UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Netherlandish immigrant painters in (1575-1654): Aert Mytens, Louis Finson, Abraham Vinck, and

Osnabrugge, M.G.C.

Publication date 2015 Document Version Final published version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Osnabrugge, M. G. C. (2015). Netherlandish immigrant painters in Naples (1575-1654): Aert Mytens, Louis Finson, Abraham Vinck, Hendrick De Somer and Matthias Stom.

General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

Download date:24 Sep 2021

CHAPTER THREE FIAMMINGO BY BIRTH, NEAPOLITAN BY ADOPTION: HENDRICK DE SOMER IN NAPLES (1622-1654)

Between Finson’s departure in 1612 and De Somer’s arrival in 1622, the social and artistic conditions that Netherlandish painters faced in Naples changed decisively. Grasping the essence of this change will prove no easy task, as it involves the complexities of both the Neapolitan and Netherlandish artistic development. More and more young Neapolitan men decided to become painters, an indication that painting had become a profitable profession. In fact, our Hendrick De Somer only made the decision to become a painter after his arrival in the city. Through his oeuvre and his network, we learn more about the complex dynamics of the Neapolitan art scene during the second quarter of the seventeenth century. Hendrick De Somer lived in Naples between 1622 and 1654. His Neapolitan career constitutes the first chapter of the second part of this dissertation, in which the presence of Netherlandish painters in Naples during the second quarter of the seventeenth century is addressed. Thanks to extensive research in archives, an analysis of his signed oeuvre and the paintings in Neapolitan inventories, it became possible to get insight into his artistic and social decisions. First, however, a brief overview of the activity of other Netherlandish painters in Naples is necessary.

Netherlandish painters in Naples 1612-1654 In the ten years after Louis Finson's departure from Naples, the tide of Pittori Fiamminghi of Finson and Abraham Vinck was turning. Loise Croys and Ettore Crucer, the only two who had remained, had died by 1622 or at least no longer appear in extant archival records.1 Jacob van Swanenburg left in 1617 to return to the Netherlands. The only one remaining was Cornelio Brusco, who is documented until 1634. In 1610 and 1614 respectively, the painters François de Nommé (1590-1621) and Didier Barra (1591-1634) from Metz, arrived in Naples after a brief stint in .2 These two Lorraine painters

1 Last notice of Croys stems from 1616, whereas Crucer disappears after 1617. For the last documents on Croys, see: D'ADDOSIO 1913, 54; corrected in NAPPI & NAPPI 2005, 46. For Crucer: NAPPI 1992. 2 The two friends were often mixed up, cfr. M.R. NAPPI 1991 and SARY & NAPPI 2004 for a discussion and bibliography. In his Dichiarazione di Stato Libero of 13 May 1613 regarding his marriage to Isabella Croys, De Nommé declared that he had been in Naples for about three years, after a sojourn and apprenticeship with Balthasar Lauwers in Rome of about eight years. The first payment to Barra stems from 1619, but in his (unpublished, see Appendix 122) processetto prematrimoniale of 18 July 1619, which I found in the course of my

69 CHAPTER THREE collaborated during their first years in Naples; around 1619 Barra joined forces with the Neapolitan painter Domenico Antonio Bruno.3 During his long and successful career in Naples, Barra collaborated as a vedute-specialist with Neapolitan artists like Onofrio Palumbo, with whom he made the Saint Januarius protecting the city of Naples for the archconfraternity of the Holy Trinità dei Pellegrini. During De Somer’s Neapolitan sojourn there were only a few Northern painters active in the city, apart from the aforementioned Didier Barra, François de Nommé and Cornelio Brusco. First of all, De Somer's direct colleagues and friends: Peeter Doens (documented between 1622-1639), Giovanni Fiammingo (unidentified) and Andrea Brugges (documented between 1633 and 1643).4 Nicolas Lozet from Liège, better known with his patronym Nicolò di Simone (or di Simon Pietro), was active between 1636 and 1656/8.5 The history painter Charles Mellin from Lorraine, pupil of , is documented between 1643 and 1646.6 Furthermore, a number of German painters, indicated as ‘Maler’ (painter), appear as Kirchmeistern of the German brotherhood in Santa Maria dell'Anima, which De Somer served as official in the 1640s:7 Jacob and Hans Herkommer (between 1618-1639 and 1636-7 respectively), Andreas Brunfels or Bruntzell (1642-1647) and Hans Georg Faber (1654-1668).8 And, of course, Matthias Stom, who would arrive in Naples around 1632.9 The number of Northern painters active in Naples during the second quarter of the seventeenth century was decreasing, especially in comparison to the previous decades. As a result, the pittori fiamminghi were less visible as a group within the local art scene and were unable to maintain the significant role they had played in previous decades. For newcomers, this meant that they could not build upon a well-established network to facilitate the integration process. Whereas the number of Northern artists traveling to remained steady or even increased in this period, the desire to settle on the Italian peninsula, and in Naples in particular, seems to have diminished. While the unrest of the Eighty Years’ War had made it attractive for Netherlandish artists to try their luck outside research, preceding his marriage with the Neapolitan girl Antonia Todesca, he testified that he has arrived in Naples approximately five years earlier. 3 See Appendix 122, this is testified by François De Nommé and Daniel Gondreville, a sculptor and seal maker from Metz. Bruno is fairly unknown, he is documented in Naples between 1603 and 1625. Bruno produced several paintings (mostly of saints) for Neapolitan churches and private collectors (WIEDMANN 1991; CECI 1910, 106; NAPPI 1992, 31). 4 See the paragraph on De Somer's social integration, below. 5 See CREAZZO 1988. 6 MALGOUYRES 2007 & MALGOUYRES 2010. Mellin immediately received very prestigious commissions, for the church of Donnaregina Nuova, the Santissima Annunziata, the Palazzo Reale and several private commissions. I believe it is unlikely Mellin was in contact with his compatriots De Nommé and Barra, or with any of the other Northerners, because he was immediately launched into the highest circles of patronage. 7 See below. 8 TOLL 1909, 101-103. I have been unable to identify these artists. Hans Georg Faber, also Hans Faber, is described as 'Mahler auf Cristal' as well as 'Caporal von Elssas Zabern'. 9 See Chapter Four.

70 HENDRICK DE SOMER the Netherlands, the enormous economic growth in the Dutch Republic and Antwerp now encouraged them to head back after their Italian study trip. In fact, there were more artists coming from other regions of relative unrest, such as Lorraine and Germany. At the same time, with the growing demand for art works, the profession of painter had become profitable in Naples, leading to a greater number of local painters. , and had very successful workshops which laid the foundation for the 'Neapolitan school’. This created a stimulating artistic environment, but also a competitive one. This is the reality that Hendrick De Somer (and Matthias Stom) encountered in Naples and in which they had to find their way.

Mistaken identity: Hendrick van Someren, Enrico Fiammingo and Hendryck De Somer The true identity of Hendrick De Somer has been shrouded with some degree of confusion. In 1943, following the discovery of De Somer's signature ('Enrico Somer f. 1652') on a St in the collection of the Galleria Borghese in Rome (Fig. 38),10 Hoogewerff erroneously identified the artist as Hendrick van Someren (Amsterdam, 1615 – Amsterdam, 1684), son of Barent Van Someren and Dianora Mytens, the daughter of Aert Mytens, and attributed a number of St in a Ribersque style to this artist. He combined information from different, unrelated sources to reach a conclusion that was very plausible for 1943, but which soon after proved to be untenable.11 Factual evidence that Hendrick van Someren and Enrico Somer were not the same person emerged ten years after Hoogewerff’s article, with Ulisse Prota-Giurleo’s publication (1953) of the processetto prematrioniale of the painter Viviano Codazzi and Candida Miranda of 15 April

10 Up to that moment, the St Jerome had a false signature of Ribera, with the date 1649. The painting is now in the Galleria d'Arte Antica in Palazzo Barberini, for the provenance of this painting, currently in Palazzo Barberini, see: MOCHI ONORI & VODRET 2008, 443 (inv. 2330). 11 The first document Hoogewerff analyzed was the payment of 1641 to Errico Semer for the large painting for the church of Santa Maria della Sapienza in Naples.(Hoogewerff based himself on the publications by COLOMBO 1902 and Filangieri, instead of on the first publication by BONAZZI IN 1888.) He then moves to the ‘Dutch side of the story’, citing Houbraken's remark about the painter Hendrick van Someren, the son of Barent van Someren: '...die fraaije Historien, Landschappen en Bloemen schilderde.' (‘…who painted nice histories, landscapes and flowers.’), see HOUBRAKEN 1718, 322. Hoogewerff easily reconstructed how there was a 'Neapolitan connection' between this Hendrick and the Enrico who painted the newly attributed St Jerome and the Baptism of Christ. The Antwerp painter and merchant Barent van Someren was the husband of Leonora Mytens (s c.1583 - 1649), the daughter of Aert Mytens and born in Naples. After their return to the Netherlands, Leonora and Barent settled in Amsterdam, where their son Hendrick was baptized on 23 July 1615 in the Lutherse Kerk.(SAA, DTB 5001, inv.nr. 138 (Lutherse Kerk), p.183.) This Hendrick van Someren was in Amsterdam between 1645 and 1684 (BREDIUS 1915-1922, 809-813; HOOGWERFF 1943). Although all this information was readily available to him, Hoogewerff came to the conclusion that this Hendrick van Someren, son of Barent, must have spent time in Naples: 'De aanwezigheid van relaties in deze stad mag Hendrick bewogen hebben op zijn beurt daar zijn geluk te gaan beproeven.'(HOOGWERFF 1943, 159). Hoogewerff dated Hendrick van Someren's stay in Naples between 1636 and 1652, with a brief return to Amsterdam in 1645 to take care of family business. The St Jerome had to have been painted just before his return to Amsterdam in the autumn of 1652.

71 CHAPTER THREE

1636.12 Amongst Viviano's witnesses appears a 'Enrico De Somer, fiammingo, pittore, figlio del qm. Gil, domiciliato al Baglivo, d'anni 29’, who testified: 'Io partii dalla mia patria da 12 anni e venni in Napoli, e non mi sono più partito.'13 Several aspects of this testimony contradict the information published by Hoogewerff. This Enrico was twenty-nine years old in 1636 and thus born in 1606 or 1607, instead of 1615, and his father was called Gil, instead of Barent. Moreover, he testified that he had been in Naples for twelve consecutive years without interruption, therefore arriving around 1624. In 1958, Ferdinando Bologna remarked that the painter to whom Hoogewerff had attributed many St Jeromes of different quality appeared to be 'uno sterile copista del Ribera'. He thought it was unlikely that this was the same artist as the painter of the Baptism of Christ (Fig. 39).14 Only in 1991, after several paintings with a monogram by De Somer – often dated – had been discovered, Bologna felt confident to reconstruct De Somer’s oeuvre in a way that both the Baptism of Christ and the St Jerome could be connected to one and the same artist.15 Hendrick van Someren, son of Barent, finally disappeared from the Neapolitan records,16 although databases such as RKD Explore and ECARTICO continue to list the wrong information. Confusion still existed about the birth place of Enrico Somer, son of Gil.17 The documents that I discovered in 2013 at last give us some certainty about the origin of Hendrick De Somer.

