Art for the Court: a New Interpretation of Gerard De Lairesse's

TIM LUBBERS Art for the Court: A new interpretation of Gerard de Lairesse’s paintings for the Court of Appeal of Holland (1688-1689) Gerard de Lairesse (1640-1711), once one of the most popular Netherlandish painters, is little known today, largely as a consequence of the vilifĳication to which he and his work were subjected in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.1 In recent years, happily, his oeuvre has experienced a revival, culminating in Eindelijk! De Lairesse in the Rijksmuseum Twente, the fĳirst exhibition ever devoted to him.2 With his distinctive classicist style reflecting Raphael and French classicists like Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665), De Lairesse, who came from Luik, was a prominent fĳigure in Netherlandish painting in the period of 1660-1690. In the sixteen-eighties, at the height of his career, he was awarded prestigious commissions by Stadholder William III of Orange (1650-1702), among them ceiling paintings and works for his private apartments in Soestdijk Palace, but he also worked for Amsterdam merchants and patricians like Philips de Flines (1640-1700) and Andries de Graafff (1611-1678). The loss of his sight at the end of 1689 meant that he could no longer paint, but he reinvented himself as a creditable art theoretician. Regrettably, the impressive classicist decorations De Lairesse made in 1688-1689 for the civil council chamber of the Court of Appeal of Holland, Zeeland and West-Friesland (the ‘Hof van Holland’) did not appear in the exhibition. Being one of his few cycles that are still in situ, in what is now known as the ‘Lairesse Room’ in the Dutch parliamentary buildings at the Binnenhof, they can be described as De Lairesse’s most prestigious commission (fĳig. 1).3 At the time, the Court was one of the foremost legal institutions in the Republic, and even in Europe. The subjects are the following: on the west wall Aeneas fleeing Troy with Anchises and Ascanius, an Allegory of justice (above the fĳireplace) and Pompey the Great burning the letters from Quintus Sertorius; on the north wall The oath of Scipio, Publius Horatius Cocles defending Rome on the Pons Sublicius and The continence of Scipio; and on the east wall The clemency of Lucius Papirius Cursor.4 These are all episodes in the history of the Roman republic, the political exemplum for the Republic of the United Netherlands, but the specifĳic subjects are exceptional in Dutch art. These paintings were better known in the eighteenth century than they are today, although even then they were hardly accessible. A set of engravings by Nicolaas Verkolje (1673-1743), who thought that the picture of Horatius Cocles was “a s superbly ordered as if it were done by Raphael”, was published in 1737.5 Nowadays, the paintings barely enjoy any attention. To the extent that they have been considered in the literature, they have been regarded as a ‘mirror’ for Stadholder William III of Orange, but viewing them from the perspective of legal history provides a new interpretation. I should like to begin by arguing that the Orangist inspired reading does not adequately explain De Lairesse’s cycle, this on the basis of the actual function of the council chamber, Stadholder William III’s position relative to the Court and the supposed symbolism of the stadholder’s seat that is read into the cycle. I shall then set against this an analysis from the viewpoint of legal history, examining the judicial virtues depicted in the canvases and how they present the Court’s position and its method of administering justice. 109 Oud Holland 2019 - 2/3 volume 132 1 The civil council chamber of the The earliest literature on the Lairesse Room Court of Holland, Zeeland and The earliest literature about the Lairesse Room dates from 1730, more than forty years after West-Friesland (now the Lairesse Room), 1688-89, The Hague, the decorations were painted. In his Beschrijving van ’s Graven-Hage, Jacob de Riemer Binnenhof. (1676-1762) describes the room in an imaginary tour of the Binnenhof.6 De Riemer is anything but forthcoming in his interpretation of the works. The only fĳigure he explains is Justice; for the rest he simply names and describes the subjects, with references to the Latin literary sources from which they derive, such as Virgil, Plutarch and Livy. This was swiftly followed by Nicolaas Verkolje’s set of engravings of 1737, called Tafereelen, geschilderd door Gerard de Lairesse in de raadkamer van den Hove van Justitie van Holland, Zeeland en Westvriesland; volgens de afteekeningen van Nikolaas Verkolje, door de beste graveerders in ’t koper gebracht. The ‘best engravers’ referred to in this title were Pieter Tanjé (1706-1761) and Claude-Augustin Duflos (1700-1786). The drawings Verkolje made for this series (now held in the Teylers Museum, Haarlem) provide a wealth of information, because they show details that cannot be clearly made out on the canvases in their present unrestored state.7 The privilege for making the engravings states that Verkolje’s drawings for the paintings already existed in 1731, a year after the publication of De Riemer’s account of the city. Their descriptions of the paintings are very similar, suggesting that Verkolje and De Riemer collaborated.8 In his interpretation, Verkolje was advised to a considerable extent by Antonis Slicher (1655-1746).9 He had been a judge at the Court since 1686, and so was there during the creation of the canvases, and he is described as the client for the set of engravings. It is 110 Oud Holland 2019 - 2/3 volume 132.

Load more