Vermeer's the Little Street Revisited

VERMEER’S THE LITTLE STREET REVISITED

Frans Grijzenhout In the autumn of 2015 the Rijksmuseum announced 1-13 PAGES the results of my research into the location of the houses thought to have inspired Johannes Vermeer to paint m 1. Johannes Vermeer, Gezicht op huizen in Delft (View of his famous The Little Street (ill. 1). Based on a wide va- houses in Delft), known asThe Little Street, c. 1658 riety of sources, I had reached the conclusion that the (Rijksmuseum Amsterdam) location should be sought on Vlamingstraat in Delft 1 ------I think we accept should the 6 8 reiterated his belief that the right- 7 5 In a recent publication Wim Weve, former building A few commentators told me personally of their Since Since the publication of my book, Kaldenbach and hand house painted by Johannes Vermeer could in historian of the city of Delft, in line with earlier publi doubts doubts regarding the traditional early dating of construction the later surmised theya right; the on house period during the final decade of the sixteenth centu Weve have furnished still more evidence that Vermeer Vermeer that evidence furnished stillmore have Weve meticu a of impression the give to keen rate any at was general informed opinion that the right-hand house painted dates byfrom Johannes before 1536. Vermeer to as discussion whole the dating, later a of case the In 1536, of fire survivedthe have might house the whether totallyirrelevant.be course of would lous emulation of reality in his depiction of the house house thereality of of hisdepiction emulation in lous the that fact the to me alerted Kaldenbach right. the on different coloursof theclosed (green) and (red) open earan to correspond house right-hand the of shutters lier observation of Hans Bonke that shutters ware (of usuallypainted were in Holland in rate) any at houses ry. ry. One of them also expressed doubts as to whether this house could ever have existed: he thought he de tected several questionable constructions, such as a wall. external half-brick cationsco-authored with Kees Kaldenbach, including in this journal, structure existed. have deed The details of and host a in the depicted house strike him as realistically ren ex an suggests painter the Weve, to According dered. ternal wall one brick thick, which was build other normaland Weve size.for this of a house timber-frame ing historians see just as little reason to doubt a pre- construction1536 date. ally assumed that the right-hand house from must before the great date fire in Delft1536. in In my re search I therefore needed to determine whether such an old house could have stood on the site of Vlaming straat 42 in Vermeer’s day. I came to the conclusion at are fire the of scale precise the to reportsasthe that anyunanimous. rate not alsoI discovered thatthe on there fire, the after Delft showing 1618 inpainted map actually appears to be an intact house on the north side of Vlamingstraat, roughly on the site of the that today’s not drawnis be to conclusion The 42. number map that on visible is painted Vermeer that house very thesurviving of andthe rendering map (the is houses simply but toothat imprecise), it is perfectly possible of side north the on houses individual more or one that Vlamingstraat survivedapplied that Whether fire. the specifically to the house thatimpos centuryis seventeenth the stoodVlamingstraatin 42 on the site of to sible verify in the absence of building-historical or archeological evidence, but it is by no means incon ceivable.

------, it is usu is it , The Little Street The Little Street 4 Via popular television programmes, 2 and the Rijksmuseum also adopted my 3 1 In the existing literature on on existingliterature the In Immediately after the announcement of my find Although the results were generally speaking very on on the site currently occupied by numbers 40 and 42. conclusions in their entirety, it was only to be expectedbe to only was it entirety, their in conclusions of coverage worldwide such and topic a such withthat, criticalThat reactions. some be would there news, the I that points of number small a on focused is criticism tointend address in this article. I will sodo first with reference to the buildings visible in the painting, fol stood on the site of what is currently Vlamingstraat currently42. is what of site the on stood The house that stands there now dates entirely from after1877 and is consequently unable toprovide Vermeer’s us in buildings the about information any with day; hasnor there ever been any archeological survey of the site. The width of the original house m) (c. 6.3 and that of the adjacent gateway (c. 1.25 thetheDredging of of ‘Ledger m), which knowthe1667 fromwe Canals ofthe Towncontaineddetails ofthe to Delft’correspond Dues’), Quay(also of ter known as the ‘Regis in the original Delft cadastraltheseplan, which was to drawnThanks 1832. in force into came and 1823 in up and other archival sources I consulted of sale,(deeds sureties, tax registers, et cetera) it is also possible to reconstruct the location and dimensions of the back house and intervening yard with a reasonable degree thewith detailsconsistent theseAllare probability. of picture created by Vermeer. VLAMINGSTRAAT42 that contention my accepted have commentators Most in house right-hand thethat likely is it lowed by a review of possible alternative locations, and locations, alternative possible of review a by lowed concluding with a short and more general reflection on the significance of this work by Johannes Vermeer. lands and elsewhere reportedly or theat news,length. whether brief hibition in the Rijksmuseum, a modified and expand modified and a Rijksmuseum, the in hibition Het Museum in show on went later which of version ed PrinsenhofinDelft, served underpin to illustrateand theses. my ings, in the early morning of Thursday November 19 a storm 2015, of publicity erupted, both at home and Allabroad. the daily major newspapers in the Nether I had further established that an Ariaentgen aunt Claes van Minne,der was the of occupant of Vermeer, Vlamingstraat 42 at the time when Vermeer made the painting. I subsequently investigated Vermeer’s atti tude to realityvisible and the significancememoryof in his work. An academic publication and a modest ex radio stations with a global audience, and numerous Facebook, as well as blogs, and platformsdigitalnews Twitter and other social speed. lightning at world media,the around the news flashed received well