Hendrick De Somer's life in Naples and his social integration Thanks to the processetto prematrimoniale for the marriage between Hendrick De Somer and Diacinta Gamboia,18 the marriage registration on 18 November 1632 and the baptismal

12 PROTA GIURLEO 1953, 76-78. Unfortunately, no one has been able to retrace and check the original document since its publication by Ulisse Prota-Giurleo. Only with my discovery of De Somer’s processetto is it possible to verify some of the information mentioned in the lost document regarding the Northern artist. 13 ‘Enrico De Somer, Fleming, painter, son of the deceased Gil, living at the Baglivo, 29 years old (...) I have left my home country 12 years ago and have come to Naples, and I have not left since.’ (my own translation) 14 BOLOGNA 1958, 33. It appears that in 1958 Bologna was not yet aware of the processetto for Codazzi’s wedding that confirmed his hypothesis of the existence of two artists. In 1982, Anna Schiattarella used the document to prove Bologna’s hypothesis and admitted she found it problematic to accept that the Caritas Romana and Baptism of Christ and the 1652 St Jerome were by the same artist. She believed that two painters with the same name were both active in Naples (SCHIATTARELLA 1984, 176, 461-462 (cat. 2.241 & 2.242). 15 BOLOGNA 1991, 161-167. 16 Although none of the scholars mentioned here make any reference to the vicissitudes of Hendrick van Someren’s curriculum, I think it is safe to assume that, despite the fact that his mother was born in Naples as a daughter of Aert Mytens, this artist never visited the city – unless on a study trip of sorts. 17 Anna Schiattarella apparently still believed that he was born in 1607 in Amsterdam (Schiattarella 1982; Schiattarella 1984). In 1991, Ferdinando Bologna added to the confusion, by misreading Schiatarella’s biography of 1984. Bologna interpreted from her text that Hendrick van Someren, son of Barent, was born in Rome, instead of Amsterdam (BOLOGNA 1958, 166). In 2009, Nicola Spinosa took over Bologna’s mistake (SPINOSA 2009, 117 (cat.nr. 1.41). 18 The name of the bride is also written as Jiacinta Gamboija, Giacinta Gamboa, Gintia, Giaginta.

72 HENDRICK DE SOMER records of eight children in his parish church San Giuseppe Maggiore, we know more about Hendrick De Somer's life and his social network in Naples.19 Hendryck De Somer, as he signed his processetto on 12 November 1632, was born between 1606 and 1608 in ‘Locri’ (either Lochristi or Lokeren), in the diocese of , as the son of Giles De Somer and Elisabet de Sloijs (Fig. 41).20 Hendrick stated that he went directly to Naples, making no reference to the route he took or stopovers on the way.21 His arrival in Naples took place approximately ten years prior to his marriage (‘circa dieci anni sono’), around 1622. He thereby contradicts his statement in the processetto of Viviano Codazzi, where he testified he had arrived in Naples in 1624.22 Between July 1633 and March 1654, eight children of Hendrick and Diacinta were baptized in the church of San Giuseppe Maggiore: in 1633 (Paolo), 1636 (Antonia), 1640 (Madalena Cornelia), 1642 (Gioseppe Anello Antonio), 1645 (Rosolea), 1647 (Giovanni Battista Antonio), 1650 (Nicola Domenico Caetano) and 1654 (Teresa).23 This rather steady birth rate and the fact that all baptisms took place in the same church suggest that Hendrick’s presence in the city was constant, although it certainly allows for some short journeys outside the city. We know that in 1632 and 1633, Hendrick lived on the Strada del Baglivo, near the church of San Giuseppe Maggiore. It is generally thought that De Somer died during the plague of 1656, together with half of Naples’ population; I have found no evidence to either corroborate or contradict this assumption.

Contact with compatriots In the Life of Jusepe de Ribera, De Dominici devotes a paragraph to a student of Lo Spagnoletto named Errico Fiamingo.24 This is our Hendrick De Somer. De Dominici relates that this young Northerner was 'for some reason' ('per non sò quale interesse') staying in Naples with a family member. This family member was not active as an artist, otherwise De Dominici would surely have mentioned it. The biographer could be referring to 'Sabella de Sombra', likely an italianization of Isabella De Somer, the godmother of

19 As a typical case of coincidence, Domenico Antonio D’Alessandro and I found the same document independently around the same time. He indicated it to Giuseppe Porzio, who was the first to publish it (as a summary): PORZIO 2013a, 92 n.9 . Porzio only mentions the baptism of Hendrick's son Gioseppe Anello Antonio in 1642, where served as godfather (PORZIO 2013a, 94, n.11). 20 The birth year is based on his testified age, 24 in November 1632 and 29 in April 1636 (in the processetto prematrimoniale of Viviano Codazzi). The first document points to 1607 or 1608 as the year of his birth, the second to 1606 or 1607. I have been unable to confirm this birth date or birth place in the archives of Lochristi or Lokeren. I would like to thank Nico van Campenhout (stadsarchivarus Lokeren) and the archivists of the Ghent Archive for their assistance. 21 In the processetto prematrimoniale for the marriage of Viviano Codazzi and Candida Miranda, De Somer also testified that he moved directly to Naples. See below. 22 I am more inclined to trust the timeline presented on his own marriage record, as it was drawn up earlier and because De Somer’s life was the focus of the document. 23 See Appendix 109, 3.111, 3.112, 2.115-3.119. 24 See Appendix 121.

73 CHAPTER THREE

Hendrick's daughter Teresa in 1654.25 Isabella’s presence in Naples corroborates De Dominici's information, although we do not know in what manner Sabella and Hendrick were related.26 I have not yet been able to retrieve any details on Hendrick's father Giles to gain further insight to the reason why the De Somers were based in Naples. Johan de Prator, Hendrick's witness in the processetto, testified that he has known Hendrick since their childhood in Lokeren/Lochristi, and that they had travelled to Naples together. In Naples, Johan was active as a 'vendor brancherie', a draper.27 Perhaps Hendrick and Johan shared the same professional formation (in their hometown) and Hendrick only decided to become a painter after his arrival in Naples at the age of fourteen or fifteen.28 This is in fact what De Dominici suggested, when he wrote: "…dappoichè essendo inchinato alla pittura, scielse quel Maestro [Ribera]…". Hendrick's other witness, the painter Pietro Duems from Antwerp, stated that he has learned to paint together with Hendrick: "…et havemo imparato l’arte de pinger insieme … cqua in napoli …" From the way the sentence is phrased, without punctuation, it seems that Pietro is saying that they studied painting together in Naples, instead of back in Flanders. Pietro was twenty-eight years old in 1632 and Hendrick twenty-four and they arrived in Naples ten years earlier, 'a couple of days' apart from each other.29 Perhaps Pietro, who was eighteen years old when he arrived in Naples, had been trained as a painter in Antwerp, whereas Hendrick took his first schooling in Naples. The Liggeren of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke yields one possible candidate to identify Pietro Duems, a certain Peeter Doens. Doens registered as a pupil of the still life painter Osias Beert Senior in 1611. This is the only mention of this artist in the guild book, suggesting that he left the city after his apprenticeship with Beert.30 If Pietro Duems is the same person as Pieter Doens, he would have been very young, eight years old, at the time of his registration. There is one indication that Hendrick De Somer's friend Pietro Duems was in fact a still life painter, just like the master of the Antwerp Pieter Doens. On December 1st, 1639, a Pietro Doous (or Doons), was paid by Giovanni Vincenzo

25 ASDN, Parr. S. Giuseppe Maggiore, libro di battesimi vol. 6, 1641-1655, c.168r.: ‘Terese figlia d'enrico di Sombra et di Diacinta Gamboia fu battezzata da me Don Carlo Crescolo Curato furono compadri Giovanne Langus et Sabella de Sombra.’(unpublished, See Appendix 119) 26 At the last moment before finishing my manuscript, I found the reference to a ‘Giovanni de Soimer’ in the inventory of the Sant’Ufficio fond at the ASDN (ROMEO 2004, 164 (nr. 77.921): ‘1593 – Altri tribunale dell’Inquisizione romana, Informazioni: (…) Pietro olandese, Nicola olandese, Simone, Carlo di Lovanio, Giorgio, Francesco de Brosso, Giovanni Soimer (de Soimer): Riforma (generica) (…) Si tratta di una Informatio richiesta al Sant’Ufficio napoletano dale autorità romane, in seguito alle spontanee comparizioni del Sassone e del Soimer press oil tribunale inquisitoriale central, che sono allegate in copia.” I have been unable to consult these documents to verify whether there was a family relation between this Giovanni and Hendrick De Somer. 27 This might be the ‘Giov. Pratt fiamengo’ / ‘Johann Pratt’ who functioned as Kirchmeister of the German church of Santa Maria dell’Anima in Napels in 1652 and 1653 (TOLL 1909, 103). Hendrick was Kirchmeister in 1654. See below for information about the brotherhood of Santa Maria dell’Anima. 28 As a comparison, Rudi Ekkart has suggested that Isaac Claesz. Swanenburg possibly went to Hamburg in 1573- 4 for business regarding the linen trade of his family. (EKKART 1998, 17-18.) 29 See Appendix 107. 30 LIGGEREN, vol. II.2, pp. 477 and 479.

74 HENDRICK DE SOMER

Macedonio for four flower still lifes: “A Gio Vincenzo Macedonio D.8 E per lui a Pietro Doous, fiamengo, dite in conto di quattro quadri di fiori di palmi due di longhezza et palmi quattro di altezza, conforme li altri che li ha fatti in casa sua di quali ha sodisfatto et ci li promette dare per tutto il presente mese.”31 I believe this Pietro Doous is the same person as De Somer’s friend Pietro Duems. The bank payment and the processetto are the only sources on Peeter Doens' Neapolitan sojourn, but could refer to a long stay from 1622 until 1639.32 Besides Peeter Doens, there are three other Northern artists with whom Hendrick De Somer was in contact in Naples: Giovanni Fiammingo, Andrea Brugges and Hans Faber.33 Together with Giovanni, who appears to have specialized as a landscape painter, Hendrick painted a Saint Onophrius and an Infant Saint John the Baptist, both placed in a landscape.34 These works were first recorded in the Montecorvino collection (inventory of 1698); there is no indication when the collaboration between the two artists took place. A possible candidate is Giovanne Vandemeersche, husband of Angela Palomba and documented in 1633.35 In the same year, Angela became the godmother of Hendrick De Somer's first son, Paolo.36 This places her and her husband in De Somer's network.37 Andrea Brugges, the godfather of De Somer’s daughter Madalena Cornelia in 1640, was also a painter.38 In 1641 and 1643, Andrea was commissioned by Nicola Maria di Somma, prince of Colle, to paint two series (twelve and twenty-four) of small

31 ASBN, Banco Spirito Santo, g.m. 296, first published in: NAPPI 1983, 75. 32 The presence of a flower still life painter, trained in Antwerp, has great consequences for the history of Neapolitan still life painting, whose origin is now connected to Neapolitan artists like Luca Forte and Paolo Porpora. 33 For Faber, who was a painter on crystal, see below, note 45. 34 GPI, I-110, see Appendix 120. Perhaps the St John the Baptist was similar to the, much larger (184.5 x 151 cm), version recently attributed by Nicola Spinosa (SPINOSA 2009, 117 cat. 1.41). In 1991, Bologna attributed a vertical composition of St Onophrius (Milan, coll. Cicogna Mozzoni), without mentioning the sizes (BOLOGNA 1991, 167; reproduction in BOLOGNA 1996, 15 (tav. I). 35 ASDN, Parr. S. Giuseppe Maggiore, libro di battesimi vol. 5, 1631-1641, c.32v: 31 January 1633, baptism of 'Elisabetta figlia di Giovanne Vandemeersche et Angela Palomba nata a di 21 li compadri il signor Andrea Martens et la signora Elisabetta Salvatore' (unpublished). 36 I have been unable to find a connection between Angela Palomba and the Neapolitan painter Onofrio Palumbo, whose name was sometimes also written as Palomba 37 ASDN, Parr. S. Giuseppe Maggiore, libro di battesimi vol. 5, 1631-1641, c.41r: 'Io Giovanni Domenico Riccardo duratore di S. Giuseppe Maggiore di Napoli ho battezzato Paolo figlio de Henrico De Somer et Giacinta Gamboa nato a di 23 li compadri signor Paolo Ambrosino et la signora Angela Palomba' (unpublished, see Appendix 109) There is, however, no indication that this Giovanne Vandemeersche was a painter. Another candidate is Giovanne Langus, the godfather of De Somer’s last son in 1654, together with Sabella de Sombra. 38 See Appendix 112. The appearance of Andrea Brugges as godfather, constitutes his first documented presence in Naples. Perhaps this Andrea is Andrea Martens, the godfather of Giovanni Vandemeersche’s son (see note 37, above). In that case, Andrea was already in Naples in 1633. To go even further, perhaps the landscape painter ‘Andrea Brunzolese’, who worked for Garcia de Toledo in 1634, is also the same artist. (NAPPI 1992, 32: (22 September 1634) ‘Da Garcia de Toledo D. 50 a compimento di D. 60 in parte di D. 200 per il prezzo di dodici quadri di paesi, che ha da fare in tutta la perfectione della misura de nove palmi de largo et sei de luongo de differenti capricci et pensieri.’

