed by the shells, and repeated by the line formed by the book to the glass globe. The focal point is the bust. A diagonally placed curtain frames the far right. The reflective sphere overhead, small bubble in the middle, the vase with a decaying rose and the overly used book provide the hallmark vanitas symbols, possibly inspired by a common symbolic understanding or Cat’s own emblem books, to which, however, the more contemporary artistic elements of exotic shells, the half concealed Cats print and the Seneca bust are added. Cats, who died in 1660, is honoured in this symbolic art, and we can make a tenuous connection between the print and the philosopher’s bust, as the two figures held similar positions as politician, advisor, author and humourist. The object relationships might be hard to discern, but the perfect tactile representation is pure Dutch naturalism, and emulates Hecht’s version of pushing boundaries of presentation as discussed in chapter three. In contrast to the above two, Luttichuys’ vanitas still life (figs. 15, 16) depicting a skull, along with a variety of painted portraits, print portraits and sculpture, do not have pre- described memento mori objects, apart from the skull. Yet the two near identical compositions are considered to be a vanitas style as it utilises the table arrangement, the modelled light and shadow within a corner of a room. One was made earlier around 1640 (fig. 15) and the other is attributed to 1645 - 1646 (fig. 16). The compositions are associated with both Jan Lievens’ prints and Rembrandt’s prints and paintings. They both depict the same corner of the same room with a sculptured pillar in the background. There are three paintings and two prints in each composition. A celestial globe, open books with engravings of figures are overseen by a hanging reflective sphere. The presence of the vanitas globe reference scientific work, as does the illustrated books. Against the white background of the books’ pages and almost in the centre, a yellowish skull is placed on top of an open atlas.

The prints on the left are both tronies after Rembrandt or Lievens (fig. 15a, 15b). Trompe l’oeil is in use, especially seen in the placement and curling of the paper prints and atlas in the foreground. Roelof Van Straten has studied these paintings, and has concluded that in the 1640 work the portraits on the table are possibly after Lievens and represent Rembrandts parents (fig. 15).111 In the later c. 1645 work, the larger painting on the left featuring an older man is after Jan Lievens (fig. 16). Van Straten has conclusively identified the smaller portrait in the center in the 1645-46 work as possibly being after an etching by Rembrandt dated 1637 (fig. 16d).112 The framed image of an old woman is probably based on a Lievens print (fig. 16c). The two tronies (fig. 16a, 16b) are identified as prints after Lievens and Rembrandt respectively. Luttichuys abolishes the stock generic objects associated with the traditional moral genre. Thus, we can establish that Luttichuys’ source material is a collection of contemporaneous studio objects, with a focus on the copies of work of two renowned artists, set within the conventional vanitas tradition, and also within the larger Dutch contemporary tradition of naturalism. How Luttichuys might have come to know these works by Lievens and Rembrandt is speculative, but it is possible that he knew Lievens. Lievens travelled to the English court in 1631. Rembrandt and Lievens collaborated in their early years in Leiden. So both Luttichuys and Lievens had a connection with England and to perhaps the English expatriate community in Netherlands. Thus, Van Straten speculates, Luttichuys could have had access to the works of Lievens and Rembrandt, and in this way was able to create these two paintings.113 Wheeler notes that the inventory made after Luttichuys’s death in 1661, contained plaster busts, frames, screens, mannequins, unfinished paintings, and this list is not unlike the one described earlier in the studio teaching culture, and now reflected in the three works attributed to Luttichuys here (figs. 8. 15, 16).114 Joannes de Cordua, from Brussels, was active in 1663-1702 and painted still life and genre scenes.115 He worked in Vienna and Prague, and died in Austria. Joachim von Sandrart in his Teutsche Academie, c.1675, praised De Cordua for his still life paintings.116 De Cordua’s still life (fig. 19) emulates Luttichuys’s use of prints, in which De Cordua paints a moody trompe l’oeil scene highlighted by two prints after Rembrandt in the lower right

111 Van Straten 1992, pp. 129 - 132 112 Van straten 1992, p. 128 113 Van Straten 1992, p. 139 114 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 187 115 Van der Willigen 2003, p. 66 116 Joachim can Sadrart in his Teutsche Academie 1675, praised Cordua’s talent.

34 corner. An unidentified portrait of a female is on the pedestal, towered over by a larger sculpture bust, and right beside the bust a small drawing of a turbaned man sticks out of a large book. This completes the physiognomy inventory, in which the four represent a different artistic media (fig. 19). The objects are on a trompe l’oeil pedestal, which is in line with the picture plane, and on the pedestal’s left edge facing the viewer, ‘Memento Mori’ is painted to appear as graffiti. There is a sculptural frieze at the bottom, left with a small skull at the edge. De Cordua has arranged the following traditional vanitas objects: A gun, smoking paraphernalia, crumpled paper, ornate horn, legible label, head of a musical instrument, glass vase with large tulips, large books, ivy sprig, recorder, shell, smoking candle, and the prints. In the center, are the heavy closed books and documents. The larger book has a bookmark, which might mean it is a bible, and a sprig of ivy runs over the closed books. The RKD states that this painting is signed ‘IAN DE CORDUA,’ on the lower right. All the recognizable human depictions are on the right. The statue appears to be a thinker, philosopher, or religious figure. On the legible label it states ‘Amsterdam’ at the end. From a purely descriptive, sense this appears to be a studio piece. But, there are some relationships that might be discerned. De Cordua seems to have borrowed the sculptural frieze from Gerrit Dou, placed a couple of prints of Dou’s mentor Rembrandt (fig. 19a, 19b) in the motif, a probable likeness of the controversial philosopher Spinoza (1632 – 1677, figs. 19c, 19d), and an unidentified female portrait and print in the upper center, perhaps borrowed from other artists. We know that Spinoza and Rembrandt both lived in Amsterdam, which might connect them to the text on the label. In a work from 1665 at the Musée des Beaux Arts de Pau, De Cordua creates a minimalist painting, dominated by a large sculpture and a similar Rembrandt print as before (fig. 20). Prominent skull with grains, large hatted stature, small statue of a young boy seemingly hanging in the dark background are set in a diagonal. A red medal is set on the far left hanging above a female portrait seen facing forward. A black and white drawing of a boy and shells are set above Rembrandt’s self-portrait, which hangs off the table. Smoking paraphernalia round off the assemblage. An unidentified bright light source bathes the front of the painting, allowing the objects to clearly stand out from the dark background from which they emerge. While the number of elements are few, the human representations are many; from statues to prints to portraits. This could be a reference to the arts, or could also be something more personal given the nature of the painted portrait. A few more examples of De Cordua sees him using this minimalist approach, with the Rembrandt print juxtaposed

35 with sculpture and other portraiture, and while relationships are elusive, overall they seem to reflect the arts and philosophy (figs. 21, 22). Jacques de Claeuw (1620 – 1694) makes use of print portrait of Van Dyck and Lievens in a series of paintings, similar to Luttichuys’ use of Rubens (fig. 23). De Claeuw was the founder of the painter’s guild in his native town of Dordrecht and he was also active in The Hague in 1646 - 1649, Leiden and possibly in Harlem, the latter two being centres of still life painting.117 From 1670 through 1677 he used the vanitas backdrop to portray historical figures, including artists (figs. 23 - 28). He carefully mimics Lucas Vorsterman’s Portrait of Anthony van Dyck (fig. 23a), and then in 1677 he meticulously copies an engraving after Van Dyke of Pieter de Jode II (fig. 24a), who was an artist and engraver working on the Iconogaphy series with Van Dyck. The 1670 Amsterdam work (fig. 23) a parted red curtain forms the backdrop for a table with its left edge exposed. On it an artist palette, book and documents, a celestial globe, a dominant cello, and a print resting on a large book reminiscent of a bible form the central motif. He places the Van Dyck print center right. A crowned skull is below the Van Dyck print, and memento mori objects take up the foreground. Within the traditional still life context, the use of drapery might allude to the Zeuxis and Parrhasius’ illusionistic anecdote, and the placing of Van Dyck in front of the curtain may be in veneration of Van Dyck with a reminder of the two classical illusionist painters.118 In the more elaborate work from 1677 (fig. 24), objects very similar to the one with the Van Dyck print, devoid of the skull, honor De Jode. The curtain, celestial globe and material objects referencing the transience of time is depicted, and included in figure 24 and not in figure 23, is a drawing of a reclining Venus, representing and immortalizing declining beauty. The addition of a few roses and an almanac resting on the print after Van Dyck, a Portrait of Pieter de Jode II (1606–1674, fig. 24a), completes the subject focus. The 'Amsterdam Waersegger Almanac ' is dated 1677. The De Jode print after Van Dyck is especially interesting as it could be part of the part of the Iconogaphy assembled by Van Dyke. A series of pictures (figs. 25 - 28) shows De Claeuw’s many variations on the motif. In the Vanitaas Still Life (fig. 28), a precarious composition with trompe l’oeil effects, stock vanitas objects, a classical statue, a skull and a skeleton for reinforcement of the memento

117 Van der Willigen 2003, pp. 62-62 118 Koester 1999, p.14

36 mori message, De Claeuw places Lievens print (fig. 28a) on the lower right, and the position of the print is similar to figure 26 and 27. There is a larger portrait on the right (fig. 28), possibly a copy of an existing work, perhaps even by Lievens. There is no clear discernable object relationship between the print, portrait and statue in figure 28. The images do not appear to tell one collective story, but seem to be collections of objects arranged as prescribed by the still life genre, and maybe attributed to his patron’s commissions as the works reflect the arts and music with various iterations. Similarly to Luttichuys (figs. 15, 16), De Claeuw might be copying his contemporaries and reusing those works within his established compositional style (fig. 26, 28).119 Luttichuys and De Claeuw depict mortality or the transience of life in the above examples, and immortalize historical figures. Along with the acute, accurate renderings of objects, texture and lighting effects, these examples provide a complex set of narrative ideas for the viewer to reflect upon. Edweart Collier (1642-1708) had few patrons, and mostly worked for the open market at least in his English years.120 Born in Breda, he worked in Leiden and Haarlem, before embarking for England in 1693. From 1660 on to 1707 Collier created a large oeuvre of work that has at its core the vanitas tradition, and the depiction of a human face on a print or painted portrait, along with numerous examples of the use of text in his compositions. The texts are in Latin, English and a few in Dutch, so his buyers must have come from varying geographies. His historical figures range from the Dutch Erasmus of Rotterdam and Jacob Cats, to the Italian Michelangelo and the English King Charles I. The paintings attributed to Collier in this analysis have many similarities to those of De Claeuw and De Cordua, and further on in these observations to Vincent van der Vinne, Pieter and Barent van Eijsen. The conventional vanitas elements within Colliers’s works are the skull, roemer, bubbles, time pieces, money bags, jewellery boxes, musical instruments, celestial and terrestrial globes. Collier’s documents and books tend to be specific, and less generic and he identifies each person he depicts. Collier’s 1662 depiction of Cats, now in New York, is an example of his earlier work created in the Netherlands (fig. 29). Cats, who studied in Collier’s hometown of Breda, later lived and worked in Leiden, where Collier is known to have worked as well. Leiden in the

119 Sullivan 1974, p.271; De Claeuw was an established vanitas painter, and thus the use of the larger portraits on the left of the composition within his vanitas, figs. 27 and 28, would suggest these are borrowed or copied from other artists. 120 Wahrman 2012 p. 119; Collier visited previously before he moved to England in 1693. Wahrman speculates that Collier already knew what the art market in England would want, and he had already prepared many canvases prior to his move. His work was sold by auctioneers.