BULLETIN KNOB 2018 • 1 2 2. Johannes Vermeer, The Little Street, detail

Spanish green (verdigris) on the outside – a colour that June 2017, Eijkelboom and Vermeer cast doubt on the rapidly darkens in response to sunlight – and red lead belief, widely shared by earlier researchers, that the on the inside. Vermeer’s pale green colour on the out- presence of the gutter, which glistens at the viewer side of the closed left-hand shutters would seem to from the right-hand gateway, indicates that the loca- suggest that they had recently been repainted ill.( 2).9 tion of The Little Street should be sought on a canal. During a presentation in Museum Het Prinsenhof on They argue that it is equally, perhaps even more, likely 10 July 2016 (and since published in the Jaarboek Delfia that the depicted houses stood on a street, because, Batavorum), Wim Weve made the acute observation given the gradient of the slope, waste water from the that in the bottom sill of the left-hand window of the property would automatically drain into the canal house on the right it is possible to make out recesses without any need for a gutter. And ‘the traffic’ along for two shutter stays that were evidently intended to the canal (I suspect that the authors were thinking pri- prevent the shutters from swinging out too far and marily of the pigs and oxen that were driven along thus obstructing the adjoining gateway and access to Vlamingstraat every day) would be impeded by such a the house (ill. 2).10 This last is sometimes cited – recent- gutter.12 In the process they ignore one of the most ly by Gert Eijkelboom and Gerrit Vermeer11 – to sub - substantive arguments – architecture is, after all, also stantiate the view that Vermeer’s The Little Street is a a question of measuring – in this regard. As far back as 2018 KNOB BULLETIN composite architectural fantasy, a capriccio, rather 1923, the artist Eduard Houbolt, in consultation with than the realistic rendering of an existing situation. the Delft municipal archivist L.G.N. Bouricius, con- However, in my view these kinds of details point to the cluded that the situation as painted by Vermeer must exact opposite. They all appear to have been rendered have been observed from a distance of 17 to 20 metres, ‘from life’, or at any rate to want to give the impression in other words, from the other side of a canal since that this is the case. I will return this issue at the end of streets of this width simply did not exist in seven-

• this essay. teenth-century Delft ill.( 3).13 As such, it strikes me that 1 In an article published in the Tijdschrift voor His- the assumption that the houses painted by Vermeer torische Geografie (Journal of Historical Geography) in stood on a canal is still eminently plausible. 3 3. Eduard Houbolt, perspective study of The Little Street, 1923 (Delft City Archives)

VLAMINGSTRAAT 40 the gardens (of which more later) are wholly in accord More fundamental doubts have been expressed with with the picture painted by Vermeer (ill. 4).14 respect to the house on the left in Vermeer’s painting, Philip Steadman has rightly pointed to a discrepancy which I believe to be a depiction of Vlamingstraat 40. I between the details in the 1667 Register of Quay Dues reached that conclusion on the basis of my finding that for Vlamingstraat 40 and the cadastral plan of the Vlamingstraat 40-42 complex was the only location 1823/1832, to which I will return presently. In so doing on a canal in Vermeer’s Delft where two adjoining long he sowed doubt as to the general reliability of the Reg-

BULLETIN KNOB 2018 KNOB BULLETIN passageways run between two houses of which the di- ister of Quay Dues and thus also of my reasoning. This mensions of the right-hand house at any rate appear to also afforded him an opportunity to reiterate his earli- tally completely with what Vermeer shows us. We can er theory that Vermeer’s The Little Street should be also surmise from both the cadastral plan and con- sought on Voldersgracht, of which more later.15 With- temporary written sources that the back house of out adding anything substantive to Steadman’s argu- Vlamingstraat 40 was unusually close to the front ment, Gerrit Vermeer saw it as a pretext to cast doubt house and was wider than the front house, which is on my assertions in a public and highly charged at-

•

1 precisely what we can see in the painting. Moreover, tack.16 He reprised that polemic in a later publication the mention of gardens behind Vlamingstraat 40 and co-authored with Gert Eijkelboom.17 4 42 and the location on Rietveld of the house behind In my book I did not go into detail about the apparent discrepancy between the details in the Register of demonstrate that it is inconceivable that those liable Quay Dues and the cadastral situation, mainly be- for the tax on Vlamingstraat 40 would have calmly cause so little of the left-hand house is visible in the accepted an eight-fold miscalculation of four feet, with painting that assertions as to the dimensions of its an accompanying higher annual assessment to the facade are difficult to verify with reference to Vermeer’s tune of 10 pennies. In the seventeenth century people painting. I now realize that it would have been better literally fought over every whole and half penny. Nor had I done so; it might have avoided any confusion. On were the dimensions recorded in the register modified the other hand, I am glad that this discussion has aris- after 1667. The provisional conclusion must be that the en because it has sharpened my ideas about the loca- dimensions recorded in the Register of Quay Dues are tion in question. quite correct, however difficult to reconcile with the later cadastral details they may seem. With respect to Vlamingstraat 40, the Ledger of the The explanation for the apparent discrepancy be- Dredging of the Canals notes a facade width of 1 rod tween the details in the 1667 quay dues register and and 8 feet (c. 6.3 m) and the presence of a gateway with the cadastral plan of 1823/1832 lies in the function of a width of four feet (c. 1.25 m). However, the cadastral the earlier register. Quay dues were a tax imposed on plan (ill. 5) makes it indisputably clear that the plot of the owners of property located along a canal; they were Vlamingstraat 40, including the gateway, was 6.3 m required to pay tax on the total width of their premis- wide. There is no reason to assume that it was any dif- es, on the assumption that they were able to reach the ferent in the seventeenth century: as far as can be quay via those premises and thus enjoy an economic ascertained, the cadastral plan largely, perhaps even advantage from the location of their property. In most wholly, reflects the seventeenth-century situation. cases the assessment concerned the width of the fa- So what is going on here? Did the person who drew cade of their house, plus any adjacent gateway, because up the Register of Quay Dues make a mistake, as Stead- this provided access to the street or the quay. man hopes? Or mischievously invent an extra gateway Thus the owner of the back house of Vlamingstraat in order to lead latter-day Vermeer sleuths astray? Both 40, one Beatris Jans van der Houve, had to pay tax for are highly unlikely. Based on that register, citizens access to the quay via a street-front gateway 1.25 m. actually had to pay tax towards the upkeep of the quay wide. This passageway ran alongside the front house, and dredging of the canal in front of their door and no which in Vermeer’s day belonged to the hatter Jan Wil- one – not then and not now – wants to pay more tax lemsz van Wonderen. However, from old conveyance than is strictly necessary. Moreover, as Benjamin Franklin remarked: ‘in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes’.18 So we would be 4. Vlamingstraat and Rietveld on the cadastral map of Delft, well advised to take the information recorded in the 1823 (National Archives, The Hague). Vlamingstraat 40-42 and, taxation register seriously. at the rear, Rietveld 109 are indicated with arrows There is another good reason for doing so. We know that in the case of Vlamingstraat 42, the dimensions of the house and the gateway were measured not once but twice. This was no doubt prompted by an objection lodged by the wine merchant Lodewijk van Polincho- ven who, as the owner of the back house of Vlaming- straat 42, was required to pay tax on the width of the passageway leading to the quay. In the first draft of the register, the width of that passageway was recorded as 4½ feet, that of the neighbouring house belonging to Vermeer’s aunt Ariaentgen Claes van der Minne, as