75 CHAPTER THREE paintings.39 The fact that in the 1643 payment it is specified that this was a series of landscape paintings, one may presume that Andrea Brugges also worked with this genre. 40 This is the first evidence that a community of Netherlandish painters existed in Naples in this period. These four Northern painters, who were connected socially and, in the case of Giovanni Fiammingo and De Somer, also professionally, are a mere phantom of the ‘colony’ of Netherlandish painters that existed from the late-sixteenth century until the 1610s.41 While the number of Netherlandish artists in Naples was scanty, the community of merchants was numerous and influential. The Antwerp merchants Gaspar de Roomer and Jan and Ferdinand Vandeneynden settled permanently in Naples in the mid-1610s.42 De Somer's relation to Johan de Prator is the only documented contact of the painter with Netherlandish merchants in the city.43 There is, however, one important reason to assume that De Somer was in close contact with other compatriots residing in Naples. In 1644 and in 1654, he was elected Kirchmeister (master of the church, chairman) of the brotherhood of the church of the German nation in Naples, called Santa Maria dell'Anima.44 The church, demolished during the Risanamento at the end of the nineteenth-

39 D’ADDOSIO 1920, 24: ‘Il principe del Colle paga ducati 5, ad Andrea pittore in conto 12, quatretti, dei quali sei ne ha consignati et altri sie l'haverà da consignare fra giorni 15.’(12 October 1641); ‘Il Principe del Colle paga ducati 5, ad Andrea Bruncelz (sic) pittore in conto di 24 quatri piccoli che li ha da fare et consignare alla fine del'intrante maggio.’(20 April 1643); ‘Il Principe del Colle paga ducati 12, ad Andrea Brungele pittore in conto de li 24 quatri di paesi che li ha da finire de li quali ne li ha consignati 18.’ (19 June 1643). I believe D’Addosio is right to argue that all three payments, from the same patrons, are to the same artist, despite the different last name. 40 In the inventory of Gennaro Maria di Somma, the grandson of Nicola Maria di Somma of 1740 (GPI, I-177), appear 17 landscape paintings of the same size (2,5 palmi) by an anonymous Fiamengo and 10 more small (1 palmo) unspecified paintings by an anonymous Fiamengo. Moreover, there are three landscapes by a Pietro Fiamengo (Pietro Doens? Not only a still life painter, in that case.) of 3x4 palmi and a six by a Giovanni Fiamengo (of 2,5 palmi) in the same collection. 41 The lack of documentation on contact with other Northern artists in Naples, or their presence for that matter, could be based on the state of archival research on painters in general for this period. For example, it would be rather peculiar if Hendrick De Somer lived in the same city and same artistic circles as Matthias Stom, without ever running into each other. 42 For the paintings owned by De Roomer and Vandeneyndens, see: RUOTOLO 1982 and MEIJER 1986. Chantelle Lepine-Cercone is working on a dissertation on this subject with Sebastian Schütze at Queen’s University (Kingston, Canada). For De Roomer’s activity as a merchant, see NAPPI 2001. First and foremost, we would like to learn more about possible contact between the incredibly wealthy ship owner and merchant Gaspard de Roomer and his associates Jan and Ferdinand Vandeneijnden. We know that De Roomer shipped work by Bartolomeo Bassante, a younger pupil of Ribera, to Flanders and the Netherlands, but there is no proof of a similar relation with De Somer. 43 Some people with non-Neapolitan and possibly Northern names appear amongst the godparents of De Somer's children, such as Pietro Campomar and Clara Vlach (both 1647) and Giovanne Langus (1654, together with Sabella de Sombra), but I have been unable to identify them. See Appendix 117 & 119. 44 TOLL 1909, 103. In 1644, De Somer was Kirchmeister together with ‘Sebastian Negle, Trabant; Christoffel Kraw; Matthias Turll, Trabant; Henrich De Somer, niderl. Mahler’ and in 1654 with ‘Sebastian Mutzweiler; Henrich Sommer, Mahler; Matthias Steinbock, Trabant; Hans Faber, Mahler auf Cristal.’

76 HENDRICK DE SOMER century,45 was situated in the Porto quarter near the still existing churches of Sant’ Onofrio and of San Pietro in Vincullis.46 It was just a couple of hundred meters from the area where Hendrick De Somer lived (on the strada del Baglivo near San Giuseppe Maggiore).47 As an official of Santa Maria dell'Anima, De Somer was connected to a wide network of Netherlandish and German residents in Naples. In 1622, the Statutes of the Brotherhood had been adapted, allowing Flemings and ‘Niederdeutscher’ to become members.48 Amongst the Kirchmeisters of the Santa Maria dell’Anima, during De Somer’s Neapolitan sojourn (1622-1656), we find the names of several Netherlandish (probably Flemish) merchants: Allexander Segitz (Kirchmeister in 1624), Hans Foccardt (Forchondt?, 1640) and Hans de Meuss (1643).49 De Somer knew these merchants personally, especially the latter two, as they were connected to the church close to the time when he was Kirchmeister. His election to the position of Kirchmeister is a sign of his good reputation amongst compatriots and his efforts to stay in touch with people from his home country in the vast multicultural metropolis that was Naples in the 1640s.

Integration in local (artistic) circles Without the safety net provided by a dense network of compatriots of the same profession, integration into Neapolitan society and the Neapolitan artistic circles was more urgent for De Somer. Within ten years after his arrival, he married the nineteen-year-old Giacinta Gamboia (Gamboa?) from Naples. We know very little about the background of Giacinta’s family, but the fact that her father Giovanni Pietro and mother Rosa Vittone owned the family house, located in the Strada del Baglivo near San Giuseppe Maggiore, indicates a certain degree of financial independence. As I mentioned earlier, the witnesses testifying in Hendrick’s processetto were from his home country. This was a logical choice, since he needed someone who would guarantee that he had not married elsewhere prior to his arrival in Naples. On the other hand, the witnesses at his actual wedding, which took place in the family house of the Gamboias on 18 November 1632, were Italian: Antonio Ambrosino,50 the notary Francesco Ferrari,51 doctor Antonio Francesco del Rossi and

45 Risanamento means urban renewal. In Naples, it was undertaken with the specific purpose of improving the poor and unhygienic areas of the city, especially near the harbor. See SERAO 1906 for a particularly vivid description of the miserable situation prior to the project. 46 CELANO 1692 (ed. P. Feliciano 2009, http://www.memofonte.it, quarta giornata, p.33 (orig.), p. 11 (ed.). 47 Appendix 107. 48 TOLL 1909, 40. 49 TOLL 1909, 101-103. These are the Kirchmeistern that are explicitly called ‘niderlandischer Kauffman’. 50 Perhaps Antonio Ambrosino was related to Peeter Doens' landlord in 1632, Paolo Ambrosino. See the processetto. 51 This Francesco Ferrari could be the same as the one who wrote Giambattista Marino’s biography in 1633. Cfr: CONTE 2005, 240, n.6; MARINO 1633, last section.

77 CHAPTER THREE

Pietro de Palma.52 Moreover, many of the godparents of De Somer's children have Italian names and were most likely Neapolitan.53 The way in which De Somer managed to create a firm connection with several local colleagues is a remarkable aspect of his integration. Quickly after his arrival in 1622, he gained access to Ribera's workshop. In the early-1620s, when Ribera was beginning to receive important commissions, this workshop must have been a vibrant place for young artists. Artists like Aniello Falcone, the brothers Fracanzano,54 Giovanni Ricca and a little later Bartolomeo Bassante worked side by side. In 1641, when Ribera's former pupils of the 1620s were all mature artists, the Fracanzano, Ricca and De Somer all worked for the newly built church of Santa Maria della Sapienza. The fourth painter to be involved was Domenico Gargiulo, better known as Micco Spadaro (1609-1675). Gargiulo appears to have become friends with De Somer, as he was the godfather to Hendrick's son Gioseppe Anello Antonio in 1642.55 The two artists also collaborated, for example on the large Pastoral scene in the collection of Giovanni Montoya de Cardona (inventory of 1718).56 It is mentioned explicitly that the figures were painted by De Somer and the landscape by Gargiulo. Since the documented contact between De Somer and Gargiulo dates to the early 1640s (1641 and 1642), we might assume that the pastoral scene was also conceived around this time. During the 1640s such landscape scenes became particularly popular in Italy and Naples was not excluded from this trend. Importantly, this is also around the time Gargiulo created the fresco cycle for the Certosa di San Martino (1638-1640 and 1642-1646).57 Viviano Codazzi and De Somer appear to have been friends for quite some time, as Hendrick was one of the witnesses at Codazzi's marriage to Candida Miranda in 1636.58 In 1642, Candida Miranda became the godmother of Hendrick’s son Gioseppe Anello Antonio, together with Domenico Gargiulo. Codazzi, himself a foreign artist from Bergamo, probably arrived in Naples in the late-1620s.59 All the painters recorded in Hendrick De Somer’s network were well connected with other painters active in Naples and could have easily introduced De Somer to other artists, such as (through Codazzi and Gargiulo), Aniello Falcone (through Gargiulo or Ribera), Massimo Stanzione (through Codazzi and Gargiulo) and (through Codazzi), to name just a few.

52 Possibly related to the De Palma family, dukes of S.Elia, whose member Francesco (died 1716) owned a Philosopher by De Somer (LABROT 1992, 153, 283). 53 See Appendix 109, 111-112, 115-119. 54 Francesco Lofano is currently preparing the publication of his dissertation on Francesco Fracanzano. 55 See Appendix 115. 56 See Appendix 120: 'Un quatro di palmi otto e sei con pastore che sona la sabognia con cornice di pero negro e stragalli indorati indorati mano di Errico Fiamenco, e paese mano di micco spadaro D. 50'. 57 Between 1638 and 1640, Gargiulo worked on the fresco cycle in the Coro dei Fratelli Conversi and between 1642 and 1646, he painted in the Quarto del Priore (DAPRÀ & SESTIERI 1994, 28). 58 See Appendix 110. One of the other witnesses was the painter Salvatore Mosca whose sister married the still life painter Giacomo Recco. 59 See Chapter Four, paragraph ‘Leaving Rome for Naples: a good move in the 1630s’.

78 HENDRICK DE SOMER

De Somer’s Oeuvre A small number of signed paintings, one documented ecclesiastical commission and the paintings by De Somer that were part of the Neapolitan inventories best illustrate Hendrik De Somer’s integration in the Neapolitan art world. By means of this corpus, I shall analyze stylistic developments, size, the choice of subjects and the reception of his work by patrons and artists. Through these aspects, we will be able to see to what degree De Somer’s Neapolitan production adhered to Neapolitan artistic trends, especially to Ribera.

Signed and dated oeuvre Six signed paintings by Hendrick De Somer are still known to us and one is firmly documented. The only full signature of Hendrick De Somer ('Enrico Somer f. 1652') on the St Jerome (Rome, Galleria d’Arte Antica in Palazzo Barberini, Fig. 38), was the first one to be discovered, in 1943. 60 Much later (1985), another signed St Jerome (Louisville, Speed Art Museum, Fig. 40) was added to De Somer’s oeuvre.61 The earliest signed and dated painting by De Somer is The Healing of Tobit (1632) in the Medina de las Torres collection in Madrid (Fig. 42).62 Hendrick De Somer painted at least two other versions: a smaller version in a Neapolitan private collection and one of the same size in the collection of the Banco Intesa Sanpaolo in Naples (Fig. 43).63 The paintings are almost identical, with the exception of the background and the appearance of the archangel, who is based on another model and has a different pose. Three years later De Somer signed and dated the Caritas Romana, another image of filial piety, this time of a daughter for her father (Fig. 44). In 1995, Nicola Spinosa added a David with the Head of Goliath to De Somer’s oeuvre, after a monogram was discovered (Fig. 45).64 He connected two other versions to this work, attributing them to De Somer (Figs. 46 & 47).65 A cleaning treatment in 2013 unearthed a monogram on the attributed David in the Musée des Beaux Arts in Nice. Just like in the other version, the monogram ‘HS’ was placed on the hilt of the sword. The large Baptism of Christ (Fig. 39) for the Dominican church of Santa Maria della Sapienza should also be included in De Somer’s secure oeuvre, as the commission from

60 For the discovery of De Somer's signature on the St Jerome, then exhibited in the Galleria Borghese in Rome, see: HOOGEWERFF 1943, 163-166. The signature is located on the side of the book. 61 First published in BOLOGNA 1991, 313 (cat. 2.78). Bologna informs us that the signature was first discovered on the inkwell when it was put on display in the Trafalgar Galleries in London in 1985. 62 The signature was detected in 1985 during the cleaning of the painting for the occasion of the important exhibition Pintura napolitana de a Giordano in Madrid. (PÉREZ SANCHEZ 1985, 352-3 (cat. 163).) The painting was still catalogued under ‘Anonimos’, but in the entry it is suggested that the signature belonged to Enrico Semer. 63 BOLOGNA 1991, 311 (cat. 2.74 & 2.75). The former is 120 x 160 cm, the latter 200 x 145 cm. According to Bologna, the painting in the collection Intesa Sanpaolo should be dated after the Madrilean version, making that the prototype. 64 This version was with Galleria Voenia in Turin in 1990 and is now in a Roman private collection (130 x 97 cm) (SPINOSA 1995, 226). 65 An unsigned version is in a Neapolitan private collection (100 x 75 cm), the third version is in the Musée des Beaux Arts in Nice (100 x 74 cm). All were attributed by Spinosa (SPINOSA 1995, 226 n. 14).