37 seventeenth century is a center for Calvinistic thought, with wide adoption of vanitas still life.121 This still life with Cats (fig. 29) contains an architectural pillar with a draped flag or curtain, and forms the backdrop for a table arranged with Collier’s conventional objects plus a pearl necklace and a finger ring said to belong to Collier.122 Vanitas elements such as the watch with chain, violin, overturned tazza and roemer with a skull peeking out from behind an open book on the right side of the painting complete the composition. This traditional triangular still life composition has several diagonal lines: the rod that holds the flag is set at a steep angle, and is mimicked by the quill, bow, recorder and the line of the top of the open book. The over turned tazza and roemer are set at angles as well. There are several inscriptions on this painting. The first is the signature ‘EC’ on the almanac flap dated 1662.123 The second is jutting out of a small book placed above the music sheets with the text ‘VANITAS. The third identifies the print: ‘IACOB. CATZ. RIDDER RAED / PENSION. VAN. H. M. HEEREN. / STATEN. VAN. HOLLANT. CVRAT.’ (Jacob Cats, grand pensionary of their majesties the lords of the States of Holland). There is no discernable relationship between the objects, except that Collier uses a known motif and explicitly portrays Cats, similar to the anonymous work from circa 1650-59 (fig. 18), but Collier clearly identifies the person documented. Vanitas still life (fig. 30), is an elegant, triangular composition, where the objects are evenly distributed on the horizontal place. The two compositions, figure 29 and 30, are very similar, even though figure 30 is attributed to a much later time. A large book anchors the left of the painting in both figures (figs. 29, 30). One object not seen thus far in the works of Luttichuys, De Claeuw and De Cordua, a majestic columbine cup, is central to figure 30. The Vorsterman engraving of Van Dyck (fig. 23a) now makes its way into Collier’s, Vanitas still life from 1700 (fig. 30).124 In this graceful painting containing text, vanitas elements and earthly riches, Collier places a portrait print of Van Dyck hanging off the table at the bottom right of the painting. A scroll rests on a globe and a book is propped open with the inscription ‘DESCRIPTION OF THE WORLD.’ A flute, rests on what might be a bible with a small inserted sheet stating, ‘VITA/BREVIS/ARS/LONGA’ (Life is short, art is eternal). There is one more instance of text on a small sheet of paper, in figure 30 stating, ‘VANITAS.’ Thus the overt vanitas message is established although there is no skull in this work; there is

121 Koozin 1996, p. 149; Sonnema 1980 pp. 104 - 105 122 Wahrman 2012, p. 68 123 Wahrman 2012, p. 68; Metropolitan Museum website. 124 There were many iterations to Collier’s name; Edwaert Collier is used in the Heinz Catalogue, and the RKD lists him as possibly being called Evert Collier, and other iterations. For this thesis, Edwaert Collier is used.

38 no ambiguity in this text reference. Collier repeatedly used this Van Dyck print and several examples exist today of his trompe l’oeil studio board works affixed with prints of various historically prominent figures, and an example including Van Dyck is shown in figure 31.125 A print of Michelangelo (1475- 1564), artist and sculptor, is placed in a rather sparse vanitas (fig. 32), which has the same background pillar as in the Cat’s composition (fig. 29) and the usual vanitas objects are placed at the far left of the painting, leaving the right side of the composition bare. Vanitas elements such as the watch, recorder, book, scroll and globe are similar to the earlier Cats panting (fig. 29), as is the table with its sharp corner jutting out in the foreground. The text on the label emphasizes the moral message. ‘VANITAS VANITATUM ET OMNIA VANITAS.’ Similar also to the Cats piece there is a skull peeking out from behind the book at the right. The open book curiously states ‘HAERLEM’, where Collier worked for a time, but there is no immediate connection to the Italian Michelangelo. The slightly dog-eared image of Michelangelo faces right, and hangs at the bottom right of the picture, with a seemingly illegible inscription. But, as noted, Collier did like to identify his portraits, thus the text must be legible in a more clearer image. One element that stands out in this painting is the sculpture of a male figure on the table at the top left. It is free and clear of the other objects. While no favorable source was found for the sculptured male figure, it does allude to the fact the Michelangelo was a sculptor. A series of compositions very similar to the Michelangelo painting depicts an engraving of Augustus Julius Caesar (63BC – AD 14, figs. 33, 34, 35), the first Roman Emperor and founder of the Roman Empire. The paintings are attributed to three different years namely; 1687, 1694 and 1705 respectively. However, they are remarkably similar. An engraving of Caesar facing left emulates a Roman era medal or coin, and illusionistic painting strategies result in curled papers and unanchored tables. The draped tables are in line with the picture plane, and the objects and table appear to be floating within the ambiguous space. The corner of the table is prominent in the left foreground and the objects crowded to the right. The marginal differences in the placement of the vanitas skull, globe, and open book may be described thus: A combination of the unadorned skull and book (fig. 33); globe and book (fig. 34); and globe, adorned skull and the addition of an overturned crown (fig.35). All three paintings have pieces of paper sticking out from books that state: ‘HOMO/EST/SIMILIS/BOLLAE’ (Man is like a bubble) (figs. 33, 35); ‘VITA/BREVIS/ARS/LONGA’ (fig. 34); and sticking out from the large open book,

125 Monteyne 2013, pp. 1- 2

‘VANITAS/VANITATUM/ET OMNIA/VANITAS’ (Vanity of vanities, all is vanity) (fig. 34). A large open book is present in two of the works, and the title text on the right page of the books present in the 1687 and 1694 works are legible: The 1687 book states in Dutch BESCHRIJVINGHE VAN/de/DOODT,’ reflecting on death; and in the1694 work the title in English states, ‘A Defeription of the WORLD.’126 These iterations of paintings may mean consumer demand, a popular style based on a Collier’s prototypes or the combination of the two, and Collier sticking to a format that he knew he could execute well. Collier’s treatment of the Stuart King, Charles I of England (1600-1649), has an unique place within his oeuvre. In 1698, well after Collier had moved to England, he created a simple but elegant painting, with a tight, colorful composition of a few objects (fig. 36). On a draped table in line with the picture plane, a right facing skull crowned by a shell with bubbles overhead sit beside an elaborate candleholder with a smoking candle. An ornate and detailed nautilus cup, a gold watch with an open glass cover emulating a bubble or a magnifying glass add reflective highlights, and these objects collectively provide an environment for the central figure. In this distinctive rendition, Collier placed an image of Charles I on the right page of the centrally located open book. A golden key hangs off a blue ribbon in the center and a trompe l’oeil rendering of a paper with the text ‘NEMO/ANTE/MORTEM/BEATUS/DICI/POTEST’ (No one (can be called) happy before his death), is overtly set on the right. The text on the left page of the book identifies the central figure: ‘To the Reader, Carolus Rex Primus.’ There are no regal trappings, such as a crown or scepter, which might give a clue as to the identity of the portrait, except the text in the book. The replica of Charles I is attributed to the painting Van Dyck made of the King (fig. 36a) and Collier created this work about 50 years after the death of the Monarch. This 1698 work is the only painting I could find that poses the portrait of the martyred King within a framed oval in a book, and thus it might refer the King’s book Eikon Basilike (fig. 36b). There are several other examples of Collier’s near obsession with the Stuart line and members of those related to the Stuart monarchy. A 1707 painting, Crown Jewels (fig. 37), has as the central motif a print of Charles I, and the King is posed and dressed in a very similar manner to the 1698 work, and most likely the source is the same Van Dyck portrait (fig, 36a). A possible source for all of Collier’s representation of the King. The 1707 work, differs from the 1698 work in that the text, crown, scepter and globus crucige with cross

126 Collier had already moved to England in 1693, and thus the use of English in the 1694 work is congruent with where he was working at this time. The 1684 work with the Dutch titles, was probably created here in the Netherlands.

40 identify the departed King, and instead of the skull or other overt traditional vanitas, Collier places a jewelry box, a string of pearls and gold medals. The entire composition glistens and shines. One medal draws attention to itself, as it is about to drop off the table, and it is likely this is a personal addition, as it could be a medal with Collier’s embossed self-portrait, identified by Mina Touminen. 127 One of the books on the table is closed, but a paper sticks out with the text ‘FINIS/CORONAT/OPUS’ (The end crowns the work). The painting signed and dated ‘E. Collier fecit, London 1707’, appears on the bottom of the print of the King, under the text, ‘Carolus Rex Primus.’ The inscription of the book is of interest as well, on the left, ‘….ANSIT/ ..ORIA/ MUNDI’ and on the right NEMO ANTE/ MORTEM/ BEATUS/ DICI/ POTEST. While not entirely legible, the text on the left could be ‘SIC/ TRANSIT/GLORIA/MUNDI,’ meaning ‘Thus passes the glory of the world.’ With so many textual messages and overt relationships between objects, the reading of this painting is both symbolic and based on stylistic attributes, and begs us to take the realistic, stylistic renderings as well as iconographic symbols into consideration. Or we will be missing much of the richness offered by the combined elements of motif, composition and meaning. His stay in London sees Collier continually portraying this particular monarch to varying degrees. In 1703, a composition with two crowns (fig. 38) - one crown is similar to the 1707 fur lined Crown Jewels in figure 37 - scepter and globus crucige with cross, and jewels, includes the print portrait of Johan de Witt, along with a medal portraying Henry IV of France (fig. 38). A miniature oval portrait of Charles based on prints Collier has used previously, sits on the table, facing out. The identifiable text on the open book is in Dutch, stating, HIER EINDIGD/ HET VERHAAL / der Wereldsche / VERANDE / RINGEN, meaning ‘Here ends the story,’ and on the left page, ‘SCHOUTONEEL / van den / Op en ondergang / der GROOTEN’. This entire composition is shared with a painting from 1705, where Charles I is juxtaposed with the Roman Emperor Augustus, whose print is signed by Collier (fig. 39). There is considerable repetition of the motif in figures 38 and 39, and the shared objects are identical to the 1703 work, but the text within the open book and on the lower left is in Latin (fig. 39), fitting for both individuals portrayed, and could serve both the Dutch and English market. The 1707 Crown Jewels (fig. 37), now appears to be a reductive process of the two works from the earlier years, 1703 and 1705 (figs. 38, 39).

127 Touminen 2014, p. 98; Touminen, in a painting of Collier’s located at Vaduz-Vienna, has identified and determined that this might be Collier’s self-portrait within the medal; a similar medal seen to the one in figure 36.

Collier’s near fixation with the Stuart line is further illustrated in the two similar works depicting King William III (1689-1702, figs. 40, 41), and one possibly depicting Queen Mary II (fig. 42). William III was the grandson of Charles I. The right side of the two paintings depicting William III (figs. 40, 41), a fur lined crown sits on a large book, a globus crucige is nearby and at the back, a large legible book. This right section of figures 40 and 41 are a mirror of the right section of the works depicting Charles I (figs. 37, 38, 39). The scepter and globus crucige with cross, jewelry casket, with gold medals and medal with portrait depicted on the table, are all very familiar objects within Colliers’ motifs. The print portrait, King William III, by Pieter Schenck (fig. 40a) is a possible source for figures 40 and 41. One of the works depicting William III is attributed to 1702, the same year that William III died (fig. 40). When compared with the female portrait in figure 42, a similar composition ensures, but the portrait is placed in the back behind the jewelry box. The portrait is possibly of Mary II (figs. 42a, 42b), who ruled alongside William III, but dies in1694.128 It is difficult in the wake of similar works and the near identical motifs to determine where the memento mori objects and inscribed texts leave off, and where the contemporary elements take over the narrative. Nevertheless, to simply focus on pictorial strategies without the traditional symbolism does not allow for a rich experience of Colliers works, and it again reinforces the need to decipher his work on multiple levels. There are two other paintings of Colliers’ noteworthy in connection with this analysis, which depict Dutch historical figures. One is an allegorical work with many instances of traditional vanitas elements such as the lute, globe and music sheets, immortalizing Jan van Leiden or John of Leiden, a religious martyr who met an untimely and bloody death (fig. 43). New to Collier’s repertoire, an addition of a seated female statue possibly of a seated Venus or Bathsheba. This composition immortalizing Van Leiden notably has a rich overturned nautilus cup on the left, a dominant diagonally placed lute, and a laurel crowned skull, which could allude to resurrection. The next picture contains a popular print of the more staid Erasmus of Rotterdam (fig. 44), a humanist and scholar, who Collier has set within the context of vanitas objects and the historical book by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian and author. While the reading is inconclusive, Collier employees established vanitas objects along with contemporaneous additions, smartly leveraging the textual richness of still life, employing representational skill and symbolic elements to create an atmospheric image that

128 http://englishmonarchs.co.uk/stuart_6.htm; http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp02998/queen-mary-ii?search=sas&sText=Queen+Mary+II

42 clearly moves away from tradition to contemporary ideas, perhaps reflecting the progressive teaching’s of Erasmus himself. In the same manner as Collier, Barent van Eijsen active from 1679 – 1702 in Haarlem, utilizes another Stuart King, the son of Charles I in his vanitas still life (fig. 45). In an elaborate and seemingly unrelated display of objects placed in a triangular form constructed to the right, there are several works on paper depicted. In the background, on the wall, is a still life with a nautilus cup, blue fabric of what appears to be a flag, the pillar and a few flowers in a vase. Conventional vanitas objects are arranged on the table, in a composition similar to Collier’s work, and a bright folded carpet sits on the lower left. A miniature portrait nestles among the shells above the etching, possibly a self-portrait, while a curious imprint of an illustration of a person sit between the timepiece and the sword handle to the left. In the center, lower right and hanging off the table, the clear etching of King Charles II staring out at the viewer. The print is inscribed with ‘C(A)ROLUS STUART/Angliae, Scottiae, Franciae/ et Hibermiae, REX’. No skull is visible in this jumble of objects, and the other objects with human faces seemingly have no interrelation. There is of course a board connection to be made between Charles II and his stay in the Dutch Republic during his exile until his final departure to England in 1660, to take over as the supreme monarch. The blooming rose might signpost the House of Stuart.129 Barent van Eijsen’s composition and style is not only similar to Collier, but also to Vincent Van der Vinne, who will be discussed below. Pieter van Eijsen was active from 1661 – 1669 in Haarlem, and only two vanitas paintings are listed for P. Van Eijsen, one of them is this 1661 vanitas(fig. 47) with a strong pyramidal composition, culminating at the point of the flag pole, and diagonal lines crossing at the centre.130 Figure 47 is remarkably similar to Colliers’ works in terms of the pillar and the depiction of objects (fig. 29, 32).131 A closed book bears an inscription on its cover, ‘BASSVS’, to which no translation is available. The print of a female hangs off the right corner of the table, labelled ‘VANITAS’. Her skin is dark and she probably is from the southern hemisphere.132 Trompe l’oeil effects in the handling of the papers and the print, within the floating composition, is illustrative of the era. While it is difficult to identify the

129 See notes in foot note 143 130 Van der Willigen 2003, p. 78 131 RKD website notes the painting was dated 1661 and signed by Pr van Eijse. 132 This print in contrast to the print of Queen Mary II for example (fig. 42a, 42b), the person’s face appears darker, concluding they are from Africa or another Dutch colony. While she cannot be identified, she also does not fit the definition of a tronie, as she is not overtly old or withered.