1 rod and 7½ feet. For both parties this would have 2018 KNOB BULLETIN meant a difference of 1¼ pennies or to be precise, less than half a cent of the then guilder. Per annum, mind you! In the definitive register the definitive dimensions of Vlamingstraat 42 were recorded as 4 feet for the passageway and 1 rod and 8 feet for the house, a reciprocal difference of half a foot, resulting in a com-

• mensurate reduction in the assessment for Van 1 Polinckhoven and an increase for Vermeer’s aunt.19 I have gone into this case in such detail in order to 5

------23 It wasIt the representation of the 24 Although I admire Weve’s powers of observation, I nevertheless think that this line of reasoning is rather is reasoning of linethinkthis neverthelessthat problematical. The visual examples of planks or parti tion of the drawing as presumed evidence chose of conveniently part, but wilful my on misrepresentation to omit the caption. tion of a double bench. Apart from this, I fail to see why why see to fail I this, from Apart bench. double a of tion the mere fact that this detail appears painting, in should Vermeer’s constitute sufficient basis for assertion that the the entire leftside of the painting was invented by the artist. Especially given that the phe of two deep passageways,nomenon adjacent, assuch clearly depicted by Vermeer, was demonstrably pres ent between the houses at Vlamingstraat 40 and 42, and the position of front and back houses is also in us. shows Vermeer what with accord complete RIETVELD109 Some commentators have mistakenly assumed that the bird’s-eye view drawing of the Vlamingstraat 40- that the complex artist42/Rietveld 109 Jan Rothuizen made for the exhibition in which the was also Rijksmuseum reproduced in and my book, is a struction recon drawing. That is not the case and my nor in caption was the such: as presented drawingever this was it record, the for and, ‘impression’ an callsit book primarily intended as illustrational material for the exhibition. Weve has fortunately Vermeer and noticed Eijkelboom while it, overlooks Steadman this fact, accompanied their article with a full-page reproduc tails (in Weve’s view as well), his depiction of the left- the of depiction his well), as view Weve’s (in tails that not could elements of composite handa is house reality. inthis existedlike have tions, usually with a few ventilation holes, cited Weve are by from Hoorn, Medemblik and Enkhuizen – a from areall and – Holland northernpart of the from sev a of example single a thinkthat not do I date. later enteenth-century to eaves possible it is Nor drip theory. Weve’s test to closure which against has survived determine whether the narrow plank actually(which venti has Vermeer bypainted beam) a like more looks grooves.few with a decorated merely is or holes lation or plank a painted Vermeer that assume we if even And terminationthe for used be could narrowthatboard a space a such thatmean not need that drip, eaves an of must necessarily have lain behind it. In an age when in and labour thanexpensive more much wasmaterial a poorish neighbourhood such as Vlamingstraat was at that time, it is perfectly that conceivable a possibly redundant likeelement this would have been reused for a repair or, as evident in this case, for the construc situation at Rietveld in this109 artist’s inimpression particularthat gave rise toIn questions. his response drawing,SteadmanthetoPhilip argued even thatthe house in the background must have stood dozens of

------22 20 The ) has the traditional form of the clo around 1660, Weve now comes to a re ), had ), been built Vermeerafter painted In Delft the prescribed width of the eaves the of prescribed width the Delft In ill. 2 ill. ( 21 Jaarboek Jaarboek Delfia Batavorum, drew attention ill. 4 ill. In my book I did not explore what this information deeds we learn that the front house of Vlamingstraat 40 had several doors onto the same passageway and that the occupants of the front house had no choice to use thebut same passageway and gate as the occu Given thatGiven there trace is no any medieval of such drip strip visible behind the plank painted by Vermeer in The Little Street In 1667, therefore, In Van 1667, Wonderen had to pay tax not only on the width rod but also,of his4 feet), house (1 on Houve, Beatrisvander Jans rearneighbour hislike the width of the gateway his adjacent total feet); (4 as tral plan ( plan tral The Little Street thanks. However, tocriti Steadman’s tion to Vermeer’s painting. At the time of writing I stillwriting I of time the At painting. Vermeer’s to tion assumed that the left-handstreettheVlamingstraatdirectly wastoconnected 42, gateway, like that of front structurethe shallow theat that and quay and of the gateway of Vlamingstraat 40, visible on the cadas sessment sessment was consequently for 1 rod and 8 feet. As a 4 for taxes double received authorities Delft the result, at and complicated is annum.penniesIt per 10 at feet accordance in nevertheless was it but unfair, sight first taxthismeasure. of intention thewith the tellsexteriorabout us Vlamingstraat of in40 rela pants of the back house to reach the street and quay. streetand the reach to house back the of pants markable conclusion: whereas Vermeer depicted the right-hand house faithfully down to the smallest de Little Street to an unusual detail. He bench believes double a betweenconstructivelinkthe that forming the element Vermeer’s in house left-hand the of facade the and sure of an eaves drip gutter, the narrow strip of land obliged was townmedieval Dutch a in house every that clearto so keep as to allow rainwater from the roof to away. drain ered ered gateway that offered director indirectaccess to the front house of Vlamingstraat the 40 passageway leading to the back Takinghouse. asall well as that to hindsight surprisingin not is it account, intothis have may he artisticanyapart from – choices Vermeer have should – contrastvariationand of terms in made position. closed the in gate left-hand the depicted Following up on the doubt raised by Steadman as to the dimensions of the plot of Vlamingstraat 40, Wim later lectureDelft and in aforementioned hisin Weve, article in cal question I am now convinced that this situation must already have existed when the Register of Quay Dues was drawn Presumably up. therecov was a low, drip gutter in the Middle Ages was nine about 21 inches, cm. or To facilitate the reconstruction of the town after 1536the fire, this regulation wasrelaxed: sharedhenceforthbearing wallsalsoused. be could