79 CHAPTER THREE

1641 by the prioress Angela Giovanna Carafa for the Baptism of Christ is documented, and the canvas remained in the church until very recently, assuring its provenance and subsequent identification as the painting mentioned in the payment.66 Over the past twenty-five years, many new attributions have been added to Hendrick De Somer’s oeuvre.67 I have decided to exclude these attributions from my general analysis, but will refer to them when necessary. I shall also exclude the Lot and his daughters, signed ‘HSE f’, since I am not convinced it should be assigned to De Somer. The signature deviates from the other signatures, and it would be a challenge to connect the style of the work to the other secure paintings.68 As the paintings are dated between 1632 and 1652, they give us an idea of De Somer’s development during his long period of activity in Naples. Only the St Jerome in Palazzo Barberini bears a full signature, the other paintings are monogrammed.69 Except for the two paintings of David with the head of Goliath, all signatures and monograms include a year. This leads to the following chronology: Healing of Tobit (1632), Caritas Romana (1635), Baptism of Christ (1641) and two St Jeromes (1651 and 1652). The two Davids, whose signature does not include a date, should be dated towards the mid-1640s. De Somer used two different models, which perhaps indicates that they were not painted simultaneously.70

66 Bank payment from April 4, 1641: 'Al monasterio della Sapienza ducati venticinque et per esso ad Errico De Somer fiamengo Pittore con firma di S. Angela Gioanna Carrafa Priora, disse delli ducati 5959.4.10 pervenuti a detto Monasterio da Aniello de Massa per la causa contenta in detta partita et sono per resto e finale pagamento della pittura fatta nella loro nova Chiesa, nella quale polisa vi è firma di detto Errico De Somer, à lui." (ASBN, Banco AGP, g.m. 1808, c.250, first published in: BONAZZI 1888.) ) and the account book: "Ad Errigo Somer Pittore docati 50 per la pittura del quadro ad oglio del Battesimo di Christo come in detto libro fol. 157 - 50" (ASN, Corporazioni religiose soppresse, busta 3190, cc. 98r-100v: 'Exito delle spese fatte per la fabrica della nuova chiesa del Monasterio della Sapienza', first published in: BONAZZI 1888, p. 126. I would like to thank Francesco Lofano for informing me about the exact location of the account book in the ASN.) See Appendix 114 & 113. 67 BOLOGNA 1958, BOLOGNA 1991, BOLOGNA 1996; SPINOSA 1995, SPINOSA 2005, SPINOSA 2010; PORZIO 2011, PORZIO 2012, PORZIO 2013a; FARINA 2012, esp. 22-57, FORGIONE 2012, 2014. Giuseppe Porzio is working on a monograph on Hendrick De Somer (expected publication: 2015). 68 SPINOSA 1995, 228. The elderly Lot reminds us vaguely of the elderly bearded men painted by De Somer, but the type of women and the yellowish palette make it difficult to place this undated painting convincingly within De Somer's oeuvre. Perhaps this inconsistency is to be explained by the presence of the Genoese artist Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione in Naples around 1635-1639. Castiglione was famous for his history paintings of the story of Jacob and the Exodus, in which he excelled in the depiction of different animals. The oblong composition, the palette, the features of Lot and his daughters and the ominous evening sky are all characteristics that are found throughout Castiglione's oeuvre. There is another painting, previously in the Heim Gallery in London with this subject, which – although unsigned – is much closer to De Somer’s oeuvre. The painting was in the Heim Gallery in London.; FARINA 2012, 54 (fig. 60). According to Farina, this painting was produced prior to the signed version. That version is directly derived from a composition by Massimo Stanzione. 69 The Healing of Tobit is signed 'E.co S 1632', the Caritas Romana 'HS Fco 1635', the David 'HS', the St Jerome in Louisville 'HF 1651'. 70 The David in Nice appears to be based on a younger boy than the other monogrammed version in the Roman private collection, but it could very well be the same model. The David of the (unsigned) version in a Neapolitan private collection is based on a model with a less refined face. De Somer based his David in the version in Nice on the same model as Raphael in the Healing of Tobit in the collection of the Banco Intesa Sanpaolo and the young St

80 HENDRICK DE SOMER

The three versions of the David with the Head of Goliath (one unsigned), do however closely resemble each other in terms of style and composition, which could suggest they were painted during the same period of De Somer's activity. Because of the similarities in style to the Baptism of Christ for the Santa Maria della Sapienza, to be discussed shortly, they were most likely produced just before or after the large canvas, sometime around 1640- 1645.

Enrico Fiamengo in Neapolitan inventories by Gérard Labrot The only documentary source of information about De Somer's Neapolitan oeuvre, apart from the payment for the Baptism of Christ for the Santa Maria della Sapienza (1641), are the Neapolitan inventories accessible through the Getty Provenance Index (from now on GPI) and the related publication by Gerard Labrot of 1992. Labrot's index and a search for 'Somer' in the online GPI database yield only one result, an unspecified Philosopher by a Geronimo Somer, 'discepolo di rivero', in the inventory of the collection of Francesco de Palma (1716).71 However, Labrot made a mistake in his index, which was subsequently followed by other contributors to the GPI.72 There are twenty-seven entries in the Neapolitan inventories referring to Dirck Hendricksz Centen (called Dirck Hendricksz in the database), but in only three of these entries the name of the artist was indicated as 'teodoro fiamengo' by the appraiser of the collection, whereas in the other twenty-four entries the artist is called 'errico fiamengo' (also enrico or enrigo). Teodoro is the correct Italianization of the Netherlandish first name Dirck, Enrico comes from Hendrick. Only three of the entries in the GPI are truly referring to Dirck Hendricksz Centen: seven Mysteries of the Virgin (in two different Spinelli inventories) and a Saint Catherine, subjects that are in line with Centen’s known oeuvre.73 By 1993, Labrot appears to have become aware of his earlier mistake, but he still arrived at the wrong conclusion, identifying the artist as Dirck Helmbreeker (1633-1696).74 Helmbreeker was a landscape and genre

John the Baptist in a landscape (formerly coll. Koelliker) and the angel in the Ecstasy of St Francis of Assisi (private collection). The model features with different facial expressions and poses and he appears to age slightly. This suggest that the works were conceived during the course of a period of time when the model was available to pose for De Somer, rather than that De Somer re-used a one-time study of the boy's features. Solely based on the age of the boy, the chronology of paintings in which he appears would be: Extasy of St Francis, David (Nice), Healing of Tobit (version Intesa Sanpaolo), St John in a landscape, David (Roman private collection). We should keep in mind that it the signed versions of the David and Healing of Tobit were not necessarily the first to be painted by De Somer. As mentioned, the David in Nice appears to be based on a younger boy. 71 See Appendix 120; LABROT 1992, inv. 56, nr. 75: “Un altro di palmi 4 e 5 figura d'un Filosofo, mano di Geronimo Somer il Fiamengo, discepolo di rivero con cornice dorata intagliata D.30”. 72 It should be mentioned that Labrot refers to a Enrico Fiamengo, without further identifying him, in some of the introductory paragraphs to the inventories, but they are still indexed as Centen. 73 Cfr. VARGAS 1988. 74 LABROT 1993, 291: "Il est peu probable, à notre avis, qu'Enrico Fiammingo cache Dirck Henddricks, un artiste dont la très récente étude de Carmela Vargas mostre qu'il travailla avant tout pour les milieux ecclésiastiques. L'Enrico Fiammingo de nos inventaires, dès lors, peut être Hendrick Terbrugghen, Hendrick van Somer, ou cet Enrico, élève de Ribera, qui a pu peindre les figures des quatre paysages de Giovanni Fiammingo che possède

81 CHAPTER THREE painter, who visited Naples between 1672 and 1675.75 Additional confirmation that Labrot erroneously combined the two fiamminghi in his index can be found in the inventory of Carlo Maria Benestante (1726). This inventory lists a Teodoro Fiamengo (the aforementioned Saint Catherine) as well as an Errico Fiamengo (three entries); both were subsequently identified as Centen in the Getty Provenance Index. The Errico Fiamengo in the GPI has to be identified as Hendrick De Somer for several reasons.76 The marriage certificate and baptismal records show that Hendrick De Somer was active in the city for over thirty years, where he produced an extensive oeuvre. Moreover, in the De Palma inventory he is called 'discepolo di rivero' (‘pupil of Ribera’), consistent with De Dominici’s reference to an Errico Fiammingo. Lastly, the type of paintings attributed to 'Enrico Fiammengo' in the inventories is compatible with his signed oeuvre. Since this is the first time that the erroneous identification of the ‘Enrico Fiammengo’ with Dirck Hendricksz Centen in the GPI is noted, the paintings listed in the Neapolitan inventories are a valuable addition for the analysis of De Somer’s artistic production. Thirty-four paintings are attributed to Enrico Fiamengo in sixteen different Neapolitan inventories between 1659 and 1726. This corpus of works shows a rather homogeneous oeuvre, indicating De Somer’s specialization in the production of a certain type of paintings. Twenty of the paintings in the Neapolitan inventories are of male saints, one of St Barbara. Most of these saints are elderly, bearded men. Amongst the saints we find six St Jeromes in different sizes, and two each of St Joseph, the infant St John the Baptist, St Onophrius and St Peter. The paintings of other saints are a St Paul the first Hermit, St Bartholomew, St Lawrence, one unspecified apostle and a St Philip Neri. Apart from the saints, we find paintings with subjects from the Old and New Testament (Batsheba, Delilah, Sisara, Tobias, Deposition of Christ and the infant Christ). From the descriptions of the paintings with biblical subjects, it is not always clear whether these are history paintings or a portrait of the identified person. The six paintings with non-religious subjects include a series of the Four Condemned, a Pastoral Scene and a Philosopher. The unspecified half figure and ‘Old man with a book’ could refer to either to a religious subject or portrait.

Francesco Montecorvino. Mais l'identification la plus probable, pour bien des oeuvres, compte tenu des dates tardives de certaines apparitions, 1704, 1723, 1726, est sans doute Dirck Helmbreker." 75 HOOGEWERFF 1913, 34. Labrot apparently made the same error, tracing ‘Dirck’ back to Hendrick instead of Theodoor. 76 Even though there is a possibility Hendrick Terbrugghen was in Naples, De Somer is a far more likely candidate. HOUBRAKEN 1718, 133-4: "...Dus heeft hy [Terbrugghen] vele buitengewesten in zyn jeugt (behalve dat hy tien jaren te Rome gewoont heft) bezogt; daar hij proefstukken van zyn uitnemende Konst, bestaande in Historien gelaten heeft, inzonderheid, te Napels een groot stuk geplaatst boven het hooge Altaar in de groote Kerk. By dit stuk heeft hy geen naammerk gesteld, gelyk hy ook niet gedaan heeft by vele van zyn Konstwerken, alzoo zyne vloeijende penceelhandeling in dien tyd genoegzaam alom bekent was." I have not found any evidence to suggests that Houbraken is right. Moreover, the description is rather vague about what Terbrugghen did exactly in Naples, from the way it is formulated, it seems he only installed an altarpiece (or had it installed).