43 print, the person depicted could originate from a Dutch trading colony. Within the trading context and what appears to be the Dutch flag at the top of the composition, the print and the flag could form a relevant association, alluding to the Republic’s global trade, in the golden age. Cornelius Gijsbrechts provides a departure to the still life works discussed thus far, with his focus on trompe l’oeil studio walls depicting vanitas still life. He was active from 1657 – 1675, and likely born in Antwerp, where he was accepted into the St. Luke Guild as a master painter around 1659-60.133 His illustrative career spanned many geographies: He moved to Regensburg in 1664; in 1665-1668 he was in Hamburg; and 1668 – 72 in Copenhagen as a court painter to the Danish Kings Frederik III and Christian V.134 Alan Chong describes Gijsbrechts’ work as a collection of “optically striking still lifes,” which blurs our vision between illusion and reality, and were collector’s items at a time when the courts in Denmark and elsewhere were creating collections based on exotica, naturalia and artificial items.135 Gijsbrechts 1668 Trompe l’oeil with Studio wall and Vanitas Still Life (fig. 9), was purchased by the King of Denmark for his perspective chamber in the Royal Kunstkammer, now the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen. The courts of Europe were enamored with trompe l’oeil, and Gijsbrechts’ work is certainly a reflection of that interest. Trompe l’oeil creates a fictitious space between the viewer and the painting, where none exists. This feigned perspective allows the viewer to transcend the boundary between the actual space and a virtual space. Gijsbrechts’ trompe l’oeil vanitas within a trompe l’oeil (fig. 9) is an excellent example of illusion creation in the seventeenth century. This distinct painterly device was prevalent in the vanitas paintings, and thus is an important element to consider in the reading and appreciation of the work of Gijsbrechts as well as others in this time frame and genre. Deception or the delight in deception was a key reason for its popularity. The career of Gijsbrechts and Van Hoogstraten would allude to the fact that the Royal houses of Europe were also patrons of the vanitas tradition, especially if the vanitas was also highly illusionistic. Gijsbrechts last dated panting is from 1675.136 Gijsbrechts signs many of his paintings as the ‘Conterfeyer’ or counterfeiter, as seen in his later works in 1668 (fig. 9).137 While this is more to say he is a painter, it is also noteworthy that counterfeit or somehow fooling the viewer is part of how this is viewed

133 Koester 1999, p.16 134 Koester 1999, pp.16 – 17; Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 293 135 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 28 136 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 293 137 Koester 1999, p.154

44 today. It is clear that like Van Hoogstraten, Gijsbrechts moved to the places where he could find work, including various European courts, and his lasting skill at trompe l’oeil won him many commissions. It suffices to say that Gijsbrechts did not work for the open market, but sought to differentiate himself with his talents and worked for patrons.138 Thus his paintings need to be seen in this light. In a trompe l’oeil tour de force a knife is stuck behind a falling canvas, as the canvas frame rests on a ledge against a studio wall (fig. 47). Considered to be the first vanitas incorporated into the studio wall motif, Gijsbrechts’ signature is clear in the center, ‘C.N. Gysbrechts Ao 1664,’ 139 and the traditional vanitas elements within the trompe l’oeil niche is reminiscent of the1603 painting by De Gheyen (fig. 1). A skull with grains around it implies the inevitability of death and the Christian hope of resurrection. The familiar half-used candle, roemer in a glass holder, bubbles, watch, sandglass, and documents symbolize the passage of time, and the pistol represents temporal power.140 On the ledge are painter’s tools including a wet, dripping palette, brushes and paint box, which signal the creator, the artists. The identity of the portrait at the upper left is debated, and thought to be that of Philip IV.141 At the time of this 1664 painting, if attributed correctly, Gijsbrechts was in Regensburg, Germany, according to Olaf Koester and later in the year Gijsbrechts went to Hamburg.142 If indeed he was working on a commission for a wealthy patron, then it is likely that this miniature portrait is connected to a patron in Regensburg or elsewhere in Germany. Trompe l’oeil with Studio wall and Vanitas Still Life, 1668 (fig. 9) as noted earlier, a studio wall and a vanitas painting very similar to the 1664 (fig. 47) work above. It contains two miniature portraits and one empty slot for another. The trompe l’oeil vanitas canvas mounted on its stretcher hangs on a meticulously rendered studio wall and below it a ledge with painter’s tools. The diagonal lines created by the maul stick and brushes mimic the angle of the knife above. Also resting on the ledge is one of the miniature portraits alongside

138 Koester 1999, pp. 16 - 17 139 Koester 1999, p. 144 140 Koester 1999, p. 144 141 Koester 1999, p. 144 142 Koester 1999, pp. 16-17; In 1660 Gijsbrechts is known to have moved to Germany, as there are several works by him that contain German text, as early as 1661. He was in Regensburg in 1664, then in 1664-65 through 1668 he worked in Hamburg. In 1668 – 1672 he worked in Copenhagen at the court of the Danish King Federick III (born 1609, King 1648 – 70) and his successor Christian V (born 1646, King 1670 -99). Koester notes instances that Gijsbrechts work was purchased by noblemen, and while it is not known if Gijsbrechts was ever commissioned by Emperor Leopold I (born 1640, Emperor 1658 – 1705), Koester maintains that Gijsbrechts went to Germany to further his career, and to find wealthy, noble clients and patrons. Similar to Van Hoogstraten and perhaps even to follow in Van Hoogstraten’s earlier success with Emperor Ferdinand III (born 1608, Emperor 1637 – 1657)

45 a note. The top left portrait is of Emperor Leopold I and Koester notes this painting was purchased by the Danish King, presumably Frederick III, from Gijsbrechts.143 The portrait on the shelf is inconclusive, and not a self-portrait.144 The text states ‘C.N. Gijsbrechts F.A°. 1668,’ so clearly done at about the period attributed to Gijsbrechts arriving in Copenhagen. The inscription on the lower left by the unidentified portrait states, “A Monsuer/ Monsuer Cornelis Norbertus/ Gijsbrechts Conterfeyer ggl. in./Coppenhagen”.145 It is curious why the Danish King would purchase a panting that portrayed another monarch, unless he was struck by the illusion within the painting. This leads to the deduction that iconography, intellectual ideas along with illusionism, and the symbolism and realism in rendering objects, were valued by artists, patrons and buyers. Vincent van der Vinne (1628 – 1702) of Haarlem was a pupil of Frans Hals in 1647. He is known to have travelled to Germany, Switzerland and France from 1652 to 1655 and to have spent most of his life working in Haarlem. He was mostly noted for his still life paintings. His recurrent depiction of King Charles I is reflected in one famous works now at the Louvre in Paris, which prominently displays the print of the King (fig. 48). Van der Vinne used as his source material a print of Wenceslaus Hollar after Van Dyck (fig. 48a), a propaganda print that was widely circulated and associated with the Dutch Eikon.146 Amidst the vanitas elements such as the globe in the background, skull, hour glass, candle holder, money bag, instruments and fading flowers, sits the crown and the print on a draped table on the lower right. A reference to the monarchy is also seen in the plumed helmet. The gourd in the centre could be a reference to the manner in which people used to carry holy relics. The King’s blood was considered holy among his followers and the gourd might be the vehicle for its transport.147 The composition as a whole contains the traditional Dutch memento mori, among such strong Christian faith icons such as a shepherd’s crook and the architectural columns at the back, symbolising the pillars of the faith.148 Helmer J. Helmers in The Royalist Republic, reads the decaying flowers as a possible symbol of the English Stuart’s rose. An emblematic reading of the flowers would suggest the symbol of the transience of life, while in Helmers’ royalist reading, it reflects the lost Stuart monarchy.149 What is noteworthy is the fact that the reference to the monarchy is muted amidst the other objects,

143 Koester 1999, p. 154 144 Koester 1999, p. 154 145 Koester 1999, p.154 146 Helmers 2015, p. 142 147 Helmers 2015 p. 145 148 Helmers 2015 pp. 145 - 146 149 Helmers 2015 p. 146

46 and unlike Colliers iteration in figures 37, 38 and 39, where the royal regalia is prominent, and glorified. In Louvre piece two elements of text appear, one generally meaning ‘Things can change,’ and next to the skull the inscription reads ‘Think about the end.’ It appears there are multiple levels to be contended with; the martyrdom of the King, the mediation on his death, the fact that death is all around us and the end can be near at any time for everyone. In comparison to his Louvre piece, Van der Vinne’s work after 1649, creates a different ambience (fig. 49). The composition is minimal. A dark background, scroll on sandglass, vase with carnations, two shells on a wooden table and table cloth, flute, skull on over tuned crown, clapper, and scepter, is augmented by the Hollar print, placed on the lower left. Within this minimalist composition, with only 14 objects, the crown and scepter clearly identifies the King. The text on the lower right further reinforces, as it states, ‘Den Coninck, boer en bedelaer/Sijn in het graf Godt even naer’ (All are equal in death). Van der Vinne continues to use this print in several of his works, only slightly varying the organization of his material culture objects, along with the Hollar print (figs. 50, 51, 52). His overturned crown is reminiscent of one used by Collier (fig. 66). In fact, the composition within figure 49 bears an uncanny resemblance to a painting attributed to Collier at the Sinebrychoff Art Museum, which contains a tronie (fig. 66), which will be noted later. Admiral Maarten Tromp was an admired and successful Dutch military hero. He died defending the Dutch against the English in the Battle of Portland in 1653. Pieter Steenwyck’s 1656 portrayal of Tromp in a contemporary still life contemplates the success, life, and the subsequent memory of Tromp (fig. 7). This commemorative piece combines personal objects, military regalia with vanitas elements. This painting, discussed at length by De Jongh in his article The interpretation of still-life paintings; possibilities and limitations, is notable because objects are clearly grouped into the generic symbolic vanitas, with a set of objects that relate directly to the deceased, and iconography that De Jong attributes to the objects are clear.150 The details that refer directly to Tromp are the funeral oration, and the oval print portrait, perhaps the sword, the nautilus cup, and the seafaring book. This ode to the Admiral is set within the transience of life, and in context seems all too fitting, as the Admiral met a premature death following a successful career. Steenwyjck’s tribute to Trompe, Collier and Van Der Vinne’s immortalization of Charles I, the representation of Van Dyck or Rembrandt and the other historical figures

150 De Jongh 2000, pp. 143-148

47 allude to mortality within art, even glorification of the deceased, within a spiritual and traditional vanitas iconography. Gijsbrechts is the only artist in this discussion to have used a painted portrait, De Cordua uses a combination of print and sculpture, and all other historical or famous people are depicted via a graphic print. These paintings indicate a turning point, and a new direction for Dutch vanitas still life genre with the creative use of studio media, the use of propaganda and the use of popular culture materials as objects, within a known genre that continues to exploit Dutch naturalism. These ideas will be explored further in the next chapter.