BULLETIN KNOB 2018 • 1 6 BULLETIN KNOB 2018 • 1 7

------It is 30 ) and in accordance ill. ill. 3 31 One One of the interesting results thrown up by this Based on the results of the perspective analysis by breadth and depth exact the know not do we Because also worth mentioning that André-Pierre Lamoth, a retired perspective draughtsman, calculated that the houses in the foreground and the intervening gate ways painted by Vermeer stand at an angle of 93 de an same exactlythe frontage,street vis-à-visthe grees gle as the cadastral map gives for the two houses on Vlamingstraat. LANGENDIJKVOLDERSGRACHTANDOUDE alter an of favour arguedin recently have authors Two native. In both cases it concerns a location they had proposed once before. Philip Steadman again drew the artist Eduard Houbolt ( of the front and back houses on Rietveld, we can play around with their position to some extent. The plot could easily accommodate a front house of compara ble depth to that of Vlamingstraat 40 (a good 16 m), the was as house, back lower separate, a with probably case with Vlamingstraat 40 and 42; had Rietveld 109 back and front warehouse, a structure of the more had houses might have m). formed 22 (over plot one the of depth entire single, filling the building continuous make can we that elevation rear the of height eaves The cho the on depending must, painting Vermeer’s in out metres.and8 That betweenbeenhave option, sen 7.4 this of elevations – city the of partthis for high rather is height are more common along the wealthier western part Delftof certainlybut – canals out not in the know we little thewith odds at not and question the of thisabouthouse. reconstruction is that the slight tapering of the pas sageway of Vlamingstraat 40 towards the rear, visible on the cadastral map, turnscordance outwith the topicture bepainted by completely Vermeer. in ac standing in 1823. The resulting projection canturninresulting projection The standing1823. in information the into fitted conclusively andreadily be provided by modern aerial or satellite photography. straat 40 and 42. This puts the viewer just behind the frontage of the houses opposite. Houbolt had deter mined that the vanishing point of window left-hand the the of hinge the in sought composition be should in the facade of the house on the right, at a of height approximately 2.4 metres. If we observe the opposite which degrees, 46 of angle an at position this from side corresponds to the focal length of a 50 mm camera lens, a completely coherent and convincing emerges: we picture cansee the facades of the front and back the of path the and 42 Vlamingstraatand of 40 houses depict Vermeer as precisely gateways,interveningtwo 6). and 5 (ills. it ed with the situation on the ground, we chose a viewpoint a chose we ground, the on situation the with Vlaming of facades the from metres 20 of distance a at

------, I used I , These 26 Another in 28 29 Gerrit Vermeer goes a The Little Street 25 ’. The Little Street The precise height and depth of the front and front the of depth and height precise The 27 To To discover whether Johannes Vermeer could have Evidence that Rietveld 109 must have been a fairly In my book I produced evidence that the building seen a cluster of buildings of seen as a cluster such that formed by the and 42Vlamingstraat and of 40 houses back and front in it depicted and Rietveld109, the spatial computer program SketchUp. with Together architect Theo Peppelman, I entered all the infor ish rod and 4 feet) and 42 (1 rod and 8 feet) and the twothe and feet) 8 and rod (1 42 and feet) 4 and rod ish intervening gateways (twice 4 feet) turn out to corre cadastralthe in measurements theexactlywith spond map As of previously1832. noted, the position of the Vlamingstraat of house back 42 can also be projected onto this map with a reasonable degree of certainty; the back house of number 40 was in any case still cadastral map). As recorded in the Register of Quay Dues, the widths of the front elevations of Vlaming Rhen 1 remarks:previous regard(havingfor straat 40 mation at our disposal (archival sources, quay fees, dication that this must have been a fairly large house is house large fairly a been have must this that dication the sale price of 1,860 guilders in 1684. big big house can be found in the estimated rental value on which it was assessed from onwards1632 for the value rental annual average the Whiletax. land annual and 20 betweenwas Rietveld of side this on house a for 64 at assessed particularwasproperty this guilders, 40 rentalestimated higher a with house only the guilders; value, namelyguilders, 112 was located slightly more Vlamingstraat. of side this on west the to back back houses is impossible to determine, but what we do know for certain is that the south side of the plot bordered the gardens behind both Vlamingstraat 40 and 42. bined bined sources, that this plot was occupied by a front gatewayon a with wide, m) (5.65 feet 6 and rod 1 house the east side, a back house of unknown width and a garden that wound around the east side of the (back) house. ably ably reliable picture of the building day, in Vermeer’s we must consequently make do with scanty details gleaned from old deeds of sale and, once again, the Register of Quay Dues. It appears, from these com at at Rietveld 109 must have stood along the sight line between Vlamingstraat 40 and 42. The buildingcadastral the disappearedalreadybefore had on plot this survey in and 1823 the plot has ever since remained unbuilt. Old photographs, drawings reason a and get To excavation location. this for exist not do reports metres and thus fiveor six storeys high ‘to match the in appearance metres further away than the drawing suggests and would therefore have to have been a good twenty stepfurther: flexible ‘being accuses of withhe me the facts’, ‘manipulation’ and ‘sharp practice’. bold assertions call for qualification. assertionsfor call bold BULLETIN KNOB 2018 KNOB BULLETIN

5 and 6. Bird’s-eye view of the Vlamingstraat 40-42 complex and Rietveld 109 from a distance of 20 metres, eye level 2.4 m, cone of vision 46 degrees, drawn in SketchUp, with thanks to Theo Peppelman, architect