82 HENDRICK DE SOMER

Bearded men and scenes of horror: De Somer’s Riberesque subjects Almost all the subjects of the paintings signed by De Somer and listed in the inventories, were also painted by Ribera.77 This comes as no surprise, since most of these subjects were very common in Naples and in this period in general. This means that De Somer could often drew from the repertoire of his master as a starting point for his own inventions. There are however a couple of subjects in De Somer’s oeuvre that were painted more frequently by the Spaniard. These particular subjects should be seen in the light of De Somer’s connection to Ribera. By adhering to themes popularized by his master, De Somer emphasized this association. As mentioned above, De Somer painted many elderly bearded men. We find St Peter, St Jacob, a Philosopher and an unspecified Old man with a book in his oeuvre.78 One clear group can be easily isolated: St Jerome (six documented and two signed), St Onophrius (twice), and St Paul the first Hermit (documented once) were all hermit saints and make up for a quarter of De Somer’s signed or documented oeuvre.79 The depiction of hermits underwent a revaluation during the post-tridentine era both in the public and private sphere.80 Like early Christian martyrs, hermits and anchorites were thought of as exemplary Christians. The popularity of the subject continued well into the seventeenth century. In the 1630s, various painters from Rome and Naples were commissioned to paint a series of hermits for the decoration of the Palace of Buen Retiro in Madrid.81 The interest of the Spanish king in scenes with hermits likely stimulated the popularity of the subject in the entire Kingdom. In Naples, hermits were frequently depicted, as we can see from the many references in Neapolitan inventories in the GPI.82

77 See SPINOSA 2003. The exceptions: Caritas Romana, Bathsheba, Jael and Sisera, Samson and Delilah, the Healing of Tobit and the St Barbara will be discussed in the next paragraph. 78 Consensus has been reached on the attribution of the four bearded saints in the Capodimonte collection to De Somer (See PORZIO 2011; PORZIO 2013a and FORGIONE 2012). Ferdinando Bologna was convinced these were painted by Giovanni Ricca. 79 The St Paul of Thebes in the collection Capecelatro (1659) was in fact conceived as a pendant of St Jerome (also by De Somer), see Appendix 120. 80 The most famous example is the Camerino degli Eremiti, painted by Giovanni Lanfranco (c.1616) in the Palazzetto Farnese in Rome. For an analysis of the iconography of hermits, see WITTE 2004 and WITTE 2008. In relation to Netherlandish painters in Italy, we can recall the commission by don Pedro de Toledo, Marquis of Villafranca and general of the Spanish fleet in Naples, for ninety(!) landscapes with hermits to Wenzel Cobergher, Willem van Nieulandt, Paul Bril and Jacob Francaert in 1601. The commission was assigned to the Netherlanders in Rome, but the paintings were destined for . Cobergher and Francaert had been active in Naples before moving to Rome, see: DE MIERI 2013, 78. 81 ÚBEDA DE LOS COBOS 2005, esp. 20-21. Úbeda de los Cobos mentions the paintings of half figure hermits by Andrea Sacchi, Giovanni Domenico Cerrini and Jusepe de Ribera and the landscapes with hermits by Poussin, Claude Lorrain, Herman Swanevelt and . 82 See the 'Index of subjects' in LABROT 1992, for numerous paintings of hermits like St Anthony Abbott, St Francis of Paola, St Jerome, St Mary Magdalene in the dessert, St Mary of Egypt, St Onophrius, St Paul of Thebes. Among these, the veneration of St Francis of Paola and St Mary of Egypt seems particular for Naples (although not exclusive).

83 CHAPTER THREE

Hermits formed one of the ‘trademark’ subjects of Jusepe de Ribera. Like De Somer, Ribera painted numerous hermits such as St Jerome, St Paul the Hermit, St Onophrius, as well as Mary Magdalene and St Mary of Egypt.83 Nicola Spinosa’s description of Ribera’s old men could without any problem be applied to De Somer's hermits:“... solid images of old men, rendered wise and kind through the hardships they have suffered, with deeply wrinkled skin and hands knotted from work; (...) They are the people of Naples posed as saints and philosophers without leaving traits of their actual condition, possessing a real integrity.”84 In fact, the signed St Jerome by De Somer (Palazzo Barberini, Fig. 38) was thought to resemble the oeuvre of the Spaniard to such a degree that it was sold with a fake Ribera signature to the Galleria Borghese in 1911.85 Lo Spagnoletto produced countless versions of St Jerome: in his study, in penitence or in meditation. However, when we try to find a painting in Ribera's oeuvre on which De Somer could have based the two signed versions of 1651 and 1652, we are at a loss.86 Ribera's version in Prague, signed and dated 1646 (Fig. 48), comes close to De Somer's painting of 1651, in the way the saint is absorbed in his work on the bible translation and holding the scroll.87 Closest to the 1652 version by De Somer is Ribera's vertical composition of 1651 in Naples (Fig. 49), especially because De Somer has tried to convey interaction with the viewer in a similar manner. Both of Ribera’s paintings were created long after De Somer had become an independent master and have little to do with the type of St Jeromes painted by Ribera in the 1620s, whose conception De Somer could have witnessed up close in the Spaniard’s workshop. Neither of De Somer's interpretations are a direct copy nor a close imitation of these or any other known painting by Ribera. The two paintings by De Somer are original compositions, blending together many different elements from the oeuvre of the Spanish master.

Neapolitan collectors cultivated a taste for horrific martyrdoms and equally visually depicted gruesome scenes from mythology, such as the Flaying of Marsyas. Ribera excelled like no other in this type of subject matters associated the ‘Aesthetic of Horror’.88 Like the

83 See the catalogue in SPINOSA 2003. Amongst the many attributions that have been made to De Somer, many show resemblance to Ribera's oeuvre, but have been dismissed from it and have since been allocated in the oeuvres of several of his pupils and other Neapolitan painters. This group includes many paintings of St Jerome, a subject frequently depicted by the Spanish master. Indeed, these attributions have some resemblance to Ribera, but are not good enough to be by the Spanish master and/or have an un-Italian, Northern feel. The larger part of these St Jeromes have been attributed to De Somer by lack of another name and are clearly by artists from an entirely different, and indeed often completely Northern, background. For example, the St Jerome on sale by Finarte Semenzato in Venice in 2004, or the painting on auction at Dorotheum in Vienna in 2008, see RKD Explore. 84 SPINOSA 1992, 20. 85 For the provenance of the St Jerome, now in the Galleria d’Arte Antica in Rome, see MOCHI ONORI 2008, 443. For the removal of the fake signature and discovery of De Somer’s signature, see HOOGEWERFF 1943. 86 I have based the comparison to Ribera on the 2003 edition of Spinosa's mongraph. (SPINOSA 2003). 87 Viviana Farina agrees that there are similarities with this painting (FARINA 2012, 23 n. 34). 88 The term ‘Aesthetic of Horror’ is connected to the literary and artistic circles of the Neapolitan poet Giambattista Marino (most of his career took place in Northern Italy and Paris), who referred to the pleasure given

84 HENDRICK DE SOMER

‘bearded men’, this is a type of subject that connects De Somer directly to his master. De Somer’s St Bartholomew half figure, in the Capecelatro inventory (1659), falls into this category.89 From the description it is not clear whether De Somer painted the martyrdom of the saint with half figures, or a simple half-figure saint with attributes; Ribera produced paintings of both types.90 In the collection of Carlo Maria Benestante (inventory of 1726) we find a series of four large (158 x 263 cm) canvases by De Somer, described as ‘Quattro Giganti, che significano quattro pene d'Inferno’. The way the appraiser described the work makes it clear that the subject of the series was the Four Condemned, the four infamous inmates of the Greek underworld: Sisyphus, Tityos, Tantalus and Ixion.91 All four men were forced to suffer a different form of perpetual torture in Hades because they had defied the Gods. Titian was the first to select this subject for a series for Mary of Hungary’s palace at Binche in 1548.92 In Italy, virtually no paintings with this theme were created in the second half of the sixteenth-century. In a recent exhibition catalogue (2014), Miguel Falomir Faus argues that it was through Northern artists —notably through Cort’s prints after Titian and Goltzius’ prints after Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem — that the Four Condemned were reintroduced to Italy.93 By 1631, we find a Tityus by David de Haen in the Neapolitan collection of the Antwerp merchant Gaspar de Roomer.94 In fact, it is in Naples that the subject reached its greatest popularity in the arts from the 1620s onwards, especially in the oeuvre of Ribera and his pupils. The theme also featured in texts by Neapolitan authors such as Giambattista Marino (L’Adone, 1623) and Giambattista Basile (Cunto delli cunti,

by paintings of horrific scenes, more specifically ’s Massacre of the Innocents in his Galeria. For an overview of scenes of horror in Neapolitan art, see: LANG 2001. 89 See Appendix 120. 90 For example, Ribera’s Martyrdom of St Bartholomew with half figures, signed and dated 1634, in the collection of the National Gallery in Washington, of which many versions are known (SPINOSA 2003, 292 cat. A137.). Or his half-figure St Bartholomew in the collection of the Museo del Prado in Madrid (SPINOSA 2003, 278 cat. A87.). 91 In Greek mythology, several characters are called 'Gigantos'. The 'original' giants fought the Olympian gods during the so-called Gigantomachy. However, because of the explanation provided by the appraiser of Benestante’s collection, it is clear that ‘giganti’ refers to the Four Condemned. 92 FALOMIR FAUS 2014. In 2014, curator Miguel Falomir Faus devoted an exhibition to the famous series Las Furias by Titian, part of the collection of the Museo del Prado. In the analysis of De Somer’s series, I base myself on Faus Falomir’s excellent catalogue, in which he devotes ample space to seventeenth-century adaptations of the theme in Haarlem, Antwerp and Naples. 93 Goltzius’ famous series of prints (1588) after Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem, depicting Tantalus, Ixion, Phaeton and Icarus. A fascinating aspect of Miguel Falomir’s analysis of the reception of the theme of the Four Condemned in European art and culture, is the recurring connection to the Netherlands. Titian’s series were originally created for the Habsburg palace in Binche, the theme became very popular in Haarlem during the late- sixteenth century, Dutch prints played an important role in the spread of the theme and two Antwerp collectors (De Roomer and Van Uffel) were amongst the first to show interest in the subject after it gained importance in Naples. 94 FALOMIR FAUS 2014, 97-9 (Spanish text) and pp. 180-181 (English translation). From now on, I will refer to the integral English translation in the back of the Spanish catalogue.

85 CHAPTER THREE published in 1634-6).95 Many different subtexts have been read in the story of the Four Condemned, but we cannot know if any of these applied to De Somer’s version.96 In 1632, Ribera painted the large canvases that are now in the Prado collection (Figs. 50 & 51). The year after Ribera painted a series of Condemned for Lucas van Uffel,97 the Count of Monterrey and the Condestable de Castilla also owned versions of one or more Condemned by Ribera and there were paintings with the subject in the Filomarino and Terranova collections.98 For artists and collectors alike, the principal appeal of the subject was the artistic challenge of painting nude male bodies in extreme poses with difficult foreshortening as well as the depiction of human affetti such as excruciating pain.99 We can assume that the main attraction to the international public was the artistic excellence of Ribera’s series. The sheer format of the canvases reinforced the overwhelming impression of the tortured nude bodies. Like Titian’s and Ribera’s versions of the subject, De Somer’s paintings of the Four Condemned were the largest (210 x 158 cm) within his documented oeuvre.100 It is probable that De Somer’s series showed great resemblance to Ribera’s autograph versions. We have no information on when he created them. In the early-1630s, when Ribera painted the series for Lucas van Uffel and the one that is now in the Museo del Prado, De Somer had already reached artistic maturity and worked as an independent master.101 However, the international fame of Ribera’s artistic showpieces leaves no doubt that De Somer was familiar with Ribera’s works. It is no coincidence that a Neapolitan collector selected Hendrick De Somer to paint the same subject as his former master. Furthermore, we should see this as a sign that De Somer was considered a talented pupil who could take on the challenge to imitate or perhaps even emulate Ribera. De Somer thus took advantage of the great demand of works by Ribera and actively used his connection to the Spaniard to obtain commissions. From the number of hermit saints and other subjects connected to Ribera that he produced, it appears this strategy was successful. However, as we have seen from the different versions of St Jerome,

95 FALOMIR FAUS 2014, 180, 183. 96 Falomir Faus traces the evolution of the significance of the theme for patrons and artists. Titian’s Four Condemned for the palace in Binche most likely had a political subtext, referring to the fate of those who defied their rulers. In late-sixteenth century Spanish literature, the Condemned were connected to sinful Christians, who would suffer their sins in Hell. The different sins of the Condemned were connected to the cardinal sins like greed (Tantalus) and lust (Ixion). Another popular interpretation related the punishments suffered by the Condemned to the pains of rejected lovers. 97 Van Uffel was a Flemish merchant who lived in Venice between 1616 and the early-1630s before he moved to Amsterdam together with his impressive art collection (see MEIJER 2000, 381-383). In the Teutsche Academie, Sandrart refers to the story that Van Uffel’s wife gave birth to a deformed baby after having seen Ribera’s Ixion (VON SANDRART 1675, 405). It would not surprise me if De Roomer functioned as a mediator in the commission by Van Uffel to Ribera. 98 FALOMIR FAUS 2014, 181. 99 FALOMIR FAUS 2014, 176. 100 Except for the Baptism of Christ, which was painted to be displayed in a church. 101 In this year, De Somer signed and dated the Healing of Tobit.