Self-portraits and self-representation

In a self-portrait painting of Collier (fig. 53) the artist, as gentlemen, surrounds himself with objects leaning, music and painter’s tools along with a few vanitas elements. This portrait gives a good idea of what Collier might have looked like. Collier’s print portrait, the source of which is not determined, appears in this Vanitas from c. 1661 – 1665 (fig. 54). A majestic nautilus cup on a sliver stand is the focus of the image, and it occupies the central position. Conventional vanitas objects surround the cup, such as a viola, trumpet, a watch and chain, coins, and possibly Collier’s personal finger ring. String of pearls, books, a sandglass, vinegar jug, palette, and artist’s brush complete the rest of the image. The label on the right reads ‘Vanitas/vanity’ and the text inserted into a book on the left is illegible, but most likely contains a vanitas message. The self-portrait is a bust showing Collier with long hair, facing left, set in an unadorned oval border, looking similar to the man portrayed in figure 53. This print does seem to match with the Collier self-portraits in figures 54 – 57, and he does not appear to age. He is depicted with a mixture of pronk vanitas elements and traditional vanitas objects (figs. 54, 55), which could allude to the virtuoso artist mimicking various textures and surfaces, and perhaps sets Colliers up as the master artist, immortalized within his own creation. Figures 56 and 57 are a little more austere. In figure 54 he is depicts himself with the “Josephius” book similar to the Erasmus image (fig. 44), and in figure 57 the open book clearly states ‘Roman’ and is similar to other city books he paints (fig. 32), and this painting is underscored by the classical bust present in figure. 57. Van der Vinne, Andreissen and Gijsbrechts provide varied examples of self-portraits within a moral genre. They use a combination of self-portrait prints and miniature portraiture (figs. 58, 60, 61). The influence of the Iconography is apparent in the self-portrait prints.

Van der Vinne’s vanitas painting at the Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem (fig. 58) incorporates a print by Leendert van der Cooghen (figs. 58a, 58b) in an elaborate still life weighted towards the left, with many of the objects building out from the left of the panting in a triangular composition. The source of the printed depicted could be one of two, as seen in figures 58a and 58b. The table edge is exposed on the far right, diagonal lines are apparent throughout the composition, and the self-portrait print hangs off the table on the left, which is an unusual placement. The majority of prints when hanging off a table, are usually placed on the lower right. By placing many of the objects to the left, Van der Vinne perhaps alludes to all the earthly pleasures evoking the classical painting style. An open book takes center stage, while an over turned lute, recorder, flute, skull crowned by a wreath, an hourglass and globe surround it. Shell, over turned roemer and smoking paraphernalia are placed towards the right, perhaps indicating the negative elements of life. Van der Vinne’s self-portrait print is reminiscent of the type initiated by Van Dyck, and similar to Van Dyck’s own self-portrait (figs. 23a) with a focuses on the head and hands, as Van der Vinne and Van Dyck look over their shoulders.151 In another more minimal example, which does not have a skull in the motif, a globe, trumpet, flute, sand glass, open book, and strand of pearls are arranged on a table covered by a bright blue tablecloth. The objects are centered in this painting and built out from the center to the right. Van der Vinne’s portrait after Van Der Cooghen stares out from the lower right. There are a few instances of text; on the right ‘Memento mori’; center ‘Pense a la Fin’; and monogramed and dated at the lower right ‘LCV../van de venne/1664 8/30.’ While the Haarlem piece is very different in terms of composition and richness of the objects portrayed, they both share the same print. In the Haarlem piece (fig. 58), the print clearly places the artist within the composition surrounded by objects reflective of learning, the arts and science, wealth, music, and nuances of death and transience, and even the hope of resurrections and after life reflected by the symbolic laurel wreath on the skull. In the Paris work (fig. 59), this is reflected to lesser degree, but underscored by the text, which draws attention to the vanitas message. An elegant still life by Andriessen (fig. 60), where the objects are centered on a round table within a dark room, shows an elegant foreigner with a gold chain around his neck holding a miniature portrait of the artist. His gaze is on the portrait. The artist in the portrait appears to glance back over his shoulder at the viewer, while pointing with his finger at the objects on the table. The skull is centered on the table on top of a closed book, on the

151 Depauw 1999, p. 73

49 left, we see smoking paraphernalia and a sandglass, and on the right, there is a small statue with the tools of the artist’s trade. Elements such as a lute and flute, soap bubbles and the fading flowers round off the vanitas symbols. The setting in general appears to be contrived within a studio, and while the moral genre is apparent this composition may also be a result of the studio culture as artists relied heavily on what was actually available to inspire their compositions. The miniature pendant portrait further alludes to the artist creator, as noted by the tools of his trade on the lower right. Gijsbrechts’ c. 1664- 1688 Trompe L'oeil of a studio wall with a vanitas still life, mirrors a few of his other compositions (fig, 61), where a vanitas canvas is seen falling off its frame while it rests on a studio wall, and shelf, with a knife stuck behind a canvas on a tromp l’oeil frame. Two portraits are included in this version, along with his signature palette, maulstick, and artist’s brushes on the lower center. Created presumably while in Hamburg, Gijsbrechts places a miniature portrait possibly of a patron, held by four small nails on the studio wall, to the left of the falling canvas. On the shelf along with the artist tools he places a self-portrait, identified as Gijsbrechts, and it sits next to a note with the text ‘A monsieur/ Monsieur Gijsbrechts/ schilder geghenwoordig/ tot Brughe’. The painting is signed on the lower left ‘C. N. Gijsbrechts.’ His multiple vanitas still life with portraits and at times his self-portrait, surrounded by artists’ tools could allude to that fact that many of his patrons were mesmerized by his craft. Thus granting him the license to create illusionistic paintings in which he was not only able to put his signature, but also his face, emphasizing the artist as creator. Another more complex paintings with a foreign male, similar to Andreissen’s, is seen holding a pocket watch, traditional elements and more opulent and richer objects are placed on an elaborate carpet, with the artists’ miniature resting against a palette (fig. 62). This painting is also clearly signed, ‘CORNELIVS NORBERTVS GYSBRECHTS/ ANNO 1657’. The Andreissen from 1640- 1655 (fig. 60) and Gijsbrechts 1657 vanitas (fig. 62) share many elements in common on the surface. The male figures are holding an object aloft, artist tools are apparent, classical statues are observed in both, skull in the center of the composition, thus it portrays both the past memento mori traditions and the present alluded to by the self- portrait pendant. Gijsbrechts continues to use his self-portrait pendant late into his career (fig, 63, 64). Andreissen and Gijsbrechts’ paintings (figs. 60, 62) evoke the composition style of Bailly, where a person holds a loft the artist’s self-portrait (fig. 3). The vanitas still life artists represented themselves with dignity, and as gentlemen. Many painters called attention to their craft by including the tools of their trade. Use of

50 autobiographical items such as personal rings, medals, mingled with vanitas elements, confirms the ability of these artists to pursue the use of a traditional vehicle with the introduction of contemporaneous elements: In short to innovate. Objects, such as books, sculpture, globes, and in the case of Collier, specific books, which might have been among their possessions are used repeatedly. They used self-portraits in the same way as they would have used self-reflection, to record their presence, and perhaps to advertise themselves. Some painted expensive or rare objects, perhaps denoting that the painting was as rare and as costly as the items depicted, making way for the appreciation for and the expansion of still life among the courts of Europe.152 Ultimately, and aligned with Alpers and Brusati, representation and more importantly hyper-representation was very important, and valued.

Tronies and Sculpture

As discussed earlier the 1628 Rijksmuseum painting by Claesz, Vanitas still life with Spinario, is reflective of a studio study (fig. 17), and dominated by a large classical sculpture. Claesz was active in Haarlem for four decades, and considered a master still life painter who influenced a number of his contemporaries.153 An early pioneer of the vanitas still life tradition, Claesz’s 1628 work illustrates the evolving Dutch vanitas still life. His specialty was the use of light and shadow, focusing on reflected light, and rendering accurate objects, which rarely overlapped on his canvas. While there is no specific portrait of note within his 1628 still life, there is a large statue of a young seated boy scrutinizing his foot and a drawing of a woman on the lower left. Bound books, bones, a skull, roemer, candle, painter’s tools, documents and an open book placed horizontally on a table, evoking the moral genre. Military amour alluding to worldly power reflects the light, musical instruments, quill and an open book with a drawing lies on the floor on the foreground.154 The objects stand out from the background, heavily weighted to the left and foreground. In the middle of the picture lie two crossed thighbones on the table. An inviting chair anchors the background. The sculpture is a replica of the Spinario and the drawing in the open book could be of Lucretia, as seen in a similar painting by Cranach the Elder (figs. 17a, 17b). Both could be a metaphoric reference to the Roman republic, which is where the Spinario and Lucretia stories originate. At a time in Dutch history, when the formation and holding on to the Republic was

152 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p.30 153 Wheeler 1989, p. 101 154 Sonnema 1980, p.4; Military amour and military elements allude to worldly power.

51 on edge, this motif is especially significant.155 What is apparent in this elegant composition is the ability of the Dutch painter to turn his studio content into a masterpiece that could also allude to a contemporary istoria, via classical imagery. By doing so, Claesz elevated himself within the arts as a conqueror of the natural world, and as noted by Angle in his speech to the St. Luke’s Guild intelligently communicated with the public and provided patrons in essence, with what they wanted: A complex scenario to decipher.156 Andriessen’s Vanitas (fig. 65) from 1640-55, is an exquisitely rendered and seemingly realistic painting which emphasizes the above aspect of communication. An open window lets in light to illuminate reflective bubbles, a bejeweled gold crown sits behind a sculptured head, a skull with a straw wreath in the center, a vase with flowers, a letter, sword, watch, scepter, and a St. George medal are composed in a tight order to communicate a complex metaphor. Unusual to this genre the open window looks out on to a landscape. A Seneca bust similar to the one used by Luttichuys from the Rubens House collection (fig. 8), is placed on the right. The St. George medal at the base of the bust is associated with Charles I, and the scepter may metaphorically denote Charles as well, as we have already seen in the works of Collier and Van der Vinne (figs. 37, 49). There is documented evidence Charles I wore this type of crown, and Andriessen uses this object in figure 65 as well as in his work at the Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, and Van Dyck depicts a very similar crown in a portrait of Charles I at the Royal Gallery, England.157 Andriessen might be making associations to Charles I, but he does not use the King’s image. How he might have come to know about the attributes of the King, might be through the Dutch version of the King’s book

Eikon Basileke.158 His patron or buyer must of course be aware of the associations, and Andreissen makes use of objects in a metaphoric manner by providing clues such as the medal, which together with the memento mori objects conjure the premature death of the King. This might have stimulated the meditative gazing by the viewer, while he reflected on the martyrdom of the King. In a similar manner, the sculpture bust must act as a metaphoric marker or signpost, forming a relationship with the other objects that point to this specific King.

155 Kahr 1993, pp.4-7 156 Sluijter 2000, p. 201, pp.210-211; p. 214; Wheeler; Goedde 1989, p. 43 157 Baadj 2009, p. 25; There is documented evidence that this particular crown is an imperial state crown, which Charles wore at official events. Baadj, notes that Daniel Mytens (1631, National Portrait Gallery) and Anthony van Dyck (1636, Royal Collection) depicts the King with this crown. 158 Baadj 2009, p. 25

The tronies and sculpture, as objects within vanitas paintings, share similar nuances, they appear to be sign posts or markers to a particular meaning or reflect the virtuoso artist, unlike a Van Dyck print which has immediate identity and history. An unidentified tronie hangs on the lower left in several iterations of Colliers work, notably; in a 1661 painting now in Helsinki; one from 1663 in Washington D.C; and another from 1693 in Liechtenstein, the year he departed for London (figs. 66, 67, 68), respectively. A skull with a scepter through it sits on top of an up-side-down crown, which is recognizable from Collier’s painting in figure 35, as well as Van der Vinne’s (fig. 49). Collier crowns the skull with a laurel wreath in these three iterations (figs. 66, 67, 68). Laurel symbolizes victory, loyalty, dedication, memory and the transition to eternal life. The circular shape signifies eternity, completeness, perfection, and connotes time, and the laurel wreath has been appropriated from the Greeks, via the Romans into Christianity.159 In the 1663 Heinz collection painting (fig. 67), the worldly wealth is symbolized by the globe, money bag, pearls, music, and its transience is reinforced by the soap bubbles rising from the shell and the hour glass in the back. ‘POMPEII’ is written at the end of the title on the left page of the book. His work in 1693 at the Liechtenstein Museum is only marginally different (fig. 68). A similar architectural background contains a table decked with a rich tablecloth and a skull and a laurel wreath on an overturned crown lying on a book with a label, which reads ‘SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI’. The scepter is now lying on the book and is not sticking out of the skull, A prominent candle stick, a closed book and label, with a shell and bubbles, a scroll and a sand glass complete this minimal composition,. The open book also has some text, ‘Van de Endelhrj.. oes menlihe./LEVEN./’. The tronie in figures 66, 67 and 68 seem to be identical, and while I could not find an identical source print for it, there are several examples of similar tronies, both painted and in print at the Rijksmuseum, dated around this time (figs. 66a, 66b). Also intriguing is how much of the motif featured in figures 66 and 67 are reminiscent of the work created by Van der Vinne after 1649 (fig. 49). The variant is the print portrait; Van der Vinne uses the Hollar print of King Charles I (fig. 48a), while Collier uses a tronie (figs. 66, 67). Both purportedly worked in Haarlem, and they might have known each other, shared objects or prototypes and even influenced each other. Andreissen, Collier and Van der Vinne were embroiled in the life and death of this monarch and this influence becomes the subject of their paintings. While Collier and Van der Vinne resorted to a popular formula and