•

8 BULLETIN KNOB 2018 • 1 9

------? If one one If ? (figura , an idea he he idea an , In his 2008 38 However, Hans 42 house that Vermeer The Little Street Kaart FiguratiefKaart ,Binstock then suggest An entire row of houses houses of row entireAn this 41 TheLittle Street 39 that was the third house from (attic church). 40 ). ). Paul Begheyn has suggested that the zolderkerk Whatever the case, returning to Binstock’s ill. ill. 8 43 Vermeer’s Family Secrets Family Vermeer’s We are able to get an impression of this part of Oude Oude partthis of of impression an get to able are We This house on the corner of Oude Langendijk and theory, is it conceivable that Vermeer could have taken have could Vermeer that conceivable it is theory, his own and house the next Lan house Oude on door Langendijk Langendijk thanks to a drawing by Abraham Rade on thison section inLangendijk Oude of the Papenhoek who Catholics well-to-do by owned was Delft of district Vermeer’s Thus co-religionists. to them of some rented house the rented Maria Thinsprobably mother-in-law on the corner of Oude Langendijk and Molenpoort from the wealthy Catholic Pieter Cornelisz van Dusse. der Molenpoort Molenpoort had traditionally been dubbed ‘the Ser the corner with Molenpoort. house on the corner of Oude Langendijk and the east for starting point the as gendijk confines oneself todiago the as correspondences such drawing, Rademaker’s and painting between the diagonalthe and houses the of front in tiles laidnally drip eaves minus (unfortunately benches low placed ly thinkthere perhaps But might so. one boardbehind), wasinspiredby thatVermeer indications other areno ident ident of Gouda and the nephew of Vermeer’s mother- in-law Maria Thins; maker dating from the beginning of the eighteenth century ( ern corner of Molenpoort occupied family, is visible theon just of this Vermeer right side by the Thins- drawing and that the two houses next to it contained the Jesuit Bouricius and Houbolt quickly abandoned theirtheo abandoned quickly andHoubolt Bouricius studying after the however, ry, the that conclusion the reaching and Delft of map) tive Molenpoort was much wider than the gateway next to the right-hand house in Vermeer’s painting; nor did the dimensions of the other houses in the includ painting authors, Other reality. built the to correspond Mariathat possible thinkit Montias, Michael John ing eastern other, the on livedfamily Vermeer’s and Thins corner of Molenpoort and Oude Langendijk, and this supposition is now generally accepted. ed that it could have been of half right the in depicted 2016. spring in reiterated laterpent’, sometimes ‘the big Serpent’ or ‘the golden and it Serpent’, was used successively as a malthouse and an inn(around 1595) any(at rateBut until 1637). house the assumed, Montias as not, decidedly was this res Catholic devout very a Thins, Geensz Jan by owned book, book, Slager argued in a recent study of the owners of houses houses of owners the of study recent a arguedin Slager located was church thisdistrictthat Papenhoek the in furthertwoin slightly houses eastandthat Vermeer’s house would not have been visible in drawing. Rademaker’s

------The Little is a repre a is Although I am The Little Street 32 Basically, Steadman’s idea 33 Further corroboration for this 34 The Little Street is the house on Of the ‘ruyme binne plaets’ (spacious 35 ), ), and omitted, of all types, an old man, All in all, it is quite inconceivable that 36 ill. ill. 3 The fact in thatpeopling Vermeer, his street, 37 . Benjamin Binstock has suggested that the house by no means convinced of this, I don’t intend to ad attention to his theoryattention that Little The Street came in a recent article by Wim Weve, who concluded concluded who article Weve, Wimrecent by came a in that the were renovations confined of 1661 to increas harks back to a 1950 book about Vermeer by the Pieteron location, this cite first Swillens,wasto the who must it 1661, in work renovation until that assumption have looked quite different from what we know from assump That photographs. and drawings,prints later then they assumed that this house had occupied the western corner of Molenpoort and Oude Langedijk. Maria Thins, along with his many children and advanced first was his notion CatharinawifeThis Bolnes. by the aforementioned artistin 1923 Eduard Houbolt and Delft’s then archivist, L.G.N. Bouricius. Back ity on a Delft canal as the starting pointfor Street the view from the rear of the Mechelen ever looked re looked ever Mechelen the rear viewof thethefrom similarmotely painted. to what Vermeer Accordingly, of projection Steadman’s Swillensand ing the height of the middle and top parts of the facade facade the of parts top and middle the of height the ing of the complex, and applying a facade decoration in classical style. onto the entrance to the Oudemanhuis can only be characterized as wishful thinking. The sameJohannes thatapplies suggestion Vermeer’s and Eijkelboom to section right-hand the frominspiration drew Vermeer of the facade of the same complex – incidentally, an astonishing about-turn in an argument chiefly deconstruction with hypothesisthe my of that concerned Johannes Vermeer took a situation that existed in real tion has long since been refuted by vanA.J.J.M. Peer who argued persuasively that the 1661 very renovations not were drastic. dress this issue here. manhuis (Old Men’s Home) reasoning the and in role thea plays case This adjacent Guildhall. Lucas Sint- a of use made Vermeer theorythat Steadman’s behind camera obscura in his as work artist. sentation of what the artist could see from the rear window of the Mechelen (an inn on the Grote theMarkt of father) Vermeer’s to belonged had which square, Oude the entrancetogate theopposite: Voldersgracht courtyard) behind the entrance gate, referred to 1667 by in city historian Dirck Evertsz van Bleyswijck, there is likewise no trace to be found painting. in Vermeer’s chose to depict a young boy, a girl, a young and an old anandold young girl,a a boy, young a depict to chose woman ( Vermeer depicted in must – if the Delft Old Men’s Home was Home supposed his Men’s Old if – the Delft must source of inspiration – be viewed as a form of artistic irony. Oude Langendijk occupied by his mother-in-law 7. Abraham Rademaker, De ingang van de ‘Jesuite Kerk’ aan de Oude Langendijk, c. 1700 (Delft City Archives)

this location. The main point is that in not a single beelding (Institute for Social Representation), not only written source or in Rademaker’s drawing is there any at my research, but also at its critics and all those trace of a single gateway in this section of Oude Lan- intent on discovering a reflection of a real historical gendijk, let alone of the double gateway that is such a cityscape in The Little Street.45 Like many other visual characteristic visual element in Vermeer’s The Little studies scholars influenced by semiotics, De Mare re- Street. Moreover, if Vermeer’s mother-in-law had lived gards such a quest as ‘naive’ and ‘romantic’ and the in the right-hand house depicted in The Little Street, as underlying research question as even ‘erroneous’, Binstock assumes, she would certainly have ensured which is to say, unscientific. She also thinks that such that it looked a lot less shabby: with an estimated an approach contributes to a further ‘public-oriented wealth of 26,000 guilders in 1674 (a mere two years af- mythologizing’ of an artist like Vermeer – although ter the ‘disaster year’) she was among the five per cent how my fact-based approach contributes to that puta-