86 HENDRICK DE SOMER

De Somer was certainly not a mere copyist of his master’s work and always appropriated the subjects in his own manner.

Filial piety and seductive women: signs of De Somer’s artistic integration The previous paragraph has made clear that Hendrick De Somer emphasized his association to Ribera with many of the subjects he depicted. There is however a number of paintings in De Somer’s oeuvre that cannot be connected to his Spanish master. The preponderance of themes amongst De Somer’s paintings which were distant from Ribera’s repertoire, such as The Healing of Tobit, Caritas Romana, Bathsheba, (Jael and) Sisera, (Samson and) Delilah and the St Barbara, is significant to understand the other dimensions of his artistic integration. Although he wisely used his connection to his master, he was capable of more and came to be appreciated for these aspects of his oeuvre as well. First, we need to discuss two themes which only became popular in Naples in the period after De Somer produced his paintings: The Healing of Tobit and the Caritas Romana. Both subjects are connected to ideas of filial piety and acts of mercy, which were propagated throughout the Catholic world.102 The Healing of Tobit, painted at least three times by De Somer,103 became a fairly popular subject in seventeenth-century Naples, although not enough to be called typically Neapolitan. The story of Tobiah, who healed his father Tobit of blindness, is told in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (Book of Tobit: 10- 15).104 In general, the Book of Tobit emphasizes themes like the love and care of a son for his father, unyielding faith and spiritual guidance in the form of the archangel Raphael as a travel companion. The play Historia de Tobias (1621) by the Spanish playwright Lope de Vega may have inspired Neapolitan patrons to commission paintings with this subject. The scenes from the Book of Tobit were popular throughout Europe, many paintings with the subject were painted in the Southern and Northern Netherlands as well.105 Matthias Stom painted Tobiah and the Angel as well as The Healing of Tobit and both should be dated after his Neapolitan sojourn in the 1630s.106 Labrot lists several occurrences of unspecified scenes from the Book of Tobit in the Neapolitan inventories,

102. In her analysis of the oeuvre of , Anna Tuck-Scala elaborately discusses the theme (TUCK- SCALA 2012, 142). 103 Apart from the signed version of 1632 and the second version in the collection of the Banco Intesa San Paolo, a third painting is documented in the collection of Pompilio Gagliano (1699) of 132 x 158 cm: LABROT 1992, inventory 41 (Pompilio Gagliano, 1699), n. 41: "Uno Tobia, di palmi 5, e 6 mano di Errico Fiamengo con cornice indorata intagliata.". The size of this painting is very close to the 120 x 160 cm of the version in a Neapolitan private collection, which was attributed to De Somer by Ferdinando Bologna in 1991 (BOLOGNA 1991, 311 cat. 2.74). 104 Tobit became blind while he was displaying acts of mercy (burying the dead). His son, Tobiah, undertook a journey, accompanied by the archangel Raphael in disguise. Raphael instructed Tobiah to catch a fish and to make an ointment of the fish’s gall. After his return, Tobiah used the gall to cure his father’s blindness. 105 To name but a few: Jan van Hemessen, Brussel; Annibale Carraci, Gemäldegalerie Kassel; Bernardo Strozzi, several versions, all painted in the 1630s in Venice; , 1636, Stuttgart. (PIGLER 1974, vol. I, 189-190.) 106 See NICOLSON 1977, nrs 5 & 108-110; ZALAPI 1996, cat.nrs. 20 & 44, 174-176, 190.

87 CHAPTER THREE amongst others paintings by Domenico Gargiulo and Andrea Vaccaro.107 and later also painted The Healing of Tobit (Fig. 52). All these versions are completely different from De Somer's truly original composition.108 For as far as I have been able to reconstruct, all the aforementioned interpretations of the subject in Naples were produced after 1632, meaning De Somer’s version was the first. Perhaps De Somer was even instrumental in introducing the theme in Neapolitan painting. Roman Charity is the title given to the story of Pero, who visits her elderly father Cimon in prison and feeds him by letting him suckle milk from her breast. The story combines two acts of mercy: feeding the hungry and visiting prisoners. However, Caritas Romana was also popular because of the erotic undertone of a young woman secretively offering her breast to an eager elderly man.109 De Somer's gallery-size painting (146 x 201 cm) perfectly conveyed this double meaning of piety and eroticism: Pero's young firm body is in strong contrast to the frailty of her father. In the far-left of the composition a guard is peeking through the barred window, emphasizing the secrecy of the scene. In early modern cities, especially large ones like Naples, the Church and private societies like the Monti stimulated wealthy inhabitants to have ‘misericordia’ (mercy) towards the helpless (poor, sick, orphans, widows etc.), adding to the popularity of the depiction of the Acts of Mercy in art. Cimon and Pero feature in Caravaggio’s Seven Acts of Mercy (1607, Fig. 12) for the chapel of the Pio Monte della Misericordia in Naples and compositions of separate acts of mercy were quite common as well. However, it appears that De Somer was the first in Naples to paint the story of Cimon and Pero as a separate painting. More than to Italian examples, De Somer's interpretation of the subject shows similarities to versions by Rubens, especially the version in the Hermitage in St Petersburg (c.1610-1612. Fig. 53)110 and to paintings by Van Baburen (c 1623, Fig. 54) and Jan Janssens (1620), all painters of Northern origin.111 All these painters produced their version shortly after their return from Italy, but I am inclined to think that Rubens’ painting served as the prototype.112 De Somer’s Caritas Romana is a rare example of his

107 LABROT 1992, Index of subjects, 746. For the version ordered in 1667 by Diego de Uloa (collector of De Somer as well) from Andrea Vaccaro and later given as present to the Viceroy, see TUCK-SCALA 2012, 141-145; and TUCK-SCALA 2009 & MAURO & TUCK-SCALA 2009. 108 For Mattia Preti’s Healing of Tobit in the collection of the Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation in Houston, see: SPIKE 1999, 149 (cat. 52). Spike dates this painting to the 1670s. For Cavallino, see: SPINOSA 2013, 314 (cat. 50: Kassel), of which several copies were made: cat. B4-B9. Spinosa also mentions interpretations by other Neapolitan painters. 109 For the double attraction of the subject, and the way artists played with this ambiguity, see Elisabeth McGrath’s discussion of the theme (MCGRATH 1997, vol. I, 46-49). 110 For Rubens’ paintings of this theme see: MCGRATH 1997, vol. II, 97-114 (cat.nrs. 18-23). 111 The pose of Cimon, the fabric draped over his lower body and the way Pero looks away are particularly close to Van Baburen and De Somer's compatriot from Ghent, Jan Janssens. 112 The Italian paintings mentioned by Pigler do not resemble De Somer’s version and mostly have a vertical format (like Guido Reni’s version in the Musée des Beaux Arts in Marseille) (PIGLER 1974, VOL. 1, 300-307). Moreover, Elizabeth McGrath convincingly states that it was Rubens who was responsible for the popularity of the theme in The Netherlands (MCGRATH 1997, 101 cat. 18). It is a mystery how De Somer came in contact with these

88 HENDRICK DE SOMER knowledge and appropriation of Netherlandish art. The iconography of Caritas Romana is closely related to The Healing of Tobit, as they are both scenes of filial piety and connected to the acts of mercy. It is likely that the commission to De Somer to paint these subjects came from someone involved in charity. The popularity of the Caritas Romana was partially related to the fact that the scene included a sensuous young woman with a bare breast. Despite the strict Spanish decorum, Neapolitan collectors were no different in this respect and artists catered to this demand. With his Bathsheba and the pendants Delilah and Jael, De Somer adapted to the demand for paintings of sensuous women.113 This is another aspect of De Somer’s oeuvre in which he diverged from the repertoire of Ribera. Diego de Uloa owned the pendants Delilah and Jael. In the inventory of 1680, the subjects are described as "Di più due Quadri di Enrico fiamengo, con cornice jndorata, de Dalida e Sisara, de 5, e 7 sono esistenti".114 Jael killed the Canaanite king Sisera by hammering a nail in his temple. The Philistine girl Delilah deprived her Israelite husband Samson of his strength by cutting off his hair in his sleep.115 Although not mentioned in the description, each painting must have included a second figure, respectively a Samson and a Sisera. At first sight, the two women, one saving the Israelites, the other betraying one, have little in common. However, they were often paired in print series known as ‘Power of women’ series, depicting women who caused the downfall of men.116 Other subjects that frequently occur in the series are Eve, Lot's daughters and Judith. All these young beautiful women seduced and subsequently harmed men when they were vulnerable.117 Neapolitan collectors were interested in obtaining the different scenes of the ‘Power of women’ for their collections.118 Diego de Ulloa hung a painting of Lot and his daughters by an unidentified artist in the same room as the pendants by De Somer.119 De Ulloa was not the only one with a predilection for these dangerous women; they were a

other versions and especially Rubens’ painting, perhaps he undertook a journey to Rome prior to 1632 or maybe he had prints or drawings at his disposal. However, the painting by Rubens (Hermitage) was first engraved by Cornelis van Caukercken (c.1625 - c.1680) in the second half of the 17th century (MCGRATH 1997, 97 cat. 18). 113 A Bathsheba appears in the collection of Francesco Francone (1711), see Appendix 120. 114 See Appendix 120. 115 The appraiser clearly confused the names of Jael and Sisera, thinking Sisera was the name of the woman in the Old Testament story (Judges 4:2-3). 116 For more information about this subject, see: BLEYERVELD, 2000 (with bibliography). Maerten van Heemskerck selected both Jael and Delilah in a series on famous women in the Old Testament. The other women portrayed in the series are Eve, Lot's daughters, Judith and the woman who induced King Solomon to worship pagan gods. 117 In the words of the feminist art historian Madlyn Kahr: ‘What these women had in common was their alarming ability to injure men.’ (KAHR 1973, 290 n.30). Mary Garrard also touches upon the subject of Weibermacht series, in her monograph on Artemisia Gentileschi (GARRARD 1989, esp. Part III). 118 Five paintings of Jael and Sisera are listed in Neapolitan inventories. Delilah, Eve, Lot and his daughters and Judith occur even more often (LABROT 1992, Index of subjects). See Chapter Four for an analysis of Samson and Delilah in Naples. 119 The painting even had the same size as De Somer's two paintings (5x7 palmi = 132 x 184 cm).