159 Anđelković-Grašar 2012, pp.341-345

53 stock objects and not specific objects clearly identified with Charles I, the way Andriessen did (fig. 65), they nevertheless collectively use the genre as a vehicle for communicating a specific person and event. Before I conclude on the above analysis, there are two paintings by Van der Vinne, which are noteworthy for several reasons (figs. 69, 70). Both are categorized as vanitas, one with a historical figure and the other with a tronie. They are near identical compositions, and the most prominent variant is the print used: King Charles I and a tronie, respectively (figs. 69, 70). The painter is reflected in the glass globe or sphere, within both images. This reflection displayed is amidst objects that allude to the temporal life. The objects include an hourglass at the upper right corner of the picture, an emblem of transience, a lute and flute suggestive of the temporal quality of music, an Almanac and a large monogram journal of the type used by merchants to record the chronology of their business transactions.160 A large glass globe reflects the artist before his easel. Held down by the reflective globe lies Hollar’s King Charles I (fig. 69), the same print recurrent in many of Van der Vinne’s work, and in figure 70 a tronie or man in a hat or turban. While the latter tronie is unidentified, a print of Lievens from the Rijksmuseum appears to be a very close facsimile to the print on Van der Vinne’s canvas (70a). The ability of artists like Van der Vinne to replicate to this extent is mesmerizing, and one can only conclude that this is a reflection of their ability to copy from a prototype, which was a possibly a requisite of their patrons and buyers, who might want to know what they were purchasing. The juxtaposition between figures 69 and 70 further emphasizes that the relationships between objects vary, depending on the combination within the composition. Symbolism can only extend to specific objects, and not to the whole, which means we can only read portions of the painting if we apply prescriptive emblematic iconography. These works further highlights the issues with iconography as a sole means for reading a painting. As Bedaux claims, over time certain objects can acquire many different nuances, flowers may mean the fading life or be a badge of a monarchy. Koozin explains that there is no one consistent application of a memento mori metaphor, and that the structure and the combination of objects within the composition might be better utilised to conclude about the meaning of specific objects, rather than relying on emblematic iconography based on single objects.161

160 Bursati 1990-1991, p. 176 161 Koozin 1990, p. 52

Thus the objects need to be viewed in context to the whole painting, and not given isolated pre-prescribed meanings. Still life images as seen in this chapter show a significant departure of what we generally think of as still life paintings; those only personifying the humanist, scholarly tradition of the vanitas moral genre. Contemporary elements provide the subject matter. Collier, Van der Vinne, the Eijsens, Steenwyjck and others move away from conventional vanitas traditions, and addresses a savvy contemporary market, and very possibly with specific personal adaptation as in the case of Adriessen’s Vanitas in The Hague (fig. 65). The use of contemporary graphic prints, national flags, specific literature, portraits, and sculpture allude to personal choice rather than a formulaic vanitas tradition handed down from Italian Christian art. Artists use the vanitas tradition as a springboard to communicate varying degrees of identity, self-preservation and self-representation, martyrdom and immortality, expressed via this moral vehicle. Both realism and symbolism play an integral part in telling the story. However, the contemporaneous elements need socio-cultural and economic understanding, if we are to further appreciate the depth of these paintings. In short, a hybrid of the narrative and descriptive alone, is not adequate to delve into the vanitas paintings. The next chapter will investigate the broad themes identified in this chapter, and will provide a more contextual reading of vanitas still life.

Chapter 6 – Themes and relationships examined – “Spirit of the times”

The concept of vanitas, historically been thought of as representing the transience of life, and collection of inanimate objects is said to provide a vehicle for the various didactic messages attributed to the objects via historical tradition. While that appears largely true, the introduction of physiognomy brings some complexities with it; namely they become the only objects that have a human face, and are thus identifiable. With that depiction, the still life connects to emotions, intellect, status, and history of the person depicted, and provides a set of iconographic and stylistic challenges, beyond the traditional use of the memento mori objects explored by Sonnema and others. The broad themes identified at the close of chapter five are further explored in this chapter: Identity, martyrdom, immortalization, and self-representation in contemporary times, within the prevailing socio-cultural and environmental climate. A few stylistic aspects will be discussed, along with the probability that the studio culture and surrounds greatly contributed to the vanitas still life with portraiture. The findings in the earlier chapter will be looked at, from the perspective of the existing and prevalent vanitas symbolism to which the portraits have now been cleverly appended as ingenious, seamless contemporaneous additions to the vanitas motif. In an etching made by Rembrandt (fig. 13), shows a man drawing based on a sculpture cast before him. This etching along with the numerous other examples already noted in the previous chapter provide evidence that the artist studios were a cornucopia of collectables filled with ample objects to create vanitas still life. Van Hoogsraten encouraged artists to borrow, trade and buy the work of their contemporaries.162 Thus, it is not hard to propose that artists also borrowed objects, such as books or almanacs from each other, and also copied from existing paintings. The impetus to deviate from the ecclesial didactic model was driven by many elements and an attempt is made below to provide some reasons and examples. Throughout the themes explored below, what is apparent is the traditional interpretive model of iconography based on emblem art, is not a comprehensive vehicle to revive or resurrect still life vanitas. However, elements of it are useful to give context to the objects that are historically thought of as vanitas. The visual analysis methods based on naturalism or realism also fall short, as the context of the objects are lost.

162 Brusati 1995, p. 3

The first element in this inclusion of portraiture in vanitas is that it allows artists to include a contemporaneous object in their prevailing stock vanitas motif, and to do so with the characteristic naturalism of Dutch art. The inclusion of a portrait relating to a historical, cultural or socially implicating message is a pictorial strategy of the seventeenth-century vanitas artists. It appears to be a shrewd introduction, as it manages to create ripples in various directions. The prevalent types of depiction of the human face within vanitas may be categorized as follows; famous artists, historical figures, and monarchs (figs. 8, 19, 29, 36); followed by self-portraits of artists within their own work (figs. 54, 58, 60); tronies (figs. 15, 16, 66); and antiquarian sculpture (figs. 17, 18, 43, 65). The salient factor in all the paintings is that when the portrait comes into the vanitas motif it is given a new context. The print in circulation, painted portrait and the sculpture lose its intended significance and now move into the stock vanitas motif as an object within a microcosm of vanitas symbolism. What we can conclude here is if originally it had no “symbolism,” at least not of the vanitas type, now within the painting the human facsimile takes on a different nuance as an object associated with vanitas, and as a result augments with vanitas symbolism. As a contemporary element it would not have the historic, ecclesiastical associations as those around the skull, bubble or a lute, but in this new context, it would bring its own contemporary symbolic attributes to the reading of the vanitas painting. The contemporary portraits or classical sculpture has no direct bearing to emblematic art, so the proposition to use traditional iconographic methodology would be, as Bedaux noted, ineffective. What broad relationships exist between the portrait and the other objects? When a monarch or famous historical figure is present, attributes of their status or their profession are noted. A few examples are: A monarch’s image with a scepter or crown, reflecting his regalia (figs. 37, 40, 49 ); Augustus Caesar with ivy leaves on the print as well as on the depicted skull (fig. 33); names of cities are associated with the person (fig. 19); Michelangelo along with a marble statue (fig. 32). Certain publications or documents within the images seem to associate with the neighboring objects, but not always. For instance, Augustus Caesar’s print does not always appear with a crown of leaves (figs. 33, 34) , King Charles I is not present with a crown at every iteration (figs. 36, 52), nor does a painter always appear with the tools of his trade (figs. 18, 19, 54, 59). Broad surface relationships may be noted, but they are inconclusive, as they appear to be inconsistent. How we might read this is to acknowledge that artists had license to create as their imagination and artistic style dictated, and possibly what the market required of them. The innovation of including an identifiable

57 face provided them with a lot more leeway to create from their imagination and perhaps the opportunity to play with and break some artistic traditions. How did the portraits transmit identity and significance of the sitter? Unlike today, the public would not know the faces of people outside of their immediate geography, and in a sense art made that recognition possible, via the media of graphic print, paintings and sculpture.163 Indeed many of the figures depicted in the vanitas still life were public figures such as Rubens, Van Dyck, Charles I, Erasmus, (figs. 8, 23, 37, 44, 48). In the paintings examined, the print portraits of the monarchy and famous people, the image and text worked together to provide a definitive identification (figs. 7, 26, 29, 36, 38). Most often than not, there are objects that also link to the print portrait (figs. 32, 37). For instance, Van der Vinne’s King Charles I and the scepter and crown that is close at hand signifies the relationship, as the print portrait he chooses to use does not depict King Charles I with kingly attributes (fig. 49). Collier’s portrayal of the same King (fig. 27) uses a different image, and at times it is juxtaposed with Charles I’s regalia (fig. 37).164 Steenwyck’s portrayal of Admiral Tromp also has similar associations (fig. 7).165 The identity of a famous person was key in the seventeenth-century, as it would not have been possible to know the likeness of people who were not in close proximity. The use of object relationships within the painting, text or a combination, were employed as vehicles to identify historical figures. However, in some cases the portrayal of a king or emperor (figs. 9, 47), especially in works that were commissioned and seemingly made under the employment of a monarchy, the painted portrait is not identified. This could be a reflection of the commission, and thus there was no need to identify the patron as the painting was not for public consumption. Identification plays a role in the two paintings by Luttichuys (fig. 15, 16), while they do not directly display the likeness of his subjects, Luttichuys has used the medium of painting to display not only his virtuosity, but also of others. In these two vanitas paintings, Luttichuys uses recognizable prints, familiar portraits and tronies. In the analysis provided by Roelof van Straten the identity of those represented are noted, and they bring together the works of Lievens and Rembrandt.166 The use of tronies, after the works of these two artists

163 Parshall 2003, p. 23; Parshall notes: “Consider how few faces outside one's immediate culture would have been recognizable to the average, well-educated European in 1550; probably no more than two or three rulers and perhaps as many religious leaders, if they were sufficiently controversial. Yet even printed portraits of Charles V, Luther, and the Pope are typically named in the plate.” 164 Wahrman notes that it is not always easy to say if the crown or scepter detailed for example with a portrait of King Charles I is the King’s personal regalia. 165 De Jongh 2000, pp. 143 – 148; Sonnema 1980, pp. 94 – 95; In Steenwyck’s portrayal of Tromp we can be certain that many of those objects were personal to the depicted Tromp. 166 Van Straten, 1992, p. 121 – 142

58 are not entirely random as it fits within Luttichuys’s broad theme and motif of these two paintings concentrating on the works of the two masters. While it resembles a studio assemblage and could reference Luttichuys’ own aspirations as an artist, it nevertheless displays objects that can be identified with specific individuals and engages the viewer’s emotions, memory, and imagination on several levels. Luttichuys’s paintings obviously were for connoisseurs, art lovers who would recognize the hands of Rembrandt and Lievens in the portrait paintings and prints studiously copied by Luttichuys. In the context highlighted above, the two paintings do not fit the traditional model of iconographic interpretation, as advocated by De Jongh, rather it leans more towards a representational interpretation as put forth by Brusati or Alpers. The identified portrays, especially the pre-identified prints within the vanitas motif and the inclusion of the print portrait of celebrated artists extends the interpretation or reading of the paintings examined. Along with the prevailing vanitas interpretation, “Vita brevis, ars longa” (Life is short, art is eternal), it can be further appropriated to mean a personal selection of ideas and thoughts by artists, but foremost in this context, it allows for posterity and identity. The replica or miniature paintings’ place in the still life tradition and the prevailing culture in general also allows for an elevated communication among artists, colleagues, contemporary buyers and collectors. The next thematic development seen in the previous chapter’s selection of paintings is self-representation. The artist self-portrait prints or portraits typically do not bear their names, and are thus, treated differently to historic figures (figs. 54, 58, 60, 61). This poses a series of questions, and additionally it is difficult to discern the source materials for the self- portrait and self-portrait in print. In the case of Van der Vinne there is a clear line to the source graphic (figs. 58, 59), but those of Collier and others they are harder to attribute to an original (figs. 55, 56, 61, 63). However, within the still life tradition presumably the artists were operating within a small circle of collectors, buyers and connoisseur, and needed no introduction. Artists had other means of reflecting authorship of their work, by means of signature or including artist tools. These aspects are clearly reflected in the works of Gijsbrechts and Andriessen (figs. 9, 60, 61).167 Collier is an exception, in the latter years he used legible text on his print portraits, and it is possible that Collier had reason to identify

167 Wahrman 2012, p. 68; Collier uses a gold ring with letter EK on it several times as noted by Wahrman, and Gijsbrechts continues to use his miniature portrait in several works, which act as a marks of authorship. Brusati states that Van Hoogstraten uses his gold medal awarded to him by Ferdinand III as his marker. Further notes are available in their publications, Brusati, Koester, Wahrman.