BULLETIN KNOB 2018 KNOB BULLETIN richest inhabitants of Delft, very different from the tive mythologizing remains, alas, unclear – and disin- daughters of Vermeer’s aunt Ariaentgen Claes van der genuously suggests en passant that this is all very ‘prof- Minne, who were worth just 1000 guilders that year, itable’ for the historians of Golden Age art. Against which probably represented the estimated value of this she posits an art-historical research focused on their somewhat dilapidated house at Vlamingstraat ‘the visual artefact in its own formal and conceptual 42.44 historical context’. In that respect she makes a number of interesting observations and, if well executed, such

•

1 I would like to conclude by briefly addressing the criti- an approach can certainly yield good results. But her cism levelled in a recent publication by Heidi de Mare, lofty assertion that broadly speaking, ‘early modern 10 director of the Instituut voor Maatschappelijke Ver- painting’ is ‘not a copy, representation or record of the surrounding reality’ and that we should therefore not go looking for the original location of The Little Street, but instead ‘recognize that the primacy here [i.e. in The Little Street, FG] lay in the division and arrangement of the surface according to an underlying grid of lines not derived from historical reality’, strikes me as just as unprovable as a potential claim that the only other townscape produced by Vermeer, the View of Delft – wisely not mentioned by De Mare – was based on a comparable ‘underlying grid of lines not derived from historical reality’ (ill. 8). Kaldenbach and Whee- lock may have demonstrated convincingly that Vermeer allowed himself a few liberties in his representation of the townscape in his View of Delft, but there can be no doubt at all that he for the most part faithfully reproduced ‘the surrounding reality’.46 I do not see sufficient grounds in De Mare’s argument to adopt a fundamentally different premise with respect to The Little Street.

All in all, I do not see in the commentaries delivered so far any reason to retreat from my conclusion that Vermeer’s The Little Street is based on the Vlaming - straat 40-42 complex. There is no other location on a canal in Vermeer’s Delft with two adjoining gateways, flanked by front and back houses with dimensions and positions that correspond entirely or to a very large ex- 8. Johannes Vermeer, Gezicht op Delft (View of Delft), tent with the situation depicted by Vermeer. It is of c. 1660-1661, detail (Mauritshuis, The Hague) course quite possible that Vermeer exercised artistic licence with respect to individual elements or relative and the peerlessly painted cloudscapes above. There is proportions, just as he did in View of Delft. The Little really no need to see in this any meaningful allegory Street, it must be emphasized once more, is not a of ‘old’ and ‘new’, as Eijkelboom and Vermeer some- photograph but a beguilingly realistic looking, artistic what awkwardly suggest in their article.47 While the representation of an existing townscape. It is probable fact that his elderly aunt lived in the house on the that Vermeer was chiefly interested in the particular right would not have been the reason why Johannes aesthetics of the situation, with the old, weathered Vermeer chose to paint this exceptional townscape, it house on the right, the open and closed gateways be- is a nice incidental circumstance that sets us thinking side it, the perspective play with the houses and spaces anew about Vermeer’s relationship with this place, the behind, the diffuse light pervading the entire scene, imagination and memory. BULLETIN KNOB 2018 KNOB BULLETIN Notes rest of this text, for the sake of brevity, precieze-locatie-van-vermeers-straat- This text is the translation of my article I usually refer to this fully annotated je-a1405595. ‘Het Straatje van Vermeer: een plaats publication, including for primary 3 For example, Quentin Buvelot in The bepaling. Bulletin KNOB 117 (2018) 1, 1-13. sources and secondary literature cited Burlington Magazine 158 (February 2016), The text has been amended or supple- there, except in the case of new in 136. mented in a small number of places. formation. 4 Grijzenhout 2015 (note 1), 33-36. 2 The most detailed press report can 5 Grijzenhout 2015 (note 1), 30. 1 F. Grijzenhout, Het Straatje van Vermeer. be found in: S. Smallenburg, ‘Eindelijk 6 Bas Dudok van Heel and Gerrit Vermeer,

•

Gezicht op de Penspoort in Delft, Amster- gevonden: de precieze locatie van in various conversations. 1 dam 2015; this publication also ap- Vermeer’s “straatje”’, NRC Handelsblad, 7 K. Kaldenbach, ‘Het Straatje van peared in English: Vermeer’s Little Street. 19 November 2015, www.nrc.nl/nieu- Johannes Vermeer: Nieuwe Langendijk View on the Penspoort in Delft. In the ws/2015/11/19/eindelijk-gevonden-de- 22-26? Een kunsthistorische visie op 11 ,