89 CHAPTER THREE recognizable part of Neapolitan collections.120 Artemisia Gentileschi played an important role in popularizing this type of subjects. She painted several canvases with subjects like Judith, Bathsheba (Fig. 55) and Loth and his Daughters during her activity in Naples between 1629 and 1654. Closely related subjects in Artemisia Gentileschi’s oeuvre, like Susanna and the Elders, Cleopatra, Lucretia and Danae had the same appeal to collectors regarding the display of beautiful nude women. We do not know what the dangerous women that De Somer painted looked like.121 As he could not use examples from Ribera’s to conceive these works, he must have looked elsewhere. In fact, especially the artists who are traditionally placed on the other side of the spectrum of Neapolitan art, like Pacecco de Rosa and Massimo Stanzione, frequently painted various dangerous women (Fig. 56). The attractive figure of Pero, which strongly recalls Artemisia Gentileschi’s women, gives an indication that De Somer foremost found his inspiration from Artemisia. Moreover, De Somer could have easily gained access to her works through Gargiulo and Codazzi, two of her close Neapolitan collaborators. Whether or not De Somer’s paintings resembled Artemisia’s, by accepting commissions for this type of subjects, De Somer moved out of his comfort zone of Riberesque subjects. In other words, the fact that he painted these works shows that he was an independent master who moved freely in the Neapolitan art scene.

De Somer’s style The six signed paintings show a stylistic coherence, with a couple of recurring elements. De Somer developed a great skill in the depiction of textures, especially hair and skin. In the Caritas Romana (1635), the firm young skin of Pero is contrasted with the wrinkled thin skin of her famished father. For younger skin, De Somer used black-bluish undertones and white highlights; the elderly skin is somewhat warmer in tone, with a dark-brown undertone and more yellowish highlights. In the Baptism of Christ, the difference between St John's darker, sunburned skin and Christ's delicate pale incarnate emphasizes the difference between their otherwise rather similar anatomic build of strong young men.

120Santo Maria Cella (inventory of 1680) had a Jael and Sisera by an artist called Palermitano hanging in his bedroom and in the same room hung a pendant pair of Lot and his daughters and Rachel (whose story was also filled with deceit). In the adjacent room, Cella displayed a Bathsheba, a Judith and many other dangerously seductive women (Susanna, Cleopatra, Daphne, Venus and Lucretia). The important collector Carlo de Cardenas (inv. 1699), who also possessed paintings by De Somer and Stom, owned a 'istoria di Sisara' by Guercino of 7 x 9 palmi. In his Galleria, we also find a Judith of the same size (attributed to Marco Pino) and two paintings of Samson and Delilah (Guercino and Giuseppe di Guido). In the eighteenth century collection of Antonio Fullacchi (1711), a half figure 'Sisara' was paired with a Judith of the same size, both by Nicola Vaccaro. In the same prima anticamera Fullacchi hung a Cleopatra and a Lucretia of the same size. It would be an interesting exercise to connect this interest to the overwhelming presence of female martyrs in Neapolitan painting (LABROT 1992, Index of subjects). 121 Nicola Spinosa attributed a smaller painting (118 x 140 cm, Vidigulfo, Castello dei Landriani, formerly coll. Firrao) of Samson and Delilah to De Somer (SPINOSA 1995, 228; Spinosa 2013, 485 (cat. D52, with bibliography). Gianluca Forgione added attributed another painting of this subject to De Somer (formerly at Sotheby’s London): FORGIONE 2014, 94 fig. 5.

90 HENDRICK DE SOMER

The same delicacy and youthfulness return in the body of the adolescent David. The texture of the beards of the numerous elderly figures painted by De Somer (Tobit, Cimon, God the Father and St Jerome), as well as the fur of David's hat and clothing, were obtained by means of a very fine brush, with a range of subtle gradient highlights. Ribera excelled in the depiction of textures as well, but the two artists reached the effect in very different manners. Whereas Ribera emphasizes texture of skin and fabric with highlights created by thick, restless brush strokes and almost palpable blotches of paint, the surface of De Somer's skin and fabrics is much smoother. De Somer based this technique on other painters than his master; it shows affinities with the work of Guido Reni and Massimo Stanzione or the paintings by Battistello Caracciolo that were omnipresent in the city (Figs. 57 & 58). De Somer’s fine brushwork contributes to another characteristic of his oeuvre: soft, delicate facial expressions.122 The kind, delicate faces are much closer to the figures painted by artists like (Fig. 59) and Bernardo Cavallino.123 It must have been this un-Riberesque delicacy, not quite idealized but not as dramatic as Ribera’s types, that prompted Riccardo Lattuada to include the David with the Head of Goliath (Rome, private collection) in the oeuvre of Guarino, before De Somer’s monogram was discovered.124 De Somer’s use of color changed decisively over the years. The Healing of Tobit is dominated by warm colors from the same range, such as yellowish red, dark green and different shades of brown and white. Gradually, bright colour accents become more prominent and the variety of colours more limited. Red turns ever more important, contrasting bright white and light skin tones and a dark background. This effect is most clearly visible in the David. The aforementioned changes in De Somer’s palette are not limited to the Fleming’s oeuvre. Whether called neo-Venetian, High or Bolognese, the brighter colors are visible in the work of most Neapolitan painters towards the end of the 1630s, including Ribera. In other words, De Somer adapted his palette in the same way as his local peers. Although De Somer’s backgrounds are dark and shadowy, they are never empty and undefined like in Caravaggio’s Southern Italian paintings, in the paintings of his Neapolitan followers and in Ribera’s early Neapolitan work. Except for the Caritas

122 It should however be taken into account that we do not know what De Somer’s version of inherently violent subjects like the Four Condemned looked like. 123 Giuseppe Porzio and Viviana Farina (independently from each other) convincingly attributed a number of paintings that had previously been ascribed to Francesco Guarino to Giovanni Ricca and De Somer (PORZIO 2011 and PORZIO 2012, FARINA 2012, esp. 11-22). Nicola Spinosa already mentioned the similarities between De Somer’s oeuvre and some of the paintings by Guarino in 1995 (SPINOSA 1995, esp. 226).) In his very recent monograph on the fascinating artist Bernardo Cavallino (1616-1656), Nicola Spinosa draws our attention to similarities between Cavallino and Hendrick De Somer. Spinosa especially compares the use of colour and highlights of De Somer’s paintings from the 1640s, including the David with the head of Goliath in Nice, and the soft facial expressions (SPINOSA 2013, esp. 241-246; 483-485). 124 PORZIO 2012, 38-39.

91 CHAPTER THREE

Romana, where the empty prison cell is functional in the story, De Somer always included a landscape with an, often ominous, evening sky. This brings us to De Somer’s use of light. The Caritas Romana is De Somer’s most Caravaggesque work, mostly because of the empty background and the strong light contrast. In most of De Somer’s other paintings, light, although intense, blends the composition together, instead of focusing the viewer’s gaze. In the Louisville St Jerome, for example, the bright light forcefully strikes the pages of the book and envelops the saint’s entire body while the sunset adds to the warm atmosphere. The same effect is reached in the Baptism. In his use of light, De Somer also moved away from Caravaggio and Ribera’s early work to create his independent style within the Neapolitan context.125 One other element in De Somer’s signed oeuvre that deserves our attention is the way he allows figures to engage with the public in the different versions of David with the Head of Holofernes and the Louisville St Jerome. All the other figures in De Somer’s paintings are turned inward or towards each other, but these young men and the elderly hermit turn directly towards the viewer, the latter even extending his hand in an inviting gesture. Whereas the brave young shepherd is frequently depicted looking at the beholder in the eye with an air of pride or accomplishment, the choice to let Jerome lift up his gaze and look at us is very uncommon and even inappropriate for a hermit. Ribera only painted one such St Jerome (1651, Museo di San Martino, Naples, Fig. 49), interestingly enough in the same year as De Somer’s version. We do not know what prompted De Somer to experiment with the gaze of his figures towards the end of his career, but it seems that he came to these solutions independently from Ribera. Lastly, I want to need to address the format of De Somer’s oeuvre. With the exception of the large Baptism of Christ (310 x 167 cm) for the Santa Maria della Sapienza, all of his signed and documented works were meant to be hung in a gallery. De Somer worked in a wide variety of sizes. The smallest paintings were just one palmo (26,3 cm).126 The series of the Four Condemned, ten by six palmi (263 x 158 cm) large, are the largest paintings destined for a private collection within De Somer’s oeuvre. The most common size was four by five palmi (105 x 132 cm), a good size for a gallery painting. Another element that points to their function as gallery paintings is that some of the works were conceived and bought as pendants. De Somer painted two pendant hermit saints (Onophrius and Paul the first Hermit) for Ettore Capecelatro and a Christ Child and a

125 It is therefore surprising that Viviana Farina recently (FARINA 2012) referred to De Somer as a Northern Caravaggist, when there is little to connect him to his Northern origin nor to Caravaggio. Twice, she refers to De Somer as a Northern Caravaggist or naturalist: ‘... un naturalista di ambito nordico...’(p. 22) and ‘... un caravaggista dal Nord...’(p. 60). She furthermore added, when referring to the Venus discovering the body of Adonis in the Cleveland Museum of Art (which she attributes to ) that ’... un artista interessante ma non geniale come Hendrick van Somer, non è capace di tale invenzioni pittoriche, ...’(p.60). 126 For two of the palm size paintings the material of the painting is specified; respectively a St Lawrence on copper and a St Jerome on an oval piece of alabaster (pietra cotognina), another St Jerome of 2 palmi in diameter was octogonal of shape (paired with a St Francis of Assisi by Bartolomeo Passante of the same format). The other paintings were most likely on canvas.

92 HENDRICK DE SOMER

Young John the Baptist placed in landscapes of the same size and hanging beside each other for Francesco Montecorvino. In the inventory of Diego de Ulloa, we find a (Samson and) Delilah and a (Jael and) Sisera of the same size, hanging next to each other.

Appreciation Unless explicitly stated by contemporary sources, it is difficult to reconstruct an artist’s status and success. Bernardo De Dominici still remembered De Somer in his Vite of 1742- 43 and even states that he was famous: ‘…quell’opere che lo han renduto famoso.”,127 giving us an indication of De Somer’s reputation, albeit only in passing. In the case of Hendrick De Somer, there are various other ways to better comprehend how he was appreciated by his contemporaries. By 1641, De Somer's reputation in Naples was well established to grant him the prestigious commission for one of the large canvases for the Dominican church of Santa Maria della Sapienza. This canvas is De Somer's only known public commission and offers a good opportunity to evaluate De Somer’s position amongst his peers. In addition, some of De Somer’s works in the Neapolitan inventories were given an estimated value by the appraisers of the collections. Although not contemporary in the strictest sense, we can gather some information about the monetary value given to De Somer’s paintings. After a long building process, the interior of the imposing church of Santa Maria della Sapienza was ready to be adorned in 1641, and the prioress Angela Giovanna Carafa employed a group of upcoming artists including Cesare Fracanzano (1605-1651), Carlo Rosa (1613-1678), Domenico Gargiulo (1609-1675), Giovanni Ricca (?), Andrea Vaccaro (1604-1670) and our Hendrick De Somer. Veteran fresco painter Belisario Corenzio (c.1558-1643) produced frescoes with Scenes from the life of Christ for the ceiling of the nave of the church. Fracanzano painted an Assumption of the Virgin the ceiling of the nun's choir, whereas the others provided large paintings that were to hang on the sidewalls of the nave). It is not immediately clear what prompted the prioress to select these particular artists. It is nonetheless an important question to address, as it is the only chance we have to compare Hendrick De Somer directly to his local peers. All of them were in their mid- thirties and, perhaps with the exception of the little-known Carlo Rosa, all would become important protagonists of the Neapolitan art scene of the second and third quarter of the seventeenth century. Gargiulo and Vaccaro had already worked on important commissions for the Certosa di San Martino, and Gargiulo and Fracanzano had been commissioned by the Viceroy to produce paintings for the decoration of the Palace of Buen Retiro.128 Based on the current state of research it appears that Ricca, Rosa and De Somer were not yet as established as Vaccaro, Fracanzano and Gargiulo. On the other

127 DE DOMINICI 1742-43, 23, see Appendix 121. 128 In 1636, Andrea Vaccaro made the Penitent Magdalene for the Certosa and between 1638-40, Gargiulo painted the frescoes in the Coro dei Conversi and the Quarto del Priore. For the participation of Neapolitan painters on the decoration of the Buen Retiro, see: UBEDA DE LOS COBOS 2005, 20-22; SISIGNANO 2009, esp. 232-234.