59 himself more when he moved to London (fig. 56). His self-portrait in the Hague painting (fig. 56) shows an example of this self-identification over and above a simple signature. Generally, artists appear to use their image as a signature: Portrait becomes signature. The aspects of identity and self-representation are complex when it comes to artists portraits. Self-representation can take many directions, but as Brusati has stated it could be professional identity that is embodied in the manner in which the entire composition is executed, that gives rise to claiming with the self-image, the virtuoso painter.168 Brusati in her work on Van Hoogstraten as well as in an essay on self-promotion in the seventeenth century noted that artists within the still life genre were keen to use this tradition as a vehicle for self-promotion, and more importantly to display their professional identity and their superior skill.169 They inserted images of themselves to elevate themselves from the crafts, and to faithfully identify themselves with the representational craft of painting, thus conceiving a new way to convey artistic identity.170 They further embellished the pictorial space, with other elements or objects of personal significance, such as a painter’s tools, eye glasses or magnifying glasses that embody the world of the visual artist. Or in the case of Collier a personal object such as his ring or embossed medal (figs. 29, 37), Van Hoogstraten’s gold medal, or Herman Steenwyck’s his personal sword. The self-portrait sets a unique precedence within the vanitas tradition, as images are repurposed for inclusion. If we consider how the artist self-portrait was conducted in the early Netherlandish tradition, it was in the form of an oil painting of the sitter with his painting tools (fig. 53). Now within the vanitas tradition, taking a cue from the serial print makers, the artist first created a self-portrait image and then inserted it into the vanitas motif (figs. 54, 58). The self-portrait is used in a similar manner within the motif, as with the historical figures. We know that mimetic quality and representation, “the real,” was valued. From Angel we know that virtuosity and skill set painters apart in the noble tradition of picture making. Angel further extolled the virtues of duplication and illusionism. His erudite speech to the Guild of St. Luke, lionizing the power of imitation, and applauding the art of painting that can emulate reality and obscure the boundary between appearance and reality, probably paved the way for self-promotion in the seventeenth-century.171 It also provides an

168 Brusati 1990, pp. 178-179 169 Brusati 1990, p. 176 170 Brusati 1990, p. 170 171 Sluijter 2000, p. 204

60 acceptable reason why artists used the portrait print of their more famous colleagues within their compositions. With the portraits of those well-known and identifiable artists, such as the near photographic replication of Van Dyck, Rubens and less so Rembrandt (figs. 8, 18, 19 23), the reduplication into a painting provided the same message as extolled by Angle, Van Hoogstraten and others. It gives credence to Van Hoogstraten’s comment that artists need to inspire others, “show the way,” to appreciate art and artistic talent.172 The idea to include these types of self-representation into the vanitas motif is yet another innovative solution in creating awareness, communication, while extoling the virtues of painting, and seamlessly so within the existing vanitas traditions of transience and the ephemeral nature of this world. Picture making as an elevated profession capable of representing the world, and overcoming time. The immortalization of the martyrdom of historic figures appears to be a significant theme within Dutch vanitas. The English monarch King Charles I and his demise in1649 appears recurrently. Collier and Van der Vinne both give evidence in their paintings as to the significance of the monarch’s death (figs. 37, 58, 49). Collier immortalizes the figures of John of Leiden who was executed for his beliefs (fig. 43), Johan de Witt slayed by a mob (fig. 38) and King William III who died accidently (fig. 40). In one example Collier also creates a rather complex painting with the likeness of King Charles I, Henry IV of France, and the Dutch Johan de Witt (fig. 38). The depiction of those brutally killed or assassinated rulers could also signify the need for caution and to make way for a moderate life, reminding all that death is never far away. These examples also point to political leanings, social occurrences and contemporary commentary, while at the same time vanitas paintings appears to be an ideal repository to tuck these agendas within an accepted, conventional visual vehicle. Taking King Charles I portraits within the vanitas examined as an example, there are number of elements to suggest that their inclusion into the vanitas paintings were a match made in heaven. Van der Vinne’s portraits of the King was around 1649, closer to the death of the monarch, and within 10 years (figs. 48, 49, 52). Collier’s are much later and when he had already moved to England (figs. 36, 37). Collier uses both the print and portrait copies (figs. 37, 38, 39) while Van der Vinne uses one graphic print only (fig. 49, 51). The multiple iterations by Van der Vinne must mean that this motif with contemporary elements was

172 Brusati 1995, p.3

61 appreciated in Haarlem. There was much media hype on the execution, and even in the Netherlands there was near hysteria regarding the event, and publications and poetry mourned the King’s death.173 It can be safely established that this was a monumental political and social event that had repercussions far into the future. Furthermore there is evidence that the death of Charles I was a politically significant event also for the Dutch, and there is evidence that editions of the King’s book, Eikon Basilike, was printed in Holland (fig. 36b).174 To add to this, the martyred King was venerated much like the figure of Christ and his blood was said to have healing properties.175 The Christian significance of Charles as a manifestation of Christ was an impetus fueling the immortalization of this King. The visual sources were a powerful tool in political propaganda, and along with text and performance genre, the implications were examined or mourned through the arts.176 Helmers in an expanded discourse on the Royalist sympathizes within the Dutch republic, claims that it was an engraved image of King Charles I after a Wenceslaus Hollar’s adaption of Van Dyck that was most often in circulation and used in the vanitas tradition (fig. 48a) ), and it became a veritable icon.177 Collier uses a replica after the painting of Van Dyck, where the King is shown with body armour (36a). Within the various iterations of the theme, Van der Vinne for instance, clearly places items such as the Dutch flag within his compositions that include the King (figs. 71a – 71d). He venerates the King further with additions of the royal regalia. Collier in some instances represents the royal regalia, such as the crown, but at times simply the print or portrait appears, without the regalia. The conclusion that can be drawn here is two-fold. The vanitas symbolism was a perfect foil to communicate the martyrdom, and the associations to Christian faith, transience and even the resurrection of the martyred. The example of King Charles I with regalia within vanitas, document the importance of this event, communicating the political and social sympathies as it reverberated through the Dutch republic, with even the inclusion of veiled secular symbols known to contemporary audiences and to those with political motivations, as seen in Andriessen’s Vanitas still life, (fig. 65). Both traditional iconographic methods as well as contemporary symbols participate in interpreting these types of paintings with martyrs.

173 Helmers 2015, pp. 1- 3 174 Helmers 2015, pp. 115-148 175 Helmers 2015, pp. 124 - 129 176 Helmers 2015, p. 4 177 Helmers 2015, p. 4

The Stuart connection with Collier seems to run even deeper, and perhaps there are several more elements to be considered and explanations provided as to why Collier took up this motif later in his career after his move to London. I have attempted to provide one, based on Wahrman.178 Collier during his Breda years was in close proximity to the house of Stuart and Orange. Mary Stuart married to the Stadhouder Willem of Orange II, wielded power in this region along with other royalist exiles.179 In Mr. Collier's Letter Racks, Wahrman supposes that Collier had Stuart leanings, as he repeatedly, and even in his letter racks used the Stuart portraiture in the motif (fig. 72). This clearly implicates Collier as a master of political messaging via his paintings and also demonstrates the ability to be current. What the example of King Charles I tells us is that the vanitas paintings were a feasible vehicle to aggregate a number of concepts into an object driven painting. It provided an established backdrop to convey the variety and breadth of the seventeenth-century discourse in all things cultural, social and political. This explains the sheer quantity and replications of still life from the seventeenth century that have survived to this day. We can agree with Goedde and Chong on their descriptions of still life vanitas. Chong’s explanation of a world carefully selected and composed is apparent. Following Goedde, indeed the works are intellectual, and as seen with the King Charles I examples, they are emotional. They are also religious allowing for meditation on the various Christian messages, and at the same time they may be publically and culturally nuanced. The use of tronies for the most part followed the same manner as the other new elements introduced, i.e. to provide a contemporary element and to display virtuosity. In the case of tronies, as they are anonymous elderly figures, it is possible there is more of an association with traditional memento mori ideas. Tronies do add a human element and provide a source of emotional connection. In some cases, as with Luttichuys (figs. 15, 16), the insertion of tronies engraved or drawn by known artists would have been recognized by connoisseurs for whom these paintings were made. Sculpture, especially busts, originally created in antiquarian times to safe guard the memory of a leader, was often posthumously created. Roman statuary was known for its realistic depiction, of features and emotions, thus its inclusion within a Dutch still life is not incongruent in terms of the “realism” the still life masters wanted to achieve. Furthermore, there was much admiration for antiquarian art, culture and philosophy, and many of the

178 Wahrman 2012, pp.197, 199 179 Wahrman 2012, p. 199

63 humanistic traditions within the vanitas, had a history in the antiquarian era. The tronies and sculpture when present, display their realism and topical nature. The inclusion of tronies and sculpture does not detract from the vanitas tradition for they are relevant and rendered in a naturalistic manner. The sculpture busts of the emperors and philosophers of old refer to the transience of ruler ship and possibly the eternal value of learning. The skull, the most ubiquitous vanitas element, obviously dominates with iconographic significance and its association to death. It overshadows the rest of the objects by its iconographic meaning. If it is not present, and the piece is therefore not overtly vanitas, then other objects are present to provide the didactic messages associated with transience, such as burnt-out candles, bubbles or orbs, watch, or sand glass. The marking of time though is a universal theme within the vanitas still life observed, and the transience of life is gracefully captured, lest we forget its vigor. Artists’ studios were abundant with a variety of objects, with which to create their theatrical representations based on the still life tradition. Objects that already had symbolic attributes were included, and became part of the composition. The repetition of motif, and the narrow range of subject matter observed, indicates they were using what they had close at hand or what they could borrow from others. Within this constraint they were able to include a contemporary flair, giving them free rein to explore themes such as immortalization, painterly skill, self-representation, and comment on political, social aspects, and document. Perhaps even explore the notion of art overcoming death, and surviving into eternity. Vanitas still life has proven to be a vehicle to extend and innovate within the sub-genre, beyond the constraints of the methodologies explored in chapter three. These painters left ingenious works that reflect their curiosity, innovative style, complex social situations, and an adherence to the sophisticated painterly style of the Netherlandish arts in the seventeenth century.

Conclusion

The seventieth-century Dutch still life artists presented their finely worked images as if they were lifting a side a curtain, allowing a glimpse into another world. The remnants of that curtain still endures within the background in many of the paintings. What they portrayed certainly did not exist in nature, at least not in the same way a landscape or flower bouquet image represents nature. The opened curtain revealed the world in microcosm. Unlike landscape or genre pictures, the realism within still life is contrived, secretive, and theatrical. What this thesis set out to accomplish was review vanitas still life within the Dutch canon and through observation of a selection of vanitas still life with physiognomy - portraits and sculpture - provide an intersection for the interpretive methods of representation and iconography. Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann supposed symbolism and realism can exist together; hybrid approach of content and form. Could we apply the two methodologies simultaneously in a hybrid fashion to help revive the meaning of the still life sub-genre, vanitas? I think the answer is yes. Nevertheless, the tools for interpretation need to extend further, by also including the circumstances in which the art was created; the artistic, personal and the socio-cultural aspects surrounding the artist. The exploration in chapter 6 gives credence to this notion. An apt way to conclude is to reflect on this statement made by Wahrman in relation to Collier’s letter racks: “…embodied that fixation with contemporaneity and obsession with the moment that characterized their own historical context, which they display through the transferal of ephemerality from human life, measured against the gravity of history and of the printed annals of civilization, to the printed objects themselves.”180 Wahrman clearly echoes the societal and contemporary fixations of the era. That vanitas still life presents the idea of change or transition in perhaps its most graphic form; change from life to death, while making time stand still. This is one of the achievements of this sub-genre within the Dutch canon. Still life vanitas painting not only pleased the eye, it stimulated the intellect via rich variety and detail, it piqued the imagination and emotions with refined naturalism, and provided social and political details of the seventeenth century with which the viewer could sympathize. It transforms media and subject matter, paying close attention to setting, colour, and theme to amplify the central istoria. Presenting us something that is unique, yet intellectual.