- -

1989,

121

NJ DeHol 6 (1982), 6 (1982), , 13 March 13 , Hollandse Hollandse 2 (2018), 2 (2018), Oud-Holland , Princeton, HetParool , The Hague/Zwolle The , (2018), Hans (2018), Slager Vermeer and his milieu. his and Vermeer combining various exist Vermeer’s family secrets. family Vermeer’s KNOB Artibus et Historiae , New2009; York K. Keijer, capriccio Bulletin landse samenleving inde tijd van Vermeer Zwolle notably 52-67, 1996, 61. Johannes Vermeer Johannes an intelligentFor discussion 123. 1995, therangeof whole possibilitiesof for (2008), 40-55, notably 41. 40-55, (2008), meer.com/history/neighbours-slager. revisedIna pdf,notablyversion 14-16. in NationalArchives, Hague, The archive theof Rekenkamer terauditie (national 18v. 30 resp. fol. 15, no. inv. office), audit Seealso K.van‘Delft Wiel, de der in Welvaart Eeuw. Gouden armoede en ten Haks vantijdein: D. Johannes Vermeer’, vanand SmanM.C. der (eds.), the following,For Mare,de see:H. ‘Het beeldals beschouwingEenbron. naar aanleidingvan recent onderzoek naar StraatjeHet Tijdschrift van Vermeer’, Geografie Historische voor 248-259. referring 56, 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 A.K.to:Kaldenbach, Wheelock and C.J. view‘Vermeer’s Delftof and his vision reality’,of Broos,B. K.Wheelockal., et 9-35; the painted townscape in Dutch seven teenth-centurypainting, from ‘conter feytsel’[portrait] anof individual house viaa B. Binstock,B. Genius, discovery,and the unknown J.M.Montias, 14), (note Huizenprotocol1648-1812 Begheyn, ‘Johannes de P. en Vermeer katholieken teDelft’, ‘Johannes Slager, and Vermeer his H.G. neighbours’,http://www.essentialver thisof document, whichappeared after thepublicationoriginal my of article apprentice ‘Amerikaantrekt locatie van Vermeers Straatje in twijfel’, A web of socialhistory fol. 326v2. 176. Eijkelboom and Vermeer 2017 (note 11), 11), (note and2017 Eijkelboom Vermeer 79-80. Zwolle2008cat. (exh. Mauritshuis, Hague, The and National Gallery, ingbuildings intonew townscape,a toand includingup the wholly invented reimagined or townscape, see the essays byBoudewijn Bakker and Arthur Wheelockin:A. van andSuchtelen Arthur(eds.), K.Wheelock jr stadsgezichtenuitGoudende Eeuw Washington). suggestedthat the Thins-Vermeer familymayindeed have lived the on westerncornerMolenpoort. of Although Slagercorrectis that there strictlyis speakingabsolute andno conclusive evidencetheeitherof two for options, continueI tobelieve, based all on we knowaboutthethe house on eastern cornerMolenpoort,of thattheis mostit likelytheof Thins-Vermeer family. home 2016.

47 39 41 45 43 42 46 40 44

- ,

, Oxford, , Amersfoort, Bouwen in Bouwenin (1993), 36-49, (1993), , 21 March 2016. March 2016. 21 , Traces of Vermeer of Traces Vermeer’s camera Vermeer’s Degotische bouwtraditie. , Zwolle 49. 2013, Huizen in Delft in 16dede en HetParool TheWritings Benjaminof Franklin , Delft 1667, vol. 2, 526. 526. 2, vol. 1667, Delft, Grijzenhout 2015 (note 1), 19. 19. 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 Grijzenhout 2015 (note 1), 21. Eijkelboom 21. 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 pro 77, p. 11) (note and2017 Vermeer reasoningPeer’s nounce Van very ‘not persuasive’,[butfail tosubstantiate their view. in: Sint-Lucasgildehuis’, ‘Het Weve, W. Delft(summer18 2,4-7. 016) D. van Bleyswijck, stadt der Beschryvinge Delft 11), (note and2017 Eijkelboom Vermeer seemvery doesn’t It consistent 79. that theseauthors, having first done their utmosttoundermine thesismy that the depictedlocation besoughtshould canal,alonga point-blankopthere for locationa such themselves. Amsterdam.Hetwoonhuis staddein Amsterdam21. 2007, verpondingen[Registerland of tax 156v-157. fol. assessments],1632-1656, Withthanks Peppelman,toTheo who drewattentionmy tothis. Withthanks toMrAndré-Pierre Lamoth Amsterdam,of conversation dated 18 January 2016. Steadman, P. summarymy For theof discussion: totheence mostimportant literature this on the mosttopic.recentFor contributiontothe debate Ver over supposed meer’s theuseof camera obscura: Jelley, J. Oxford2017. R.Meischke, Zantkuijl, notablyH.J. 42; Weve, W. Weve 104-105. (note 2016 8), 11), (note and2017 Eijkelboom Vermeer 72. 15). (note Steadman 2015 16). (note 2016 Vermeer 35-36. 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 Delft City Archives, Delft historical der Kohier archives,1761, no. inv. Delft City Archives, Delft historical courtBlaffert archives,214, vanno. inv. waarbrievende realof estate[Record May dated 13 transactions],158v, fol. 1684. Grijzenhout 54, (note with 1), 2015 refer “het Straatje” in Jordaan’, Letter to the editorof Benjamin Franklin to Jean-Baptiste le in:A.H. Smith November1789, 13 Roy, (ed.), 69; London1907, 1789-1790, 10: vol. withthanks toMartin van Neck. and note28 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 58. and 35 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 note 73. theOn drip‘osendrop’ [eaves gutter]: Studiesover opdrachtgevers enbouw Nederlanden de in meesters R. Meischke, ‘Hout 211-213; 1988, skelethuizen stenenmetwanden’, Monumentenzorg Jaarboek 17de eeuw published 13 December 2015. December 2015. published13 ‘Rekbare ZoVermeer, feiten. pastG. 11). (note and2017 Eijkelboom Vermeer 2001 and Steadman 2015 (note 15). 15). 2001and(note Steadman 2015