93 CHAPTER THREE hand, we know that De Somer had already painted the Healing of Tobit and the Caritas Romana and that he was asked to paint a second version of the former subject. The prioress must have known and appreciated his work. The share of Ribereschi working on the Sapienza project is relatively large (Fracanzano, Ricca and De Somer), but Rosa was a pupil of Stanzione, Gargiulo of Falcone (who, in turn, was a pupil of Ribera) and Vaccaro's style unites the naturalism of Caravaggio and Ribera with the elegant style and technique of Stanzione. When we compare the six canvases,129 De Somer's Baptism stands out when compared to the work of his peers in this project. Carlo Rosa produced two very rigid paintings. His Christ healing an epileptic (Fig. 60) is more ambitious than the Crucifixion (Fig. 61), but still results in a chaotically crowded composition. The two paintings on the opposite wall by Gargiulo and Ricca both excel in the depiction of different emotions. Gargiulo, who was not used to painting such monumental figures as he usually produced landscapes with small figures, clearly struggled with the composition of the Last Supper (Fig. 62). Ricca’s Transfiguration (Fig. 63) is perhaps the most successful composition as he has managed to convey the otherworldly state of Christ by purposely playing with the perspective. De Somer’s painting was coupled with Andrea Vaccaro’s Temptation of Christ (Fig. 64). It is clear that the two artists coordinated their compositions: both include two monumental figures placed in a landscape. Next to De Somer’s Christ and St John the Baptist, Vaccaro’s Christ and the Devil look somewhat clumsy.130 Moreover, the illusionism of the anatomy of De Somer’s figures is far more advanced, as is the way he placed them in the picture plane. With regard to style, the Baptism of Christ was closest to Giovanni Ricca’s Transfiguration. Both artists used bright colours and paid a lot of attention to the depiction of emotions and fabric. In both cases, the result is a dynamic and attractive composition. It is clear that Ricca and De Somer, perhaps more than the other artists, had found a way to incorporate the latest developments in Neapolitan painting into their canvases. In fact, the two artists are nowadays still frequently confused with one another.131

129 Carlo Rosa painted a Crucifixion and a Christ healing an epileptic, both canvases were positioned on the wall between the chapels on the left side of the nave; Domenico Gargiulo painted a Last Supper, which was coupled with Giovanni Ricca’s Transfiguration of Christ to hang on the right side of the nave; Andrea Vaccaro produced a Temptation of Christ. Hendrick De Somer’s Baptism of Christ hung together with Andrea Vaccaro’s painting on upper part of the entrance wall on either side of the door (LOCONTE 2012, 220-224 with good illustrations). 130 Aislinn Loconte rightly points out that this is the only painting with full-size figures that was produced by Gargiulo, who was a specialist in land- and cityscapes with history scenes (LOCONTE 2012, 229). 131 Most telling is the discussion regarding the attribution of the four heads of bearded men in the collection of the Museo Capodimonte in Naples. Ferdinando Bologna attributed them to Giovanni Ricca (BOLOGNA 1991 & BOLOGNA 1996), whereas Spinosa, Porzio and Forgione have argued repeatedly that the paintings are by Hendrick De Somer (SPINOSA 1995, PORZIO 2011 & PORZIO 2013a, FORGIONE 2014.). The question of attribution seems to have been settled in De Somer’s favour. Giuseppe Porzio has recently attributed other oval paintings of bearded men to De Somer. (PORZIO 2013a) The suggestion that De Somer produced this type of works is corroborated by my analysis of the Neapolitan inventories, where we find several heads and half figure saints, philosophers and other bearded men (see above).

94 HENDRICK DE SOMER

Further information on the appreciation of Neapolitan patrons for De Somer’s work can be gleaned from the Neapolitan inventories. Eleven of Hendrick De Somer's paintings in seven differerent inventories were valued by appraisers. The earliest paintings with estimate prices were in the inventory of Ettore Capecelatro of 1659 and the latest in the Montoya de Cardona collection of 1718. As we can see in (Table 1), the estimated values of De Somer’s paintings differ greatly. In 1686, the two small octagonal pendants depicting St Jerome and St Francis of Assisi by De Somer and Bartholomeo Passante were priced as a set for 15 ducats (7,5 ducats each). The most expensive painting was a Batsheba of five by six palmi (132 x 158 cm) in the 1718 inventory of Francesco Francone, valued at 'at least' 200 ducats.132

Table 1

Inventory Year Number of paintings by Average price Average price (ducats) of De Somer /taxated De Somer collection: sum of taxated paintings in collection (ducats) prices /number of estimated paintings

Capecelatro 1659 5/143 8 2690/143=18,8112 ≈ 19

De Ruggiero 1686 1/27 7,5 175/27=6,48 ≈ 6

Cannicchio 1692 1/62 10 356/62=5,74 ≈ 6 de Ruggero

Pronvenzale 1693 1/268 40 4528/252 = 17,9683 ≈ 18

De Palma 1716 1/133 30 7154/133 = 53,7895 ≈ 54

Francone 1718 1/63 200 5650/63 = 89,68 ≈ 90

Cardona 1718 1/487 50 1972/257 = 7,67 ≈ 8

Because the development of market prices in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Naples has still not yet been satisfactorily studied, it is impossible to compare prices for this period.133 It is however possible to compare the estimated value of De Somer's paintings to that of the other works in the same collection, giving us an indication how De Somer's works were appreciated in Naples at different moments. With the exception of the five paintings in the Capecelatro inventory (1659) and the Philosopher in the inventory of Francesco de Palma's collection (1716), all of De Somer's paintings were estimated higher

132 GPI, inv. I-721 (Inventory Francesco Francone) “10 Una Bersabea di palmi cinque, e sei originale d'Enrico Fiamengo di prezzo quanto uno ne vuole però almeno di D.ti ducento D. 200.’ 133 MARSHALL 2010 and LABROT 2010 have made enormous progress regarding the research of the Neapolitan art market, but unfortunately it is still difficult to analyze price development in Naples.

95 CHAPTER THREE than the average price of the paintings in those inventories. The relatively small (79 x 66 cm) Old man with a book in the Provenzale collection (1693), the Batsheba of Francesco Francone (1718) and the Pastoral scene owned by Montoya de Cardona (1718) were estimated at more than twice the average price of paintings in those collections—in the case of Montoya de Cardona even five times the average price. In that collection, no other paintings were estimated at the same price of fifty ducats, only four large canvases (7 by 10 palmi = 184 x 263 cm) by the important Neapolitan painter Paolo de Matteis (1662-1728) were valued higher, at seventy ducats each. In the case of two inventories, we have some insight in the appreciation of De Somer's work by two of his fellow-artists. The collection of Ettore Capecelatro was appraised in 1659 by the painter Domenico Gargiulo (known as Micco Spadaro), who had been De Somer's friend and collaborator in the early-1640s. It comes as a surprise, then, that Gargiulo appraised De Somer's paintings, five half-figure saints, far below the average price of the works in Capecelatro's collection, especially in comparison to works attributed to De Somer’s contemporaries. Reasons for this low valuation are unclear; size most likely did not play a role. It is of course possible that Gargiulo, who knew De Somer’s oeuvre well, did not think highly of these specific paintings and perhaps recognized them as production from his friends’ workshop. The sculptor and silversmith Andrea Finelli showed an active interest in De Somer's work. In 1692, he purchased three paintings from the collection of Giuseppe Cannicchio de Ruggero: a St Jerome by De Somer for 10 ducats, a Supper at Emmaus by Luca Giordano for 14 ducats and a small Concettione by an unidentified painter for 6 ducats. Since Finelli was an artist, we can presume that he felt some aesthetic appreciation for the paintings he purchased. Moreover, the other work he acquired from the Cannicchio de Ruggero collection, a painting by Luca Giordano, is explicitly referred to as an early work by the great master. As De Somer and Giordano were both pupils of Jusepe de Ribera, albeit several decades apart, it appears Finelli had a taste for artists from Il Spagnoletto’s circle.

De Dominici on Hendrick De Somer’s style The contention that Jusepe de Ribera was not the only stylistic reference for Hendrick De Somer was articulated for the first time in the eighteenth century, by Bernardo de Dominici.134 In his note on Ribera’s pupils he mentions Enrico Fiammingo, who indeed should be identified as Hendrick De Somer. From some of the details that De Dominici listed, it is evident that he was very well informed about De Somer’s life and work. In a rather pointedly formulated description of Enrico’s career, De Dominici admits he is facing a dilemma (‘… ma non sò come possa stare, ...’): he has heard that Enrico was not only a pupil of the Spaniard, but also of the Bolognese master Guido Reni (1575-1642), two very different artists indeed. De Dominici reached the following solution: upon his arrival in Naples, young Hendrick De Somer decided he wanted to become a painter. He managed

134 See Appendix 121.

96 HENDRICK DE SOMER to enter the studio of Ribera, started to work in Ribera’s style and produced many excellent copies after his master and figures and histories in the same style. Indeed, says De Dominici, De Somer’s (early) work can only be distinguished from Ribera’s because De Somer's impasto is less accentuated than that the typical brush stroke of Ribera: 'non usò il colore così denso, come il Maestro, perchè egli è dificillissimo il così trattarlo'.135 However, De Dominici continues, at some point De Somer saw the St Francis by Reni in the church of the Gerolamini (Fig. 57), and became completely enticed by the elegant manner of the Bolognese painter. De Somer soon abandoned Ribera's style and started to imitate Reni. Through intense study, De Dominici even mentions an undocumented trip to Bologna even, De Somer becomes very successful in Reni’s style: ‘…imitò tanto bene quella nobil maniera, che alcuni suoi Appostoli si vedevano per mano del Maestro, e vi si ingannavano anche i Professori’. Only then, after he had made the switch to Reni’s noble manner, is De Somer capable of producing the works that have made him famous (‘…poi fece tutte quell’opere, che lo han renduto famoso.’), or at least, that is De Dominici’s narrative. The sudden change in style in De Somer’s oeuvre is an example of one of the main threads in De Dominici’s overview of Neapolitan painting: the ‘Victory’ of the classicist manner of the Bolognese artists and Massimo Stanzione over the naturalist manner of Caravaggio and Jusepe de Ribera.136 The storyline is very clear: the Fiammingo, after having been introduced to painting by Ribera with his crude manner, only reaches great potential when confronted with the work of Guido Reni. Several elements of De Dominici’s description are problematic. First and foremost, the notion that De Somer completely abandoned Ribera’s style. The signed and dated St Jeromes from the early- 1650s (1651 and 1652), for example, are still more closely related to Ribera than to any other painter, even though Reni also produced this type of character heads. And we have also seen that the choice of subjects in De Somer’s oeuvre are similar to Ribera’s. Still, we should not dismiss the information provided by ‘Il Falsario’ – as Benedetto Croce called De Dominici – too quickly.137 While the connection to Ribera is predominant, we have seen that De Somer worked independently from his master and that he was one of the contributors to the artistic developments in Neapolitan painting that took place from the 1630s onwards, such as the use of brighter colors and the choice of certain subjects. Although an actual apprenticeship with Reni is questionable, De Dominici is right to underline the presence of Bolognese elements in De Somer’s oeuvre, especially during the last decade of his activity. Moreover, Reni’s St Francis was probably send to the Gerolamini in Naples around 1628-1632, long after the definite departure of

135 De Dominici was very focused on Ribera’s impasto, in the description of the career of another of Ribera’s pupils, Bartolomeo Bassante, he describes how this pupil was able to imitate the Spaniard’s brush stroke. 136 ZEZZA 2010a, 93; PROHASKA 1988. 137 Benedetto Croce was the first to give Bernardo De Dominici the unjust nickname 'Il Falsario' (CROCE 1892). Fiorella Sricchia Santoro and Thomas Willette have tried to nuance the image of the eighteenth-century biographer (WILLETTE 1986; SRICCHIA SANTORO 1995).

97 CHAPTER THREE the Bolognese artist in 1622. However, this was exactly at the right time to make an impression on the Ribera pupil Hendrick De Somer – who was starting to work as an independent master in this period.

This case study makes clear how the situation had changed for Netherlandish painters in Naples: the Netherlandish community had diminished and had lost prominence, whereas the number and quality of local painters had increased. The fact that Hendrick De Somer was completely integrated on a social level and artistically more Neapolitan than Northern is a case in point. In the Conclusion, I will further address the nature of his career in relation to that of earlier artists and of his contemporary Matthias Stom.

98