180 Wahrman 2012, p. 70

The notion of realism so intrinsic to the Dutch canon, that Dutch painters faithfully recorded what they saw in the world, is theoretically true, but in practice, they created a form of selective naturalism. Vanitas artists represented objects in detail, but with a deceptive flair. There is a destabilization of the boundary between the image depicted and reality. Thus, we are left oscillating between two perspectives, realism and illusion, as explicated by Grootenboer, and reflected in the tile of her book. Objects were well defined and beautifully executed in oil and they scrutinized the natural world, but artists also drew on their past and the existing art in all media. Artists studied paintings, prints, drawings and texts, as they copied each other’s work, to advance their technique and theory. The naturalism they exhibited was calculated. The interpretative modes based on representation is key to evaluating this acute representational aspect of vanitas. As De Jongh is known to have famously quipped, it is not prudent to “throw the baby with the bath water.” The use of iconographic methodology to give context to vanitas still life is still plausible as there are many objects that have a strong symbolic significance, including portraits which as part of a vanitas still life acquire symbolic meaning. Vanitas still life were humanized by giving tribute to persons, immortalizing many of them, and it includes the expression of ideas. However, the person has now become an object with its own symbolic, if not metaphoric meaning. Further to the above, the social sphere, the religious environment, politics and economics, and how vanitas still life functioned in relationship to those circumstances, needs consideration. The King Charles I portrait within the vanitas still life allowed artists to create a communications channel around a controversial subject, and they used their art as a problem solving mechanism, among other aspects. Politicizing around what appears to be a difficult historical time, all the while adding contemporaneous references to an already understood and accepted medium, namely the vanitas still life. Thus, a true reading of vanitas still life cannot be conducted within silos. It should be a combination of the analysis of the visual and representational aspects, iconography or symbolism and within the social- cultural climate, as shown. The vanitas still life painters were illusionists. The unique skill of the still life painter in this context was their ability to be a painter, printer, print maker, draughtsman, and documentarian, and combine all the disciples of the arts imitated in oil. The representation of the natural but within a pictorial illusion, governed by traditions and individuality within their contemporary environment. Part of the attraction of the still life vanitas is that they continue to illicit reactions and provoke interpretation. At the least, we should have the right tools to

66 evaluate this complex sub-genre. There is more to be learnt about the still life tradition within the Dutch art canon.

Appendix List of artists explored in chapter five:

Artists Time frame

Andriessen, Hendrick 1607–1655

Claeuw, Jacques de 1623 – 1694

Collier, Edwaert 1642 - 1708

Cordua, Joannes 1625 - 1698

B. Van Eijsen 1650-1699

Eijsen, Pieter van Active in 1661 - 1669

Gijsbrechts, Cornelis Norbertus - 1675 (period of activity 1657 – 1675)

Luttichuys, Simon 1610 - 1661

Steenwyck, Pieter 1615

Van der Vinne, Vincent Laurensz 1628 - 1702

Bibliography Anđelković-Grašar J., Nikolić E., Rogić D., “Wreath- its Use and Meaning in Ancient Visual Culture, Religion and Tolerance”. Journal of the Centre for Empirical Researches on Religion, Vol. X, No. 18 (2012): pp. 341-358

Batchelor, T., (ed.), Dead Standing Things: Still Life Painting in Britain 1660-1740., (Display Catalogue, Tate Britain, London 21 May – 16 September 2012), London: Tate, 2012. Print.

Bedaux, J. B., The Reality of Symbols: Studies in the Iconology of Netherlandish Art 1400- 1800., 's-Gravenhage: G. Schwartz/SDU, 1990. pp. 9-108, 171-173. Print.

Blankert, A., “What Is Dutch Seventeenth-century Genre Painting?: A Definition and Its Limitations”. [in:] Selected Writings on Dutch Painting: Rembrandt, Van Beke, Vermeer, and Others., Zwolle: Waanders, 2004, pp. 99-106, 191-204. Print.

Brusati, C., Artifice and Illusion: The Art and Writing of Samuel Van Hoogstraten. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Print.

Brusati C., “Stilled Lives: Self-portraiture and Self-reflection in Seventeenth-century Netherlandish Still-life Painting”. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 20, No. 2/3 (1990): pp. 168-182.

Brusati, C., “Natural Artifice and Material Values in Dutch Still Life”. [in:] Franits W. E. (ed.) Looking at Seventeenth-century Dutch Art: Realism Reconsidered., Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997, pp. 144-57. Print.

Bryson, N., Looking at the Overlooked: Four Essays on Still Life Painting., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1990, pp. 96 -135. Print.

Bull, D., “Jan Gossaert and Jacopo Ripanda on the Capitoline”. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2009): pp. 89-94.

Collins, B. R., “What is Art History?”. Art Education, Vol, 44, No. 1 (Jan, 1991): pp. 53 – 59.

Chong, A., W. Th. Kloek, and Brusati, C. Still-life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550- 1720. Zwolle: Waanders, 1999. Print.

Cornelis, B., “Arnold Houbraken's “Groote Schouburgh” and the Canon of Seventeenth- century Dutch Painting”. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1998), pp. 144-161.

Deils, A., The Shadow of Rubens: print publishing in the 17th-cetury Antwerp: prints by the history painters Abraham van Diepenbeeck, Cornelis Schut and Erasmus Quellinus II. London: Harvey Miller, 2009, pp. 5-19, 37- 77. Print.

De Jongh, E., “Iconographical Approach to Seventeenth-century Dutch Painting.”, [in:] Grijzenhout F., Van Veen H. (ed.), The Golden Age of Dutch Painting in Historical Perspective., Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.

De Jong, E. “The interpretation of Still-life Paintings: Possibilities and Limitations”. [in:] Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch Seventeenth-century Painting., (Ed) Michael Hoyle; Leiden: Primavera, 2000, pp.129-148. Print.

Depauw, C., G, Luijten., Anthony van Dyck as a Printmaker. with contrib. by Erik Duverger... [et al.], Antwerp, Amsterdam: Antwerpen Open Rijksmueusm, 1999. Print.

Frantz, N. P., “Material Culture, Understanding, and Meaning: Writing and Picturing”. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 4 (1998): pp. 791-815.

Fuchs, R. H. Dutch Painting, The World as Image, Seventeenth-Century landscape and still life., New York: Thames and Hudson, 1978, pg. 81-102, 103- 142. Print.

Gaskell, I., “Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting”. by E. De Jongh”; Michael Hoyle; The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 142, No. 1172 (Nov., 2000), p. 707.

Gaskell, I., Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, Correspondences (1984). pp. 57–60.

Goedde, L. O., “A Little World Made Cunningly: Dutch Still Life and Ekphrasis”. [in:] Bergström, I., Wheelock, A.K., (ed.), Still Lifes of the Golden Age: Northern European Paintings from the Heinz Family Collection., Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1989. Print. pp. 35 - 43

Gibson, Walter S., Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America Vol. 2, No. 6, (December 1983). p. 210

Grootenboer, H., “Perspective as Allegorical Form: Vanitas Painting and Benjamin’s Allegory of Truth”. [in:] The Rhetoric of Perspective: Realism and Illusionism in Seventeenth-century Dutch Still-life Painting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp. 135-165. Print.

Haak, B., and E. Treeman (ed.), The Golden Age: Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century., New York: H.N. Abrams, 1984. Print.

Harvey-Lee, E. The Artist Mirrored, A selection of artist oriented portraits and self-portraits, North Aston, Elizabeth Harvey-Lee Print Dealers, Great Britain, 2002, pp. 3-5. Print.

Haverkamp-Begemann E., "The State of Research in Northern Baroque Art.", Art Bulletin, Vol. 69, No. 4 (1987): pp. 510–19.

Hecht, P., “Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: A Reassessment of Some Current Hypotheses”. Simiolus:Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 21, No. 1/2 (1992): pp. 85-95.

Helmers, H. J., The Royalist Republic Literature, Politics and Religion in the Anglo-Dutch Public Sphere, 1639-1660., Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015. Print.

Honig, E.A., “Making Sense of Things: On the Motives of Dutch Still Life”. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics No. 34 (1998): pp. 166-183.

Kahr, M. M., Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century., New York, NY: Icon ED., 2nd ed, 1993, pp. XII-XIV, 1-7, 189-203. Print.

Koozin, K., The Vanitas Still Lifes of Harmen Steenwyck: Metaphoric Realism., Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1989. Print.

Koozin, K., The Seventeenth-century Vanitas Still Life : Meditations in a Scholar's Study., The Presenting the Past, History, Art, Language, Literature, London: Centre for Low Countries Studies, University College London, 1996. p 149. Print.

Lambert, S., The Image Multiplied: Five Centuries of Printed Reproductions of Paintings and Drawings., London: Trefoil Publications, 1987, pp. 7-59, 165-193. Print.

Griffiths, Antony. The Image Multiplied - Five Centuries of Printed Reproductions of Paintings and Drawings: Victoria and Albert Museum ; Catalogue by Susan Lambert ; 1987. 1988. Print.

Mangieri, S. J., Curiosity and identity in Cornelius Gijsbrechts’ Trompe l’oeil Studio Walls. Master of Arts. Thesis. University of Delaware, 2008.

Montias, J.M., “Artists Named in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607-80”. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2004): pp. 322-347

Monteyne, J., From Still Life to the Screen: Print Culture, Display and the Materiality of the Image in Eighteenth-century London., New Haven: Yale UP, 2013. Print.

Parshall, P., “Portrait prints and codes of identity in the Renaissance: Hendrik Goltzius, Justus Lipsius, and Michel de Montaigne”. Word & Image, A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry, Vol. 19 (2003): p. 22-37.

Roberts, H. E., Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art., Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998, pp. VIII, XIX, 1120. Print.

Shaw L.B., “Pieter van Roestraten and the English 'vanitas'”. Burlington Magazine, Vol 132, No. 1047 (1990): pp. 402 -406.

Scholten F., “The Larson Family of Statuary Founders: Seventeenth-Century Reproductive Sculpture for Gardens and Painter's Studios”. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 31, No. 1/2 ( 2004): pp. 54-89.

Sonnema, R. B., The Early Dutch Vanitas Still-life., Master of Art. Thesis, California State University Fullerton, 1980, Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1993. Print.

Sullivan, S.A., “A Banquet-Piece with Vanitas Implications”. The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Vol 61(8), (October, 1974): pp.271 – 281.

Tuominen, M., The Still Lifes of Edwaert Collier (1642 – 1708). Ph. D Dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, Helsinki, 2014.

Van Straten R., “Early works by Lievens and Rembrandt in two unknown still lifes”, Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 13, No. 26 (1992): pp. 121- 142.

Van der Willigen, A., Meijer, F.G., A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters Working in Oils 1525 – 1725, Leiden: Primavera Press in cooperation with the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD), 2003. Print.

Wahrman, D., Mr. Collier's Letter Racks: A Tale of Art & Illusion at the Threshold of the Modern Information Age., New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

Westermann, M., “After Iconography and Iconoclasm: Current Research in Netherlandish Art, 1566-1700”. The Art Bulletin, Vol. LXXXIV, No. 2, (2002): pp. 351-372.

Wheeler, A. K. jr., “Still Life: Its Visual Appeal and Theoretical Status in the Seventeenth Century”. [in:] Bergström, I., Wheelock, A.K., (ed.), Still Lifes of the Golden Age: Northern European Paintings from the Heinz Family Collection., Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1989. Print. pp. 11 – 25.

Portraits as Objects in Dutch Still Life of the Seventeenth Century

Image List

University of Amsterdam Arts and Culture - Dutch Art (Master’s) Author: Rukshana Edwards Date: December 1, 2015

Supervisor: Dr. E.E..P. Kolfin Second Reader: Dr. A.A. Witte Figure 1

Jacques de Gheyn, Vanitas Still Life, c. 1603, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

2 Figure 2

Pieter Claesz, Vanitas still life with violin and glass ball, 1628, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, Germany

Figure 3

David Bailly, Self-Portrait with Vanitas Symbols, 1651, Stedelijk Museum De Lakendal, Leiden

3 Figure 4 and 4a (Front and Back)

Barthel Bruyn the Elder, Portrait of Gertraude von Leutz, 1524, Kroller-Muller, Otterlo Reverse side; Vanitas, 1524, Kroller-Mullter, Otterlo Figure 5 Figure 6

4 Adriaen van Nieulandt, Vanitas Still Life, 1636, Frans Hals Albrecht Durer, Saint Jerome in his study, 1521, Museu Museum, Haarlem Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon Figure 7

Pieter Steenwijck, Vanitas, Allegory of the Death of Tromp, c. 1656, Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal, Leiden

5 Figure 8

Simon Luttichuys, Allegory of the Arts, 1646, Heinz Collection, Washington D.C.