16 17 31 21 37 32 27 18 35 19 29 22 33 36 25 38 30 34 23 28 26 20 24

- - ,

View

Vensters Tijdschrift , 1667, 1667, , 26 (2016) 26 (2016) 99 (2000) 6, 2, no. 2 (2017), 2, no. 2 (2017), , confirmed, the KNOB OB KN Bulletin Legger van ’tdiepen der is incorrect. 89-105. Gabri van Tussenbroek, 89-105. building historianwith the City Amsterdam,of earlydating theof right-handhouse duringlecturea inMuseum held I Jaarboek Delfia Batavorum Delfia Jaarboek theof issame opinion, witness an email datedFebruarytome 29 Wim van 2016; building Boor, der historian and former secretarytheof Prinsenhof May 2016. 31 Delft on P. Steadman, Little The ‘Vermeer’sP. Street.crediblemore A detective story’, Essentialwww.essential Vermeer2.0, vermeer.com/delft/little-street-stead man/little-street-steadman.html, fol. 107v; Oud-rechterlijkarchief 107v; fol. Delft, Huizenprotocol 1648- nos.281-283, inv. Oud-notarieel archief 316r2-3; fol. 1812, Delft, 15fol. January 1881, no.inv. 8-8v, March 19 165-165v, fol. and 2414, 1659 1720. Nijmegen 1971, 52. 52. 1971, Nijmegen and 26. 19 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 hasWim Weve rightly alerted tome thefact that observationmy inthe originaltext thisof article, that such guttersalso appear inVermeer’s haveI 33-36. 1), (note Grijzenhout2015 sinceother one foundlocation with two gateways, adjacent together feet 10½ wide, namely the on northm) side (3.3 theof Burgwal, current street numbers thehouse on westof The side 24-28. thetwo gateways feetwas rod 1 and 4½ wide, that the on eastmerem) a side (5.2 facades theThe of hous m). feet(3.45 11 clearly but slight perceptiblea wereesat angleanother,toone echoing the curve in the Burgwal at that point. The west erngateway was partially built over and later both gateways in1659 were completelyintegrated with the houses. separatehousehadNeithera back house.Based these on details thinkI canwe safely this exclude asan alter nativeVlamingstraat for See:40-42. StadsarchiefDelft, Oud-archief Delft, inv. no. 594, wateren binnen de stad Delft G. Eijkelboom and G. Vermeer, ‘Het ‘Het andVermeer, Eijkelboom G. G. StraatjeBedenkingenvan Vermeer. vermeendede postcode’, bij Geografie Historische voor notably 66-80, 77-79. 11), (note and2017 Eijkelboom Vermeer 69. Lecture Wim Weve, Museum Het Prinse see Wevealso July 2016; 10 Delft, hof Incidentally, 103-104. 8), (note 2016 Herman Janse remarked back in 1971 thatopened shutters wereusually fastenedrightatangles tothe facade stormusinga hook:Janse, H. of Delft KeesKaldenbach inan email tome W. Weve, ‘Het Straatje ‘Het Weve, van W. Vermeer: een hypothese herzien’, uit 1982 referring datedBonke,Mayto2016, H. 5 eeuw 16e-20ste pakhuizen Amsterdamse Zutphen 2011, 23. eenarcheologisch bouwhistorischen onderzoek’, 239-249.

9 8 14 10 11 15 13 12

BULLETIN KNOB 2018 • 1 12 BULLETIN KNOB 2018 • 1 13 ------tween 7.4 and metres.8 tweenare There valid no 7.4 reasons for assuming that basedVermeer The Little Street on the and he house the on or Voldersgracht on Oudemanhuis his family occupied on Oude Langendijk, as claimed Binstock.SteadmanNor respectivelyBenjaminandby is there any reason to suppose that the division of the architecturalthe and space, arrangement of and plane elements in The Little Street were based purely on an underlying grid of linesVermeer Obviously, Mare. de suggestedHeidi asby ity, with no basis in historicalmay well, as in real theView of Delft, The in proportionsrelative or elements withhave licence tic resorted to artis Little Street, but there is more than enough justifica assumingtion for that in making this painting did he indeed draw inspiration from the actual houses and passageways on Vlamingstraat. the width (four feet) of the of passageway. feet) the what we Given width (four know about the meticulous precision with which the Vlamingstraat, it 42 of case the in compiled was Ledger is inconceivable that the authors of the registernumber 40 should for have made a mistake. A spatial ren dering based on an earlier perspectivetle Street, corresponds surprisingly well, and in some study of The Lit respects in detail, with the cadastral and other infor mation we have about the complex on Vlamingstraat. have must house that theback contention Steadman’s been twenty some metres tall, borne is not by this out reconstruction: the gutter height of this house is be politics in the eighteenth century, on the early historyearlythe on century, eighteenth the in politics ‘heritage’. of thethe andRijksmuseum,concept of on art.Age Golden is focus current His - - holds holds the chair hout hout n jze s Gri n A PRECISE LOCATION A PRECISE THE STREET: LITTLE ra hout F n ze j s Gris n ra In the autumn of Frans2015, Grijzenhout published his sensational findings regarding the likelylocation of ‘littleJohannes street’Vermeer’s Little (The Street). ‘The the including sources, of variety a consulting After CanalstheDelft’Dredging Town of theof of Ledgerin from he 1666–1667, had reached the conclusion that based been have must Vermeer bypainting famous the in passagewaysinterveningthattwo and houses the on unassumingVlamingstraat,an on stood day Vermeer’s canal in the eastern part of Delft, where of numbers one ascertained 40 thatalso had He today. stand 42 and Minne,wasAriaentgenvan aunts, der Claes Vermeer’s theoccupant of 42 Vlamingstraat at that time. Several authors have since produced material indicating that Vermeer painted the right-hand house in Little Street and observedappears, now it was, house the life’: ‘from be now cansame detail.The meticulous in reproduced confirmedfor other aspects, such as the colour used for the painted shutters andhouse. righthand the of window the of the sill the in hooks recesses for wind Philip Steadman has rightly pointed details tobetween the m.) an 1.25 apparent (c. feet four discrepancy of in the aforementioned ‘Ledger of the Dredging of the situ actual spatial the and Delft’ of Town the inCanals ation at 40 Vlamingstraat. This difference can be traced be can difference Vlamingstraat.This 40 at ation back to the fact that the gateway of owners the providedAccordingly, houses. access back and front to both bothhave beenwould andfront houses taxed back on F VERMEER’S of Art History of the Early Modern Time at the Univer Artthe of Timeat HistoryEarlyModern the of Professor Dr. Professor sity of Amsterdam. He has published works on artand on works published has Amsterdam. He of sity