Figure 8a Figure 8b

Paulus Pontius (Paulus Du Pont), Sir Peter Paul Rubens; Sir Bust of Seneca, Ruben’s Anthony van Dyck after Sir Anthony van Dyck collection, The Rubens House, line engraving, National Portrait Gallery, London Antwerp

6 Figure 9

Cornelius Norbertus Gijsbrechts, Tromp l’oeil with Studio Wall and Vanitas Still Life, 1668, The National Gallery of Denmark, København

Figure 10

7 William Claesz Heda, Vanitas, 1628, Museum Bredius, The Hague Figure 11

Dirck Jacobsz, Portrati of Pompeius Occo, c. 1531, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Figure 12

Jacques de Gheyn, Vanitas still life with books, 1621, Yale University Art Gallery, Connecticut 8 Figure 13

Rembrandt, The Artist drawing from a Cast, c. 1641, etching, Frits Lugt Collection, Paris Figure 14

Crispijn de Passe the Elder, King James I and IV of Scotland, engraving, 1613, National Portrait Gallery, London 9 Figure 15

Detail of Figure 15. Figure 15a

Simon Luttichuys, Vanitas Still Life with books, Rembrandt and Lievens prints c. or after 1640, last known location, Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Salomon Lilian Old Master, Amsterdam /Genève 1995, in Oldman gaze downwards , 1631 , cat. 1995 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Figure 15b

Jan Lievens, Bust of an old, man Etching, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

10 Figure 16 Figure 16a

Jan Lievens, Bust of an Old Man, with fur Coat, Etching, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Simon Luttichuys, ca. 164-465, Vanitas still life with books, prints and paintings with a reflection of the painter at work, Figure 16d Private Collection, Zurich (current location un known)

Figure 16b Figure 16c

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Young man with velvet cap,, After Rembrandt Harmensz. Norton Simon Art Foundation, Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, van Rijn, Olld women Pasedena, California, Web image Bearded old man with a high fur sleeping, , Metropolitan © Norton Simon Art Foundation cap, 1633, Frits Lugt Collection, Museum of Art, New York Paris Web image

11 Figure 17 Figure 17a

Spinario, Capitoline Museum, Rome

Pieter Claesz,, Vanitas still-life with 'Boy with Thorn ('spinario'), 1628, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Figure 17c Figure 17b

Jan Gossaert, Sheet with a Study of the “Spinario”” and other Roman Sculptures, 1509, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Lucretia, 1533, or slihgltly later, RKD, Hague Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin,

12 Figure 18

Anonymous, Still life, ca. 1650 – 1659., (where abouts unknown)) RKD

Figure 18a

Portrait of Jacob Cats after Michel Natalis, Jacobus Lauwikius, 1660 – 1668, Engraving, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 13 Figure 19a Figure 19

Rembrandt, Self Portrait in a cap, 1630 Frits Lugt Collection, Paris Figure 19b

Rembrandt, Self-portrait in a Cordua, Joannes de, 1663 – 1702,Vanitas Still Life, Private cap: laughing, 1630, Frits Lugt collection, RKD Image, The Hague Collection, Paris

Figure 19c Figure 19d

Petrus Johannes Arendzen . Portrait of Anonymous, Bust of Baruch Spinoza, Spinoza, in or before 1882. Rijksmuseum. 1964-69, Sculpture Amsterdam Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts Figure 20

Joannes de Cordua, Vanitas still life with skull , bust, smoking paraphernalia, shells and a picture, 1665, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Pau, France

15 Figure 21

Cordua, Joannes de, Bust, Skull, 1663-1702_RKD Image. The Hague

Figure 22

Cordua, Joannes de, Skull, Print, RKD Image, The Hague

16 Figure 23 Figure 23a

Lucas Vorsterman, Sir Anthony van Dyck after Sir Anthony van Dyke, line engraving, mid 17th C, National Portrait Gallery, London

Jacques de Claeuw, Vanitas with Portrait of van Dyck, c. 1670, collection of Kunstzallen A. Vecht, Amsterdam

17 Figure 24 Figure 24a

Jacques de Claeuw, Vanitas still life , 1677, Cummer Museum of Art, Pieter de Jode II after Anthony van Jacksonville, Florida Dyck, engraving, RKD, The Hague

Figure 25 Figure 26

Jacques de Claeuw Vanitas still life, Jacques de Claeuw, Vanitas still life , RKD Image, The Hampel Kunstauktionen, München Hague

18 Figure 27

Jacques de Claeuw, Vanitas still life with print portrait and portrait of lady, RKD image, The Hague

Figure 28 Figure 28a 19

Lucas I Vorsterman, Portrait of Lievens, 1675, Tylers Musuem, Haarlem,

Jacques de Claeuw, Vanitas still life with print portrait and Portrati of man, RKD image, The Hague Figure 29

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with tazza, musical instruments, books and other objects on a draped table, 1662, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Figure 30

Edwaert Collier, A vanitas still life with musical instruments, books and a goblet, c. 1700, Private collection

20 Figure 31

Edwaert Collier, Trompe l’oel portrait after a self-portrait of Anthony van Dyck, attached to a wooden wall, Bukowski, Stockholm Figure 32 Figure 32a

Daniele da Volterra Michelangelo Buonarroti , ca. 1544, Metropilitan Musuem of Art, New York

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with unfolded book, money back, statuette on a draped table, Ca. 1667 – 1673, Dyrham Park National Trust, England 21 Figure 33 Figure 34

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with an Edwaert Collier. Vanitas still life with engraving with the portrait of Caesar books, skull and watch on a draped table, Octavianus Augustus, Private Collection, 1687, Private Collection, London RKD Image RKD Image

Figure 35

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with laurelled skull on an inverted crown and engraving of Emperor Augustus on a draped table, ca. 1705, Location unknown, RKD Image 22 Figure 36 Figure 36a

King Charles I, after Sir Anthony van Dyck Portrait, 17th century Government Collection, London

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life of a candle, a skull, a book Figure 36b with a portrait of Charles I and a nautilus shell on a draped table, 1698, Kunstkammer Georg Laue, Munich

The Kings book, Eikon Basilike Web Image

23 Figure 37

Detail

Edwaert Collier, Crown Jewels, 1707, Private collection, RKD Image

24 Figure 38

Hendrik Bary after Caspar Netscher, Portrait of Johan de Witt (with a laudatory poem by Geraert Brandt I), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with regalia, and portraits of Kings Charles I of England, Henry IV of France and Johan de Witt, 1703, Galerie d'Art Saint-Honoré, Paris

Figure 39

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with goblet, globe, regalia and miniature portrait of King Charles I, 1705, Private collection 25 RKD Image Figure 40a Figure 40

King William III by Pieter Schenck, after Unknown artist mezzotint, c. 17th century, National Portrait Gallery, London Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with regalia and portrait of King William III of England (1650-1702), 1702, Private Collection, RKD Image

Figure 41

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with regalia and a portrait of King Willem III (1650-1702), 1706, Private Collection, (Last known location 26 Sotheby's 1990, London) RKD Image Figure 42

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life, Private Collctin, RKD Image Figure 42b Figure 42a

Wallerant Vaillant, (after Unknown artist) Queen Mary II; King William III, 1677, mezzotint, National Portrait Gallery, London National Portrait Gallery Image

Isaac Beckett, after Sir Peter Lely, Queen Mary II when Princess of Orange, 1681-1688, mezzotint, National Portrait Gallery, London 27 National Portrait Gallery image Figure 43

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with allegorie on the downfall of John of Leiden, c. 1650-1699, Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, Bonn

Figure 43a Figure 43b

Heinrich Aldegrever, After Heinrich Portrait of Jan van Aldegrever edited by Leiden as King of Frederick de Wit, Munster by Heinrich Portrait of John of Aldegrever, 1536 Lieden (Jan Beukelsz. Web image Van Leiden (1509- 1536) 17th C, Private Collection, Hague 28 Figure 44

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with silver incense-burner, 1696, Private Collection, London Figure 45

B. Van Eijsen, Vanitas still life with an engraving of King Charles II of England and other objects on a draped ledge, second half of 17th century, Parijs, Galerie d'Art Saint- 29 Honoré Figure 46

Pieter van Eijsen, Vanitas still life with a globe, books, and an engraving of a negress, 1661 Marc-Arthur Kohn (Paris) 2002-11-13, nr. 40, RKD Image

30 Figure 47

Detail

Cornelius Gijsbrechts, Trompe l'oeil Studio Wall with Vanitas Still Life, 1664, Ferens Art Gallery, Kingston upon Hull City Museums and Art Galleries, England

31 Figure 48

Vincent van der Vinne, Still life, ca. 1649 Musee de Louvre, Paris

Figure 48a

King Charles I Wenceslaus Hollar after Sir Anthony van Dyck etching, 1649, Metropolitan Museum, New York, New York 32 MET Image Figure 49

Detail of Figure 49

Vincent Laurensz van der Vinne, Vanitas Still-life with a portrait print of Charles I, after 1649 (1649 - 1702), Private Collection

Figure 50

Vincent van der Vinne, Still life, Private Collection 33 RKD Image Figure 51

Vincent Laurentsz. van der Vinne I Still Life with a Print of King Charles I and an Upturned Crown, Anglesey Abby Bequeathed to the National Trust by, The Fairhaven Collection (National Trust), England

Figure 52

34 Vincent Laurensz van der Vinne, Vanitas Still-life, c.. 1660 (1655 – 1665), Munich Artists’ Self Portraits

35 Figure 53

Edwaert Collier, Self portrait with Vanitas still life, 1684, courtesy of Johnny Van Haeften, art dealer, London

36 Figure 54

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with nautilus cup and engraving with a portrait of a man, 1661-1665, (Location Unknown) Figure 55

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas Still Life with print with a portrait of the artist, c.. 1670 private collection 37

T Figure 56

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with a globe, a violin, books and a portrait of the artist, ca. 1685-1700, Venduehuis der Notarissen, The Hague

38 Figure 57

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with a engraving with a portrait of the artist, 1687 private collection

39 Figure 58

Vincent Laurensz-van der Vinne, Still life with the portrait of the artist by Leendert van der Cooghen, Frans Hals Musuem, Haarlem

Figure 58a Figure 58b

Leendert van der Cooghen, Portrait of Leendert van der Cooghen, Portret van Vincent Vincent Laurensz. van der Vinne I (1628, Laurensz. van der Vinne (1628-1702), 1650 - 1674, 1702), 1650 - 1699, Noord-Hollands Archive, Kupferstichkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Haarlem Berlin 40 Figure 59

Vincent Laurensz-van der Vinne , Vanitas still-life with a portrait by Leendert van der Cooghen, 1664, Hotel George V, Paris RKD Image

41 Figure 60

Hendrick Andriessen,, Vanitas still life, ca. 1640-1655, Herbert F. Johnson Museum, Ithaca, New York

Detail of Figure 60

42 Figure 61

Cornelius Gijsbrechts, Trompe L'oeil of a studio wall with a vanitas still life, c. 1664-1668, Claude Aguttes, Neuilly-sur-Seine

Figure 61a

Portrait of Cornelis Norbertus Gijsbrechts, detail from his painting: Cornelis Norbertus Gijsbrechts , Trompe l'oeil paintings, painting materials and floral tablecloth in the studio of the artist pendant, Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen

43 Figure 62

Cornelus Gijsbrechts, Vanitas still life with a young Moor presenting a pocketwatch, 1657, Galerie Pardo, Paris

Detail Detail

Cornelus Gijsbrechts, Vanitas still life with a young Moor presenting a pocketwatch, 1657, Galerie Pardo, Paris

44 Figure 63

Detail

Cornelius Gijsbrechts, Trompe l’Oeil still life, ca. 1674 - 83, Private collection Derek Johns, London

Figure 64

Cornelis Gijsbrechts, Vanitas still life with flowers, skull, documents and miniature portrait of the artist, c. 1662, Martin- von-Wagner-Museum der Universitat Würzburg, Würzburg

45 Unidentified: Tronies and sculpture

46 Figure 65

Hendrick Andriessen, Vanitas still life, ca. 1640 – 1655, private collection, The Hague

47 Figure 66

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas, 1661, Sinebrychoff Art Museum, Helsinki, Finland

Figure 66b Figure 66a

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Oldman gaze downwards,, 1631 , Jan Lievens, Head of a bearded old man, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 48 1622 – 1674, kunsthandel, London Figure 67

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas with skull and coronet, 1663, Heinz Collection, Washington DC

Figure 68

Edwaert Collier, Vanitas still life with laurel leaf and skull on inverted crown, 49 books and print of bearded man, 1693, Liechtenstein Museum, Liechtenstein Figure 69 Figure 70

Vincent van Der Vinne, Vanitas still life Vincent van Der Vinne, Vanitas Private Collection, RKD Image Pushkin Museum, Moscow Figure 70a

Jan Lievens, Head of a man with hat, 1625 – 1674, Etching, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

50 Figures 71a – 71d

Attributed to Vincent Laurensz van der Vinne , Vanitas with portrait, RKD Archive, The Hague

51 Figure 72

Edwaert Collier, Trompe l'oeil of a letter rack with a miniature portrait of Charles I of England, 1700-1708, Koetser Gallery, Zurich.